blackshoe Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 Pairs, two board rounds, and you discover that your opponents are playing Romex. Among other things, their 1NT opening is artificial, showing either a balanced 19-20 HCP with 6 controls, or an unbalanced hand with 4-5 losers and usually 18-21 HCP. "Basically," you're told, "the unbalanced hands are ones that in 2/1 or SA would either jump shift or reverse on the second round". What's your defense to this convention? Think fast, the clock's ticking! B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 Same as after a strong 2♣ opening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 Same as after a strong 2♣ opening. Indeed, we play the same defense against all "strong forcing and artificial" openings. Since dynamic 1NT is not even a pre-alert (LOL ACBL) and most people don't keep their CC visible, it can basically be sprung on us in a pairs game without any time to discuss! Nonetheless I'm confident we will be on the same page. Our defense is psycho-suction if we are NV, Mathe if we are V. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 It seems the Dynamic (forcing) 1NT is allowed under #2 of the GCC, but we are still restricted in the use of 2-suit conventions over it where there is no known anchor suit (2d<). Am I reading that correctly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 It seems the Dynamic (forcing) 1NT is allowed under #2 of the GCC, but we are still restricted in the use of 2-suit conventions over it where there is no known anchor suit (2d<). Am I reading that correctly? 7a under competitive says: "Defense to conventional calls." The dynamic 1NT is clearly conventional (it doesn't show a balanced hand, it's forcing, etc etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 7a under competitive says: "Defense to conventional calls." The dynamic 1NT is clearly conventional (it doesn't show a balanced hand, it's forcing, etc etc).O.K., got it. 7a applies instead of 7b because even though it could be natural, it isn't necessarily natural. Tks. Still don't think I would want to use the full CRASH, though. Wouldn't want a Double to show a Strong NT over that monster; so, would use CHASM instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ggwhiz Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 In the days when mini-roman was more popular we used to pass and bid (after they told us things) with constructive values. Any direct bid denied them with joke potential. I've never played against this so just a thought but it feels like you should stay out against the strong balanced one and show or deny "stuff" against the unbalanced one. With so few losers the auction may get high quickly and I would like a clue as to who is diving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted September 29, 2013 Report Share Posted September 29, 2013 We just play our usual defence against a balanced 1NT opening, plus we then add a meaning for the double (which we usually play as penalties)Sounds a bit strange, but a lot of the hands you want to bid on are the same. 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.