BBO Discussion Forums: 1C-(1NT)-2NT alertable? Standard meaning? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

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

1C-(1NT)-2NT alertable? Standard meaning?

#1 User is offline   BudH 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 376
  • Joined: 2004-April-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Bend, Indiana, USA
  • Interests:Operations Supervisor/Technical Advisor at nuclear power plant, soccer and basketball referee for more than 25 years; GLM; Ex-Head (Game) Director at South Bend (Indiana) Bridge Club; avid student of bridge law and game movements

Posted 2019-May-25, 09:07

Playing day 3 of an ACBL regional tournament with a very good partner (but the first time we've ever played together) in Round 3 of a top flight knockout event, white vs. red, I pass as dealer holding

10 Jxx AKJxx T8xx

Pass - Pass - 1 - 1NT
2NT - Pass - Pass - Pass

Obviously I am not expecting partner to pass my 2NT bid as it was intended as showing the minors. Which of course was not explicitly discussed before we played but I thought was "expert standard".

The opponents ask my partner (who held KJ9x AQ10 9x J9xx) about the meaning of 2NT and he tells them "natural, to play".

Am I required to correct the explanation for something not discussed but might be considered as "expert standard"?
0

#2 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 735
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2019-May-25, 09:31

You would be required to call the director and, when asked, state that your 2NT call was 'undiscussed'. (RHO can take his last pass back if he wants, if he can show that it was influenced by the description, and LHO might have redress if he feels he was damaged by the misinformation)

(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his
partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity,
which is:
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

You have no obligation to advise the opponents what you intended your 2NT call to mean.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
0

#3 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,896
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-May-25, 14:32

View PostBudH, on 2019-May-25, 09:07, said:

Playing day 3 of an ACBL regional tournament with a very good partner (but the first time we've ever played together) in Round 3 of a top flight knockout event, white vs. red, I pass as dealer holding

x Jxx AKJxx T8xx

Pass - Pass - 1 - 1NT
2NT - Pass - Pass - Pass

Obviously I am not expecting partner to pass my 2NT bid as it was intended as showing the minors. Which of course was not explicitly discussed before we played but I thought was "expert standard".

The opponents ask my partner (who held KJ9x AQ10 9x J9xx) about the meaning of 2NT and he tells them "natural, to play".


Is 2NT both minors over partner's minor really "expert standard"?
It looks like a quick way to pick up a really bad score here, even white vs. red.
1

#4 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,541
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-May-25, 14:41

Interestingly, Weejonnie's interpretation of law (with which I agree) leads to the inference that you should call the director and inform him (and the opponents) that the meaning of 2NT was not discussed even if your intended meaning and the explanation given match. B-)
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#5 User is online   steve2005 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,856
  • Joined: 2010-April-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamilton, Canada
  • Interests:Bridge duh!

Posted 2019-May-25, 17:07

View Postpescetom, on 2019-May-25, 14:32, said:

Is 2NT both minors over partner's minor really "expert standard"?
It looks like a quick way to pick up a really bad score here, even white vs. red.
If you thought you can make 2NT surely you would simply double 1NT and get more points.
Having 2N as minors/scrambling/Lebensohl makes sense

I have no idea what is standard

Having 2N be alertable is just silly.
Sarcasm is a state of mind
2

#6 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,860
  • Joined: 2008-September-10

Posted 2019-May-25, 18:45

View PostBudH, on 2019-May-25, 09:07, said:

The opponents ask my partner (who held KJ9x AQ10 9x J9xx) about the meaning of 2NT and he tells them "natural, to play".


Partner obviously had a brain cramp. If you think you can make 8 tricks in NT, why wouldn't you want to defend against 1NT? The one thing 2NT isn't is natural.

Talking about brain cramps, I once had this auction


Opponents asked partner what 1NT meant and he answered "natural, maximum passed hand". Yikes :o
0

#7 User is offline   johnu 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,860
  • Joined: 2008-September-10

Posted 2019-May-25, 18:52

View Poststeve2005, on 2019-May-25, 17:07, said:

I have no idea what is standard

Having 2N be alertable is just silly.


I also don't know what 2NT means without discussion. It seems to me that if you have an (any) agreement (except natural) it would be alertable since it would be some conventional meaning.
2

#8 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 18,578
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-May-25, 20:22

View Poststeve2005, on 2019-May-25, 17:07, said:

Having 2N be alertable is just silly.

While there's some logic to the idea that a bid that obviously can't be natural should not need to be alerted, that's not how the ACBL Alert Procedures are written.

Not to mention that this case isn't so "obvious", since his partner thought it was natural.

BTW, I think I might have doubled with that hand. 9 HCP is often enough, and there's a fit with partner and a decent 5-card suit.

#9 User is online   steve2005 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,856
  • Joined: 2010-April-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hamilton, Canada
  • Interests:Bridge duh!

Posted 2019-May-25, 21:15

View Postbarmar, on 2019-May-25, 20:22, said:

While there's some logic to the idea that a bid that obviously can't be natural should not need to be alerted, that's not how the ACBL Alert Procedures are written.

Not to mention that this case isn't so "obvious", since his partner thought it was natural.
There is lots of precedence for 2N=minors not being alertable.

Partner had a brain fart to think 2N natural.
Sarcasm is a state of mind
0

#10 User is offline   BudH 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 376
  • Joined: 2004-April-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Bend, Indiana, USA
  • Interests:Operations Supervisor/Technical Advisor at nuclear power plant, soccer and basketball referee for more than 25 years; GLM; Ex-Head (Game) Director at South Bend (Indiana) Bridge Club; avid student of bridge law and game movements

Posted 2019-May-25, 22:59

Note responder knows the opponents have at least an 8-card fit and often longer. Why make it easy for opponents? LHO is likely to transfer to spades over responder's call. It's actually very unlucky opener has KJ9x.

Looks like a good candidate for a bidding poll on Bridgewinners.
0

#11 User is offline   Cyberyeti 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,198
  • Joined: 2009-July-13
  • Location:England

Posted 2019-May-26, 01:39

I think pretty much any meaning is alertable, it can't be natural, it's one of several club raises for us, but we don't play short club. GBK says it's alertable, but not what it is. You should correct the explanation to undiscussed.
0

#12 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 735
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2019-May-26, 07:27

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-May-25, 14:41, said:

Interestingly, Weejonnie's interpretation of law (with which I agree) leads to the inference that you should call the director and inform him (and the opponents) that the meaning of 2NT was not discussed even if your intended meaning and the explanation given match. B-)

That is true - but it is not intuitive.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
0

#13 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,541
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-May-26, 08:50

View Poststeve2005, on 2019-May-25, 17:07, said:

If you thought you can make 2NT surely you would simply double 1NT and get more points.
Having 2N as minors/scrambling/Lebensohl makes sense

I have no idea what is standard

Having 2N be alertable is just silly.

No, it's not. Just because you're used to "not alertable" doesn't mean that's the only reasonable way to construct the alerting regulations. After all, even in the ACBL the basic premise is that artificial bids require an alert. 2NT not being alertable is an exception.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#14 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 18,578
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2019-May-26, 09:02

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-May-25, 14:41, said:

Interestingly, Weejonnie's interpretation of law (with which I agree) leads to the inference that you should call the director and inform him (and the opponents) that the meaning of 2NT was not discussed even if your intended meaning and the explanation given match. B-)

It's not totally clear that this is true.

Law 20 refers to a "mistaken explanation". If the explanation accurately describes the kind of hand partner holds, can it really be said to be "mistaken".

And don't forget that partnership agreements include implicit agreements, which are inherently undiscussed. In this auction, if partner had correctly discerned the meaning of 2NT, I'd say that it was because it's an implicit agreement in "expert standard" (most NT calls that can't be natural are either Lebensohlish or 2-suiters). If asked for an explanation, something like "We haven't specifically discussed it, but it can't be natural and likely shows the minors" would be reasonable.

