Agreements vs actual hand

[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]

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 :ph34r: IMO it makes more sense on-line than face-to-face.

[hrothgar]

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 :ph34r: 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]

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]

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]

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).