Jump to content

Zero notrump: can anyone help?


Recommended Posts

A decade or two ago I read an article or letter to a bridge magazine suggesting the rules of bridge be altered to allow for a zero notrump. This was a bid that would rank below one club and require the declaring side to take 6 tricks. The point of the suggestion was not so much that it would be a playable contract (there were rules I now forget about whether and when it could be the final contract) but that it would give bidders an additional step. IIRC, the author suggested that natural bidders could use this to play weak and strong notrumps, while strong clubbers would have a strong opening and a natural one-club opening at the one level. (And relayers and forcing pass players would have all the room they needed and could relay to their heart's content.) My recollection is that it was in The Bridge World but I haven't found it there. Can anyone help?

 

Thanks in advance

 

David

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a thread on RGB dated around 04 Sept 2008 on the topic (0NT, cursory search), and a related one on changes you'd make to bridge, but I can't even figure out how to follow the thing linearly, so maybe someone can find the OP and link us to relevant posts/citations.

 

edit: I think this (http://www.gamesforu...ad.php?t=322177) spawned that discussion.

 

edit2: also see http://www.n-n-a.com/recreational/about12563.html

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how many English posters receive Mr. Bridge magazine.

 

This magazine contains many pages of readers' letters, and these are by far the best part. Every so often someone will write that, eg, 2 + 1 should be worth more than 3 =. Or maybe less, I don't know. Anyway it is really entertaining.

 

Another improvement that is sometimes proposed is having a special "double" card. If you are tired of the opponents' auction, you can play this card and whatever was the previous bid will be the final contract, doubled. Some variants allow one more round of bidding after the play of this card.

 

And of course, there are the people (not the letter writers, this time) that honestly believe that you can bid at the 8-level as a sacrifice against a grand slam.

 

The relevance to the OP is that all of these variants are fun possibilities for party bridge, and this is the beginning and the end of their interestingness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did it serious use to be? When?

I think it was disallowed around the same time that the scoring for doubled undertricks was changed. The old scoring made some 8-level sacrifices worthwhile -- down 11 non-vul was better than letting them make a vulnerable grand. Under the new scoring, you would have to hold it to down 8.

 

I think it may have been Meckwell that made one of these sacrifices in a major event that prompted the change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was disallowed around the same time that the scoring for doubled undertricks was changed. The old scoring made some 8-level sacrifices worthwhile -- down 11 non-vul was better than letting them make a vulnerable grand. Under the new scoring, you would have to hold it to down 8.

 

I think it may have been Meckwell that made one of these sacrifices in a major event that prompted the change.

 

No.

 

LAW 38

BID OF MORE THAN SEVEN

 

A. No Play Permissible

No play of a contract of more than seven is ever permissible.

B. Bid and Subsequent Calls Canceled

A bid of more than seven is canceled together with

any subsequent calls.

C. Offending Side Must Pass

A pass must be substituted, the auction continues

unless completed and each member of the offending

side must pass whenever it is his turn to call.

 

This is the current law (2008) which is copied word for word from the 1997 Laws, copied from the 1987 Laws, copied from ... the 1928 Laws promulgated by the Whist Club. These in turn are copied from the Laws of Auction Bridge. A bid of more than seven has never been legal. I've encountered this particular urban legend many times.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall having seen that discussion since I joined the BBO Forum, and an advanced google search yields "no results found".

It was in the time that Misho was still here (so a looooong time ago). Apparently it was in another topic, and it wasn't even a discussion: link. I don't think a new topic was created to discuss it seperately.

 

Also, I'm not as against it as I was back in the days. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...