Stefan_O Posted September 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2016 Right, Ken, Personally, I just do not think Bridge neither needs nor gains from these lawyer-cultish believers' dabblings. I played in 1970/80'ies when there was the Bridge Laws, and not much more, and it generally worked just fine -- I dont think they have improved the game at all by all this current craze of regulating. Some people will always find reasons to quibble and be obnoxoius about this and that, of course -- regulations, or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan_O Posted September 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2016 In short, they seem to have completely forgotten --- IT'S JUST A DARN GAME, DUDES!!! SOMETHING WE DO BECAUSE IT'S FUN!!! :D :D :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan_O Posted September 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2016 And only while I'm at it, sorry.... we also have this ridiculous change they did years ago on the price of going down non-vulnerable.... How did that originate?I can envision one director telling the others in one of their secret meetings... "You know, last week we bid this beautiful grand, that I sure would have made on a triple-squeeze!And what happened? They SACRIFICED! And it ONLY COST 1100!!We didn't even beat those who played the small slam!! That's waaay to cheap! Let's change The Law, shall we?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvmann Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 You might also consider the ETM Weak NT structure, which has similar properties of asking for a specific major. Interestingly, traditional Puppet Stayman (2♣ over 1NT) also has this property with the hand in question being bid 1NT - 2♣; 2♦ - 2♥; 2NT - 3NT. Of course, to counter the benefits of Opener not showing hearts, 4th seat has had the opportunity to double artificial calls in both rounded suits. As always, there are some hands where you win and others where you lose. Focusing on the one without reference to the other is typical of many bridge authors but not particular helpful. The document was unreadable for me so I translated it:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bDtVpiyfKHKun0hV6x3BoJ7XEzNkjirdMhzNLL2poB0/edit?usp=sharing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts