[BebopKid]

sater1957, on Jun 13 2007, 03:44 AM, said:

So why if I open a 1NT on 14 points does everyone at the table, including the TD(!), make nasty comments at me, as if I am some sort of cheat?

As long as the 14 point hand fits in your description of 1NT then it is fine. I assume you alerted "14-17" or "12-14" since NoTrump point counts should always be announced.

[mycroft]

So I open AKT8 AKT7 943 32 1NT. When asked, I say "15-17". I'm right - in fact, I'd probably accept an 4-4 game invitation in a major. Walrus is wrong. There's at least one Walrus at any Indy table who will gripe.

It happens.
Michael.

[barmar]

helene_t, on Jun 18 2007, 11:45 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 18 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

If I had no idea how my partner interprets this bid, I would never make it.

Well, I would never apply xclusion blackwood if I had no clue if p would take it as such. But I would make responses to overcall no matter if I had a clue as to whether p would take them as forcing. I might even respond to p's 1NT overcall even if opps' guess as to whether we play transfers or not would be as good as mine.

Now if I alert my transfer and p passes it, opps know that we have a misunderstanding while p does not know. Is that fair? I don't think so. So I will alert my transfer as "no special agreement".

Sometimes you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, because you have to bid something, but every bid has some uncertainty to it. At some point you have to make a guess, and that defines what you think your implicit agreement is.

If you decide that transfers are on, is it fair to your LHO, who holds a hand that would make a lead-directing double, that he shouldn't know whether your bid is natural or artificial?

Is it fair that the opps should know that you had a misunderstanding but partner doesn't? Well, he'll be dummy in this case, so what difference does it make? And when you have a misunderstanding you're probably going to get a bad board no matter what the opponents know.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Jun 23 2007, 08:22 PM, said:

At some point you have to make a guess, and that defines what you think your implicit agreement is.

Does it? If so, apparently it makes

last clause of Law 75C said:

but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience

null and void. So I would say your asssertion is an overbid.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2007, 08:44 PM, said:

barmar, on Jun 23 2007, 08:22 PM, said:

At some point you have to make a guess, and that defines what you think your implicit agreement is.

Does it? If so, apparently it makes

last clause of Law 75C said:

but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience

null and void. So I would say your asssertion is an overbid.

But "general knowledge and experience" doesn't indicate whether transfers are on or off over a NT overcall. On the contrary, this general knowledge is what tells you that it could go either way.

"General knowledge" is things like it takes about 25 combined HCP to make 3NT and 33 HCP to make 6NT. So if you open 15-17 1NT and partner responds 3NT, you shouldn't be required to explain that he has 10-15 HCP if he's balanced -- the opponents should be able to infer this on their own.

But if you've decided to use a transfer, this isn't something the opponents can figure out on their own from general bridge knowledge.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Jun 23 2007, 09:48 PM, said:

But if you've decided to use a transfer, this isn't something the opponents can figure out on their own from general bridge knowledge.

No, it isn't. In the specific case where you bid 3 : or 3 :h: over 2NT, or 2 : or 2 :h: over 1NT, hoping partner will take it as a transfer, either you're dreaming, or you have some reason specific to your partnership (or your partner) that leads you to that hope. That's not GBK, so it must be disclosed.

I haven't reviewed the whole thread, so maybe this has already been said, but...

If you have an agreement to play transfers over 1NT, but have not discussed responses to 2NT, and you respond to 2NT expecting partner will take it as a transfer, you do so because of your agreement over 1NT, so the proper answer to a question about 3 : over 2NT would be "undiscussed, but we play transfers over 1NT".

[helene_t]

barmar, on Jun 24 2007, 03:22 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jun 18 2007, 11:45 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 18 2007, 06:32 AM, said:

If I had no idea how my partner interprets this bid, I would never make it.

Well, I would never apply xclusion blackwood if I had no clue if p would take it as such. But I would make responses to overcall no matter if I had a clue as to whether p would take them as forcing. I might even respond to p's 1NT overcall even if opps' guess as to whether we play transfers or not would be as good as mine.

Now if I alert my transfer and p passes it, opps know that we have a misunderstanding while p does not know. Is that fair? I don't think so. So I will alert my transfer as "no special agreement".

Sometimes you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, because you have to bid something, but every bid has some uncertainty to it. At some point you have to make a guess, and that defines what you think your implicit agreement is.

If you decide that transfers are on, is it fair to your LHO, who holds a hand that would make a lead-directing double, that he shouldn't know whether your bid is natural or artificial?

Yes, that's fair. Opps are entitled to know what our agreements are and in the absense of such agreements, they have to guess, just like partner has to guess.

Opps already have an enormous advantage in that we don't have agreeements. The fact that I have to alert all agreements that I think we have makes the advantage bigger.

And as to "what I think our implicit agreement is": no, I'm talking about the situation in which I know for 100% that we don't have any (implicit) special agreement. Maybe we still have the implicit agreement to play "common sense and standard methods". Then I say excatly that "we have no special agreements whatsoever, no experience with each other, no knowledge about each other's age, culture and skill level. So I suppose it defaults to common sense and standard methods, whatever that means".

