1NT is preemptive!

[gartinmale]

Matchpoints, North America. None vulnerable, in second seat after a pass, you open 1NT on a modest 15 count. Lefty, who has just finished counting her cards face down, passes without ever having looked at her hand. It's clear that righty notices this.

 

1. Do you call the director? If partner passes and righty comes in, do you call the director?

 

2. On the next hand, you are dealer. You have a bad balanced 15 count that by partnership agreement you would normally open 1D. You consider opening 1NT on the basis that lefty clearly doesn't like bidding over notrump. Is this ethical? What if you have a good 14 count with a five-card suit, but your partnership does not normally upgrade 14 counts?

 

[edited to add country of origin]

[campboy]

1 It is quite reasonable to call the director immediately. Law 7B2 says that she must inspect the faces of her cards before making a call.

 

2 I think this is fine. You are entitled to take account of the traits of your opponents (16A2). If you play against this opponent often enough it may become an implicit agreement, but it certainly isn't yet so there is no disclosure problem.

[Finch]

1. I either call the TD or I don't, it's not going to be affected by whether RHO enters the auction or not.

 

He has breached 7B2 "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen;after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards."

[bluejak]

I think this is fine. You are entitled to take account of the traits of your opponents (16A2). If you play against this opponent often enough it may become an implicit agreement, but it certainly isn't yet so there is no disclosure problem.

I do not think it is a disclosable agreement that I try to take account of opponents' weaknesses.

[gartinmale]

Thanks for the answer to question 1. I sort of figured it was illegal but didn't know the explicit rule.

 

For the second, where is the line drawn in practice? For example, I'm not allowed to play 2/1 but switch my system to Precision against pairs that my partner and I know are weak; I can only vary the system based on vulnerability and seat. Isn't breaking our notrump agreements more often against weak pairs just an (admittedly much more minor) version of the same thing? I realize it's kind of a slippery slope ("I knew they weren't going to double me, partner.")

[bluejak]

One thing that we ask all opening posters is that they quote where they are posting from, or at least the jurisdiction or country.

 

You say you are not allowed to change your system based on who the opponents are. That may be true, but depends on where you are: in England and Wales it is perfectly legal to do so.

 

But basing your approach on your belief in the opponents' ability, weaknesses and so forth is just bridge.

[barmar]

I think you have to distinguish between system/agreements and style/judgement. You're allowed to adjust your style based on table feel.

 

And I think disclosing this would be very tricky. Unless you've actually discussed "Remember to preempt aggressively against Mrs. Guggenheim, she can't deal with it", it's unlikely that partner would pick up on this pattern of behavior. If he does notice something, it's probably just a suspicion -- I think you'd have to play an enormous number of boards against a particular pair for him to be confident enough in the pattern that it would become an implicit agreement.

 

But I guess it doesn't have to be a specific pair, he might notice your different style against all the weak pairs. How do you disclose that without insulting the opponents? Do you explain that he often upgrades against weak pairs, and leave it for them to decide if they're weak, or do you have to tell them that they're one of the pairs that he upgrades against?

 

And even if you don't come out and tell them that you consider them weak, it will become apparent when they find out what his hand was (although if they're weak enough, they might not pick up on what he actually had).

[Cascade]

But basing your approach on your belief in the opponents' ability, weaknesses and so forth is just bridge.

 

Yeah just explain 15-17 or 14-17 against weak opponents.

[campboy]

I do not think it is a disclosable agreement that I try to take account of opponents' weaknesses.

No, it isn't unless the agreement goes much further than that. But if I played against this opponent every week and was aware partner would open most 14s against her then "15-17" is no longer an adequate description. Obviously the situation in the OP is nothing like that; I only mentioned the disclosure issue in case it was relevant to somebody else.

[Zelandakh]

Yeah just explain 15-17 or 14-17 against weak opponents.

If I explain this and then show up with a normal 14 count, have I not said something that might cause annoyance or embarassment to opponents?

[Cyberyeti]

Yeah just explain 15-17 or 14-17 against weak opponents.

you forgot the "who aren't going to hit me when they see the 14 count".