Sectional UI?

[aguahombre]

Many people play that going through the 2NT relay is the only way to make a shut-out bid, it's not "obviously for a minor". Responder can rebid their suit with a 5-card suit, and it's forward-going.

Maybe so, but it seems strange to bypass 2H in order to sign off in 3H, wasting two benefits of the either-or agreement they announced --the ability to back off slam if opener rebids 3C by jumping to game, or to continue trying for slam even though opener is minimum by showing what trump is at the 3-level.

 

It is analogous to using NMF with 6+ in your major. 2M is a signoff, 3M is invitational, 4M is sign-off in game. So, none of those hands need to go thru NMF. But, if responder is slammish with 6+ in the major, she uses the toy to determine not only 3-card support, but whether the opener was minimum or maximum --and can back off opposite an 11-12 dog by jumping to 4M, or continue slam exploration opposite that dog by setting the suit as trump at the lower level.

Edited November 15, 2011 by aguahombre

[jillybean]

Many people play that going through the 2NT relay is the only way to make a shut-out bid, it's not "obviously for a minor". Responder can rebid their suit with a 5-card suit, and it's forward-going.

Yes, this is very common around here. 2N is a relay to 3♣, allowing responder to signoff at the 3level.

[blackshoe]

East's possibilities over 2♦ include 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♥ at least. What would these have meant in their system?

[bluejak]

I feel awarding PPs is done too sparingly. But minimum PPs are merely meant as slaps on the wrist, and I believe that the ACBL's quarter-board standard is too high, and an active discouragement to TDs to issue them. When an EBU TD issues a slap on the wrist, 10% of a top feels much more the correct level. I also think personally that the equivalent at teams should be 2 imps not 3.

[jillybean]

East's possibilities over 2♦ include 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, 3♥ at least. What would these have meant in their system?

I don't know. A common treatment here is

2♥ forward going with hearts

2♠ 4th suit

2N relay to 3C, intending to signoff in 3x or slam probe.

3♣/♦ fit

3♥ does not exist

[aguahombre]

I don't know. A common treatment here is

2♥ forward going with hearts

2♠ 4th suit

2N relay to 3C, intending to signoff in 3x or slam probe.

3♣/♦ fit

3♥ does not exist

Elsewhere:

2H might be weak with 6+hearts or only 5 hearts and unclear as to strength (an either-or bid).

2N could be as you state, and therefore resolve the UI issue of the thread.

3H might well exist as a 6-card heart suit within a narrow constructive range (around 11).

[Fluffy]

Maybe so, but it seems strange to bypass 2H in order to sign off in 3H, wasting two benefits of the either-or agreement they announced --the ability to back off slam if opener rebids 3C by jumping to game, or to continue trying for slam even though opener is minimum by showing what trump is at the 3-level.

This is kind of standard where I live.

 

 

Jilly, what you should ask yourself is: why did I ask them about these convention before the bidding is over if I don´t care?. Whoever asked just helped them.

[RMB1]

Jilly, what you should ask yourself is: why did I ask them about these convention before the bidding is over if I don´t care?

 

In case the answer creates UI and then they might be ruled against. :)

[aguahombre]

In case the answer creates UI and then they might be ruled against. :)

That might be a fair jab, if she had pursued the matter with the TD; but she didn't. Pursuing it on this thread is another matter, since it seems the nuances have been covered and recovered.

 

It certainly was worthwhile, IMO, just to discuss the theoretical use of 2NT vs. other bids, and the follow-ups afterward.

[jillybean]

This is kind of standard where I live.

 

 

Jilly, what you should ask yourself is: why did I ask them about these convention before the bidding is over if I don´t care?. Whoever asked just helped them.

I didn't ask ;)

[jillybean]

In case the answer creates UI and then they might be ruled against. :)

This is offensive.

[RMB1]

This is offensive.

 

Sorry, I did not mean to offend.

 

There are players in England who ask about e.g. Blackwood responses when they have no interest. This can create UI problems when the opponents appear to take advantage of hearing a (mis)explanation. Some of these players appear to ask these questions with this end in mind.

 

I am sure that jillybean and partner are not such players.

