qwery_hi Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 What do you think of making legal the bids of 8♣, 8♦ and 8♥? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Disagree totally, and I'm not a conservative person by any means. Not only it would be a very rare situation, it's also against the spirit of the game that you start defeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3for3 Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Don't agree, but if it were, why not 8 spades too? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mich-b Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I have been in favour of allowing these bids for quite some time. Since it is perfectly within the spirit of the game to save against opponents' slam or grand slam , expecting to go down a lot, but still gaining IMPs, why would it be against the spirit of the game to be able to judge that while the opps are making 7S , we can make 10 tricks in Diamonds? Why wouldn't we like to reward this judgement? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wclass___ Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Don't agree, but if it were, why not 8 spades too? Do you really want to make sacriface over 7NT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFA Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Don't like the idea. Sacs are part of the game, but the highest bid should be "I can take all tricks in notrumps". Edit: And one could go on. Shoud 9♣ then not be allowed? Perhaps partner sacs in 8♦, but we would like to overrule him in 9♣. Etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 If it ain't broke..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 This is madness and this is NOT Sparta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I like to sacrifice, but I think that allowing 8♣/♦/♥ are taking it too far... I guess in theory it could work, but "If it ain't broke..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmcw Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Why stop there? Maybe another suit could be Phased in over time. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 it's nice to know that when I have a higher ranking suit than CHO, I can stop him on the 7 level. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kfay Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 it's nice to know that when I have a higher ranking suit than CHO, I can stop him on the 7 level. hahahahahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Don't agree, but if it were, why not 8 spades too? Or 8N. I do think it would be interesting to play with a deck of 56 or 60 cards however :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 There was a 'bridge' version in Spain where they used 'nulos'. Nulos meant you promised NOT to win x amount of tricks. Nulos were above NT. Let's say you bid 1 Nulo, then you had to make only 6 tricks (2 nulos just 5 and so on). You could then play 7 nulos meaning that you promised not to make any trick (so each trick you made was actually 1 down). This is of course a pretty interesting excercise to play or to practice, just to change the thought pattern and stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtvesuvius Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 So now we can play Bridge, Hearts and Barbu all at the same time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 What's wrong with 8♠? You may want to sacrifice against 7NT... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hanp Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I'm quite happy with the bridge rules as they are, does that make me boring? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I do not want to sacrifice bridge. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbforster Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 What's wrong with 8♠? You may want to sacrifice against 7NT...Exactly! Here only down 2 against 7N making: [hv=d=w&n=sjtxxxxxhdcxxxxxx&w=sahadakqjtcakqjt9&e=shtxxxxxxxdxxxxcx&s=skqxxxhkqjxdxxxxc]399|300|(7N)-8♣*-X**-8♥***(X)-8♠-(P)-P(X)-AP * 8♣ - non-leaping michaels (expert treatment), ♣+major** X - no desire to sacrifice at the 8 level*** 8♥ - pass/correct for North's major [/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 This used to be allowed. I don't remember when it got taken out - my very foggy memory says about the time they got rid of unlimted redoubling. It'll never happen - the same people who griped about 7Sx-11 fav being only -2100 would have a hissy fit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunemPard Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Exactly! Here only down 2 against 7N making: [hv=d=w&n=sjtxxxxxhdcxxxxxx&w=sahadakqjtcakqjt9&e=shtxxxxxxxdxxxxcx&s=skqxxxhkqjxdxxxxc]399|300|(7N)-8♣*-X**-8♥***(X)-8♠-(P)-P(X)-AP * 8♣ - non-leaping michaels (expert treatment), ♣+major** X - no desire to sacrifice at the 8 level*** 8♥ - pass/correct for North's major [/hv] lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Exactly! Here only down 2 against 7N making: [hv=d=w&n=sjtxxxxxhdcxxxxxx&w=sahadakqjtcakqjt9&e=shtxxxxxxxdxxxxcx&s=skqxxxhkqjxdxxxxc]399|300|(7N)-8♣*-X**-8♥***(X)-8♠-(P)-P(X)-AP * 8♣ - non-leaping michaels (expert treatment), ♣+major** X - no desire to sacrifice at the 8 level*** 8♥ - pass/correct for North's major [/hv] You should play XX asking for partners major, and 8H as a natural bid imo (suggesting playing 8H oppoiste S+C). After all south might have like 11 hearts. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 What do you think of making legal the bids of 8♣, 8♦ and 8♥?Again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Should pass over 8C be forcing BTW? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffford76 Posted June 12, 2012 Report Share Posted June 12, 2012 Should pass over 8C be forcing BTW? I would think so, making it a clear error to double in direct seat and give them a XX to help work out strain. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.