#15 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,948
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2019-May-26, 10:22

View Postbarmar, on 2019-May-26, 09:02, said:

It's not totally clear that this is true.

Law 20 refers to a "mistaken explanation". If the explanation accurately describes the kind of hand partner holds, can it really be said to be "mistaken".

And don't forget that partnership agreements include implicit agreements, which are inherently undiscussed. In this auction, if partner had correctly discerned the meaning of 2NT, I'd say that it was because it's an implicit agreement in "expert standard" (most NT calls that can't be natural are either Lebensohlish or 2-suiters). If asked for an explanation, something like "We haven't specifically discussed it, but it can't be natural and likely shows the minors" would be reasonable.

Law 20 is of absolutely no interest as far as the cards actually held by a player is concerned.
It concerns what is the actual agreement with the meaning of a call.

So an explanation is mistaken even when it accurately describes the hand held by the explainer's partner if the actual agreement is different or there is no agreement.
1

#16 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,541
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-May-26, 18:36

View Postbarmar, on 2019-May-26, 09:02, said:

It's not totally clear that this is true.

Law 20 refers to a "mistaken explanation". If the explanation accurately describes the kind of hand partner holds, can it really be said to be "mistaken".

And don't forget that partnership agreements include implicit agreements, which are inherently undiscussed. In this auction, if partner had correctly discerned the meaning of 2NT, I'd say that it was because it's an implicit agreement in "expert standard" (most NT calls that can't be natural are either Lebensohlish or 2-suiters). If asked for an explanation, something like "We haven't specifically discussed it, but it can't be natural and likely shows the minors" would be reasonable.

The phrase "mistaken explanation" in the law book refers to a mistaken explanation in the context of the partnership's understanding.

An explanation such as you describe may or may not be reasonable, but is it legal? It seems to me that the "likely shows" bit might be seen as saying what you're taking it to mean — which I think you'll agree is improper.

Implicit agreements are tricky. They can arise through mutual experience or awareness, but I don't think you're talking about the former here. As for the latter, I think you'd have to be pretty sure that a mutual awareness exists before you base an explanation on it.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#17 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 504
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2019-May-27, 08:38

View Postbarmar, on 2019-May-26, 09:02, said:

If asked for an explanation, something like "We haven't specifically discussed it, but it can't be natural and likely shows the minors" would be reasonable.

“We haven’t discussed it” is all you should say. The rest is your interpretation, which might help your opponents to understand your call, but is UI to partner. Besdes, it’s not allowed by Law 75D2.
Joost
0

#18 User is offline   pescetom 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,896
  • Joined: 2014-February-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 2019-May-27, 14:18

View Postblackshoe, on 2019-May-25, 14:41, said:

Interestingly, Weejonnie's interpretation of law (with which I agree) leads to the inference that you should call the director and inform him (and the opponents) that the meaning of 2NT was not discussed even if your intended meaning and the explanation given match. B-)


I too find this very interesting and I follow your rebut of Barmar's arguments.
But in that case should one not have alerted 2NT?
I remain surprised that 2NT over partner's minor as showing both minors is considered expert standard and doubtful that both partners would arrive at this conclusion undiscussed.
0

#19 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,660
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2019-May-27, 17:33

View Postpescetom, on 2019-May-27, 14:18, said:

I too find this very interesting and I follow your rebut of Barmar's arguments.
But in that case should one not have alerted 2NT?
I remain surprised that 2NT over partner's minor as showing both minors is considered expert standard and doubtful that both partners would arrive at this conclusion undiscussed.

Most would play that 2NT was a good raise to 3C, with 3C being a weak raise. If you have diamonds you bid them.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason. - barmar
0

#20 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,541
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2019-May-27, 18:37

Whether a call the meaning of which has not been discussed by the partnership depends on the regulations in force in the jurisdiction. In the ACBL, so far as I know, there is no regulation requiring an alert for such a call.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

Share this topic:


  • 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