BBO Discussion Forums: MI Problem - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

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

MI Problem What do you do?

#21 User is offline   Blofeld 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 775
  • Joined: 2005-May-05
  • Location:Oxford
  • Interests:mathematics, science fiction, Tolkien, go, fencing, word games, board games, bad puns, juggling, Mornington Crescent, philosophy, Tom Lehrer, rock climbing, jootsing, drinking tea, plotting to take over the world, croquet . . . and most other things, really.

  Posted 2006-January-26, 08:40

whereagles, on Jan 26 2006, 09:17 AM, said:

I will also claim redress if opps have "no agreement" in such a trivial situation as 1NT-2NT. That is not acceptable above beginner level.

?

Have you never sat down with a decent partner without having discussed this auction? Not a regular partner, sure, but it's fine to bid things without having agreements as to their meaning.
0

#22 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2006-January-26, 08:41

whereagles, on Jan 26 2006, 03:17 PM, said:

I will also claim redress if opps have "no agreement" in such a trivial situation as 1NT-2NT. That is not acceptable above beginner level.

You can claim it, but you won't get it. There is no redress for the opponents (genuinely) not knowing what they play in a particular auction, whatever level they are. You have no redress if LHO opens 1C and RHO doesn't know if it's Acol, SA, Polish or Precision. The TD might not believe RHO, but that's another matter....

It's also not a trivial situation at all. If I sat down with a random partner to play, I doubt very much we'd discuss this situation until we'd covered a lot more important ground first. If he bid it at the table, I wouldn't know if it was a very strong 2-suiter or both minors, and the best I could say would be "no agreement". (In fact I would alert it as I was certain it wasn't natural. But let's not get into a discussion of the alerting regs, they aren't the point.)

The only difference is that I wouldn't impose the call on partner, as I know it's not obvious what it means. But if I'd been taught that "standard Acol" is a strong 2-suiter, and nothing else, I might well assume that's what partner will think.
0

#23 User is offline   whereagles 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 14,900
  • Joined: 2004-May-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal
  • Interests:Everything!

Posted 2006-January-26, 12:21

FrancesHinden, on Jan 26 2006, 02:41 PM, said:

whereagles, on Jan 26 2006, 03:17 PM, said:

I will also claim redress if opps have "no agreement" in such a trivial situation as 1NT-2NT. That is not acceptable above beginner level.

You can claim it, but you won't get it. There is no redress for the opponents (genuinely) not knowing what they play in a particular auction, whatever level they are.

I wouldn't be so sure. Last Bermuda Bowl, a pair in the transnational open teams got a penalty for not having agreements on a simple sequence.
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