Edited November 15, 2011 by RMB1

[jillybean]

Sorry, I did not mean to offend.

Thanks, I will retract my offense :)

 

There are players in England who ask about e.g. Blackwood responses when they have no interest. This can create UI problems when the opponents appear to take advantage of hearing a (mis)explanation. Some of these players appear to ask these questions with this end in mind.

 

I am sure the killybean and partner are not such players.

This raises another issue where I think it is difficult for newer players to know what to do. My partner here always asks,

I'm sure out of habit rather than trying to create UI problems. I dislike it and think it can only help the opps. I only ask if I need to know, I now tend to look at their CC rather than ask. Call me odd but I did not do this to start with as some players seem to be annoyed when their CC is picked up and scrutinized and I felt as if I was being rude doing so.

[aguahombre]

Jilly, what you should ask yourself is: why did I ask them about these convention before the bidding is over if I don´t care?. Whoever asked just helped them.

I didn't ask

I believe it is acceptable literary license to phrase a post in the manner Fluffy did, when it seems as if the OP is in the position being discussed. Whether OP was watching the hand or participating; whether she was North or South; doesn't change the value (if any) of Fluffy's concern.

 

Maybe, "why did someone ask if they didn't care?" might have been more careful wording. But, we all :D have used less exact rhetoric on occasion. Well, not Steph, of course.

[bluejak]

I am sure the killybean and partner are not such players.

killybean? :) :lol: :( :D

[jillybean]

killybean? :) :lol: :( :D

I kinda like it. :)

[jillybean]

I believe it is acceptable literary license to phrase a post in the manner Fluffy did, when it seems as if the OP is in the position being discussed. Whether OP was watching the hand or participating; whether she was North or South; doesn't change the value (if any) of Fluffy's concern.

 

I agree. You missed the ;) in my reply to Fluffy's post, and omitted it when you quoted me.

[Vampyr]

Call me odd but I did not do this to start with as some players seem to be annoyed when their CC is picked up and scrutinized and I felt as if I was being rude doing so.

 

What do they expect you to do with their convention card? Use it as a coaster for your coffee?

[blackshoe]

I only ask if I need to know, I now tend to look at their CC rather than ask. Call me odd but I did not do this to start with as some players seem to be annoyed when their CC is picked up and scrutinized and I felt as if I was being rude doing so.

 

I would never have any qualms about looking (at an appropriate time) at opponent's system card. IMO, anyone who calls himself a bridge player who gets annoyed when someone looks at their card does not deserve the name. "Idiot" would be more appropriate.

 

Today, (last board of the day, in fact), partner opened a club, RHO passed, and I jumped to 2NT. Partner alerted. LHO asked what it meant. Partner allowed she didn't know, but "it's on the card". LHO picked up the card, looking at the front. Partner said "it's on the back" (where competitive agreements are located). Much confusion and discussion between partner, LHO, and RHO(!) ensued. Finally, having received enough UI to sink the Bismarck, I suggested that LHO call the TD and ask him to have partner leave the table so I could explain it. LHO called the TD. No response (it was noisy, one of the TDs was entering scores, the other was cleaning up the kitchen). We called again. RHO left the table to go get him. Partner left the table on her own. The TD showed up. I explained the bid (balanced, 11-12 HCP). Partner and RHO sat down. LHO passed. Partner bid 3♣, passed to me. I had 2 LAs, pass and 3NT. I passed. Partner made 4, and would have made 3NT. <shrug>

 

I kept hoping partner would just shut up once it became clear she was confused, but she wasn't having any of that. :(

 

After the hand she looked at the system card and said "Oh. That only applies after a double". (We play flip-flop after a TO double, so 2NT would be weak with clubs). :o :lol:

[barmar]

This raises another issue where I think it is difficult for newer players to know what to do. My partner here always asks,

I'm sure out of habit rather than trying to create UI problems.

I suspect novices tend to ask about all alerts because they feel uncomfortable not knowing what's going on. Although if the opponents are playing anything complicated, the answers are likely to confuse them even more (the first time a beginner encounters a relay auction, I'm sure they're overwhelmed).