Help
jdonn, on Feb 13 2010, 02:05 AM, said:
Yes I am aware. What am I missing because it seems like you are both crazy?
It seems to me you think bidding was 1N-X-p-p-XX, but it was 1N-p-p-X-XX.
redouble trouble
#21
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 86
- Joined: 2009-March-04
Posted 2010-February-13, 01:31
It seems to me you think bidding was 1N-X-p-p-XX, but it was 1N-p-p-X-XX.
#22
- - - T98765432 AQT8
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 15,085
- Joined: 2005-June-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Las Vegas, NV
Posted 2010-February-13, 01:32
Oh now I see lol. Yes that convention is dumb as were my last 3 posts or so!
Please let me know about any questions or interest or bug reports about GIB.
#23
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,214
- Joined: 2007-December-16
- Location:Pasadena, CA
Posted 2010-February-13, 01:42
Yes let me explain it even though Fluffy already outlined it.
1) If the partner of the 1N opener wants to run, he can do so as usual (albeit less effectively).
2) If the partner of the 1N opener wants to sit for 1Nxx, he can. Because the penalty doubler and his partner obviously have no experience or agreement about this kind of auction, and because the penalty doubler is not on lead, he will often get cold feet about defending 1Nxx and just safety and pull to the 2 level.
As a consequence you may get penalized less than usual playing this agreement. It seems to me that this agreement is theoretically unsound, but I could believe that it works way more than it should in practice (see the many people in this thread who said they would pull).
1) If the partner of the 1N opener wants to run, he can do so as usual (albeit less effectively).
2) If the partner of the 1N opener wants to sit for 1Nxx, he can. Because the penalty doubler and his partner obviously have no experience or agreement about this kind of auction, and because the penalty doubler is not on lead, he will often get cold feet about defending 1Nxx and just safety and pull to the 2 level.
As a consequence you may get penalized less than usual playing this agreement. It seems to me that this agreement is theoretically unsound, but I could believe that it works way more than it should in practice (see the many people in this thread who said they would pull).