[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 17 2007, 12:38 PM, said:

fred, on Jun 17 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

the truth.

However, I now believe this would be wrong because bridge is a fairer and more enjoyable game if you explain how you intend your bid if you think there is a good chance that your partner will understand your bid as you intended it.

/pedantry on

Acutally, playing online, I think you do better to explain how you expect partner to interpret your bid, not how you intend it.

/pedantry off

(There's usually no diference between the two. But there could be.)

What Frances advocates on-line is what Herman De Wael has been advocating for years, at face-to-face Bridge IMO it makes more sense on-line than face-to-face.

[sceptic]

Quote

Acutally, playing online, I think you do better to explain how you expect partner to interpret your bid, not how you intend it.

does this then , not give the opps an unfair advantage if you r pard has no idea what your bid means?

[Arsen]

My opinion is NT opening should apply the CC on every conditions. Because when the game progress even (1) point takes crucial importance for to guess the hands so i think players to conform posted CC always.

[1eyedjack]

My opinion is that minor deviations from the "norm" when opening 1NT tend to be viewed with illogically disproportionate ire, from partners and opponents alike, contrasted with other systemic deviations. I really do not see why it has come about. Open 1NT with two doubletons, or a 5 card major, or an HCP outside the stated range (despite that HCP are flawed as a method of evaluating trick-taking potential) and everybody hops up and down calling for the TD. But open a 6-10 weak 2 with an 11 count or a 5 count or a 5 card suit and it is, well just to be expected and all part of the game.

BS

[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 17 2007, 12:38 PM, said:

fred, on Jun 17 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

the truth.

However, I now believe this would be wrong because bridge is a fairer and more enjoyable game if you explain how you intend your bid if you think there is a good chance that your partner will understand your bid as you intended it.

/pedantry on

Acutally, playing online, I think you do better to explain how you expect partner to interpret your bid, not how you intend it.

/pedantry off

(There's usually no diference between the two. But there could be.)

What Frances advocates on-line is what Herman De Wael has been advocating for years, at face-to-face Bridge IMO it makes more sense on-line than face-to-face.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on Jun 25 2007, 03:45 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 17 2007, 12:38 PM, said:

fred, on Jun 17 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

the truth.

However, I now believe this would be wrong because bridge is a fairer and more enjoyable game if you explain how you intend your bid if you think there is a good chance that your partner will understand your bid as you intended it.

/pedantry on

Acutally, playing online, I think you do better to explain how you expect partner to interpret your bid, not how you intend it.

/pedantry off

(There's usually no diference between the two. But there could be.)

What Frances advocates on-line is what Herman De Wael has been advocating for years, at face-to-face Bridge IMO it makes more sense on-line than face-to-face.

Not quite:

As I understand matters, the DWS only applies in situations where partner has already provided misinformation.

[helene_t]

1eyedjack, on Jun 24 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

My opinion is that minor deviations from the "norm" when opening 1NT tend to be viewed with illogically disproportionate ire, from partners and opponents alike, contrasted with other systemic deviations.

Where I play, people wine about preempts that are too strong or the suit too short as well. What people don't wine about is failure to open 1NT on hands that should systematically be opened 1NT, as well as t/o doubles that should have been simple overcalls, and 2/1s that are way too light.

The pattern seems to be that playing stone age style is tollerated by opps who expect a modern (junior?) style, while the converse is less tollerated.

[skjaeran]

hrothgar, on Jun 25 2007, 02:56 AM, said:

nige1, on Jun 25 2007, 03:45 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 17 2007, 12:38 PM, said:

fred, on Jun 17 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

the truth.

However, I now believe this would be wrong because bridge is a fairer and more enjoyable game if you explain how you intend your bid if you think there is a good chance that your partner will understand your bid as you intended it.

/pedantry on

Acutally, playing online, I think you do better to explain how you expect partner to interpret your bid, not how you intend it.

/pedantry off

(There's usually no diference between the two. But there could be.)

What Frances advocates on-line is what Herman De Wael has been advocating for years, at face-to-face Bridge IMO it makes more sense on-line than face-to-face.

Not quite:

As I understand matters, the DWS only applies in situations where partner has already provided misinformation.

That's quite correct.
If Herman bid 4NT for the minors and partner on question answers "Blackwood", Herman will explain his partners 5♦ response as "one ace", not as giving preference.

[TimG]

fred, on Jun 17 2007, 09:25 AM, said:

However, I now believe this would be wrong because bridge is a fairer and more enjoyable game if you explain how you intend your bid if you think there is a good chance that your partner will understand your bid as you intended it.

I think what you are describing is an implicit agreement. You expect partner to understand, that is you expect that you have an agreement. The agreement doesn't have to be the result of a specific discussion of this sequence, but can come from a general understanding of "expert bidding" (along with the fact that you know your partner to be expert).