FIve club jump by partner, undiscussed.
#1
Posted 2007-May-03, 16:22
#3
Posted 2007-May-03, 16:44
inquiry, on May 3 2007, 05:22 PM, said:
Then it should be exclusion.
So many experts, not enough X cards.
#4
Posted 2007-May-03, 16:45
pbleighton, on May 3 2007, 05:41 PM, said:
Peter
ditto.
#6
Posted 2007-May-03, 16:47
If its a direct jump, then hand is just a slew of clubs.
#8
Posted 2007-May-03, 16:51
pclayton, on May 3 2007, 05:47 PM, said:
If its a direct jump, then hand is just a slew of clubs.
Well the actual partnership agreement was "2/1, jacoby 2NT, udca"... so that was the limit of your agreement.
#9
Posted 2007-May-03, 17:01
So 5c should be natural.
#10
Posted 2007-May-03, 17:27
I want to note the partnership didn't even agree to play exclusion blackwood period! Let alone as a player's first bid and without agreeing a suit first.
#11
Posted 2007-May-03, 18:51
jdonn, on May 3 2007, 05:27 PM, said:
I want to note the partnership didn't even agree to play exclusion blackwood period! Let alone as a player's first bid and without agreeing a suit first.
Maybe it is preemptive, but your reasoning is ridiculous. 1S-4C is also possibly natural, and I am sure this partnership has not agreed to play splinters. And still noone would take it as natural.
#12 Guest_Jlall_*
Posted 2007-May-03, 18:53
cherdano, on May 3 2007, 07:51 PM, said:
1S-4C is not a jump to game. It is also so widely played as a splinter that it cannot be misconstrued as natural. I WOULD take 1S-4H as natural if bid undiscussed.
#13
Posted 2007-May-03, 19:28
cherdano, on May 3 2007, 07:51 PM, said:
jdonn, on May 3 2007, 05:27 PM, said:
I want to note the partnership didn't even agree to play exclusion blackwood period! Let alone as a player's first bid and without agreeing a suit first.
Maybe it is preemptive, but your reasoning is ridiculous. 1S-4C is also possibly natural, and I am sure this partnership has not agreed to play splinters. And still noone would take it as natural.
It is your completely literal interpretation when you know exactly what I meant that is ridiculous. Do you think I was also claiming 1NT p 2♣ is natural because they didn't agree stayman?
If you want to be ridiculous and pick apart what people say, I could easily point this out
cherdano, on May 3 2007, 07:51 PM, said:
cherdano, on May 3 2007, 07:51 PM, said:
How could something no one would take as natural possibly be natural? Or did you think my argument pertained to the laws of psychics, in which case you got me. Allow me to clarify so that doesn't happen again. By "can be natural" I mean "a non-negligible amount of players in the class of that given in the problem would interpret this bid as natural." I'm sure you will find a way that is technically wrong as well.
#14
Posted 2007-May-04, 01:24
It's preemptive. Exclusion has to go through 2NT.
#15
Posted 2007-May-04, 02:14
George Carlin
#16
Posted 2007-May-04, 02:25
Jlall, on May 4 2007, 01:53 AM, said:
cherdano, on May 3 2007, 07:51 PM, said:
1S-4C is not a jump to game. It is also so widely played as a splinter that it cannot be misconstrued as natural. I WOULD take 1S-4H as natural if bid undiscussed.
Blindingly obviously natural, weakish hand, loads and loads of clubs, not inviting me to raise unless I have a very special (control-rich) hand.
I wouldn't try 1S - 4H undiscussed.
This one is so obviously to play that I would.
#17
Posted 2007-May-04, 02:57
I bid 1♠-4♥ as a passed hand once, and partner didn't alert the bid. He had ♥AQJ109x himself. Director adjusted the score after a horrible lead (but in Spain you don't expect much from directors).
#18
Posted 2007-May-04, 03:53
Kxxxx
Ax
x
AQJxx
it can hardly be natural, right? In that case I'd take it as some sort of voidwood, I guess.
#19
Posted 2007-May-04, 05:02
If you say, Exclusion goes via 2NT - fair enough,
but then weak with long clubs can also go through
1NT (forcing).
Whatever it is, if I get it wrong (sometimes my hand
tells me), it is partners fault.
With kind regards
Marlowe
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#20
Posted 2007-May-04, 07:13