[DinDIP]

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

[Free]

There has been a discussion about this on the forums. Perhaps you can try to find it.

[Bbradley62]

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

[gwnn]

Personally I can't remember this topic and I can't find it. If you do, I would be interested in reading the thread or the letter.

[wyman]

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...about12563.html

[Vampyr]

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.

[Bbradley62]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-07, 10:45, said:

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.

Presumably, most of them are old enough to remember when it was allowed.

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2011-November-07, 11:01, said:

Presumably, most of them are old enough to remember when it was allowed.

Did it serious use to be? When?

Does anyone know where to find an online archive of old versions of contract bridge laws?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-07, 11:15, said:

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.

[Bbradley62]

Yes, I think the 1975 version of The Laws allows it but the 1987 version doesn't, but I can't find any reference online. I'm hoping one of our senior members has a copy of the 1975 document to confirm.

[1eyedjack]

I learned in the early 80s and it was disallowed by then in duplicate. Conceivably allowed at rubber. It was a bit more of a hot topic then, so maybe the 1975 laws brought it in.

[mikestar13]

barmar, on 2011-November-07, 21:42, said:

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.

[Free]

Bbradley62, on 2011-November-07, 07:17, said:

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.