BBO Discussion Forums: Is such free psychic bid lawful? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Is such free psychic bid lawful?

#21 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,196
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2015-December-07, 08:50

But even if the psyche sometimes forces you to the 4 level it is still safe to use it with 4card hearts support. It is only unsafe if opener is allowed to bid 4s with 3card spade support.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#22 User is offline   lycier 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,612
  • Joined: 2009-September-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:China

Posted 2015-December-07, 09:01

View Postpran, on 2015-December-07, 08:39, said:

Holding HHx has never, and shall never prevent me from opening (weak) 2 if the heart suit and hand strength as such is suitable.

"practically never" must be a huge exaggeration.


KQx

Ajxxxx

xxxx

x

Such 2 opening must be a huge exaggeration?
0

#23 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-December-07, 09:14

View Postlycier, on 2015-December-07, 09:01, said:

KQx

Ajxxxx

xxxx

x

Such 2 opening must be a huge exaggeration?

Vul against non-vul?
(And maybe change the minors to xxx - xx)

What about
KJx
ATxxxx
xxx
xx

?
0

#24 User is offline   PeterAlan 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 616
  • Joined: 2010-May-03
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-December-08, 06:32

View Postlycier, on 2015-December-07, 09:01, said:

KQx

Ajxxxx

xxxx

x

Such 2 opening must be a huge exaggeration?


View Postpran, on 2015-December-07, 09:14, said:

Vul against non-vul?
(And maybe change the minors to xxx - xx)

What about
KJx
ATxxxx
xxx
xx

?


All these hands (including Pran's xxx - xx variation of Lycier's) have 14 cards.
0

#25 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-December-08, 08:15

View PostPeterAlan, on 2015-December-08, 06:32, said:

All these hands (including Pran's xxx - xx variation of Lycier's) have 14 cards.

Oops!

Take away a diamond in my examples!
0

#26 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-December-08, 09:35

I didn't say that HHx in spades was impossible. I did say that it was rare.

Many methods in response to a weak two gear towards finding out:
  • whether there is a side suit honor
  • in which suit it is


Note the use of the singular in the second part. Most weak twos have either 0 or 1 outside honors. It is possible to have 2, but it is so rare that common bidding methods don't allow for it.

Here, we are not merely dealing with 2 outside honors (which in itself is rare but not impossible).

No, these two honors:
need to be in a three card suit
and
they need to be in spades
and
spades is the suit in which partner just has shown a good suit (presumably headed by a couple of honors and with length)

This all together promotes something that is rare by itself to the status of "highly unlikely (but still not impossible)".

In short: I would not sit and wait for the occasion of having a weak two with HHx in a suit that my partner has just advertised as a good suit.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users