[blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification

[David Burn]

-----Original Message-----
From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org]
On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com
Sent: 21 September 2007 14:02
To: blml at amsterdamned.org
Subject: Re: [blml] self-serving ? Was : a psyche classification

In a message dated 21/09/2007 13:49:53 GMT Standard Time,  
dalburn at btopenworld.com writes:
 
>AG : IBTD. In classical theory, a FNJ creates commitment, and  therefore
>West's pass in competition, which is to be read as "some  interest for your
>spade bid" (3H being negative), is 100% proper on on  Jxxx - KJ10xxx - x -
>xx.
>Is it self-serving, to declare you made  the right theoretical call ?

>There is a difference - a considerable difference - between "some
interest"
>and "primary support" - four-card support at that. I don't know  who these
>three Grandmasters were, but if pass is the action of a  Grandmaster, I had
>better send my certificate back. Pass isn't "the right  theoretical call".
>Pass is just cheating.

[PL]

I have to say that on  reflection, I am forced to agree with David, and I 
have changed my view. There  is no reason why partner cannot have AKQxx Qxx
xxxx 
x 

[DALB]

Well, he might have opened the bidding with that. But the same hand without
the queen of spades is entirely possible - indeed, that is what one might
expect for a "fit non-jump" of 2S (if that is indeed the method). Then, you
would still want to bid to at least the four level, if not the five or six
level, particularly since you know that South has at most one spade - or at
least you would know it if you spent more time thinking about what you
should bid and less time thinking about how you should cheat.

David Burn
London, England