nige1 Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=st863h95dkqj72ca4&w=sk42hkj72d643ct63&n=saj95ha43d98cqj85&e=sq7hqt86dat5ck972&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1n(11-14)p(Hesitation+question)pd(Protective)ppp]399|300|SBU. Local congress. Match-pointed pairs final. Experienced players in regular partnerships. Facts not in dispute (director is reading book beside table). Skeleton system-cards but both sides summarise their system, including opening 1N ranges before playing a board. Over East's 1N opener, South hestitates for a few seconds and asks the range. West says "11-14". South and West pass. North doubles. When asked, South says "Protective". EW draw attention to South's (agreed) hesitation. EW ask the director, who says "play on". Table-result: 1NX-2 (NS +300). EW claim damage. Your ruling?[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Adjust to undoubled down 2, unless NS can convince me that they ALWAYS reopen with a weak NT hand of their own, which seems unlikely. Otherwise, Pass is an LA, while double is suggested by the UI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Are NT ranges announceable in the SBU? If so, it is entirely normal to wait for an announcement, and ask if one is not forthcoming. In that case, there should be a presumption of no UI. Indeed, failing to establish the NT range would pass the UI that South had no intention of acting no matter what the NT range. If announcements are not required, then I will change my vote to 1N undoubled down 2. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 It appears there are no announcements in Scotland. The SBU alert regulation says "At the start of a round or match pairs should acquaint each other with their basic system, length of their one-level openings, and strength and style of their opening 1NT. Subsequent questions about these, whilst legal, may be regarded as conveying unauthorised information." From the OP, EW did comply with this regulation. So I would rule there has been an infraction of Law 16B1{a}, and adjust the score per Law 16B3 and 12C1 to 1NT-2, NS +100. I would remind the players that the time to establish a BIT is when it occurs, not later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Agree with NS +100, unless there is a special provision about announcements. As a practical matter, what was south doing? He likes his diamonds, it would seem, then asks for a range, gets the lowest possible, and still passes? Odd (again, unless the issue is an expected announcement). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted May 19, 2014 Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 It's common not to interfere over weak NT unless you have something like an opening hand. He has a nice diamond suit, but his hand may not be good enough to overcall with in his style. On the other hand, he might want to make an obstructive bid over strong NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted May 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 19, 2014 Are NT ranges announceable in the SBU? If so, it is entirely normal to wait for an announcement, and ask if one is not forthcoming. In that case, there should be a presumption of no UI. Indeed, failing to establish the NT range would pass the UI that South had no intention of acting no matter what the NT range.If announcements are not required, then I will change my vote to 1N undoubled down 2. Blackshoe is right: In the SBU, you pre-announce a summary of your methods, including opening notrump ranges, before play; but don't announce them, during the auction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Seems to me an easy decision to adjust here. Incidentally, anyone else feel the explanation of the double as "protective" is not exactly helpful? Leaving aside the general proscription on using just a name to describe an agreement, this name conveys nothing to me about what sort of hand is being shown. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 Seems to me an easy decision to adjust here. Incidentally, anyone else feel the explanation of the double as "protective" is not exactly helpful? Leaving aside the general proscription on using just a name to describe an agreement, this name conveys nothing to me about what sort of hand is being shown.Quite right. It is the same as saying the Double is a balancing action --- well, duh, I think we already knew that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 It's common not to interfere over weak NT unless you have something like an opening hand. He has a nice diamond suit, but his hand may not be good enough to overcall with in his style. On the other hand, he might want to make an obstructive bid over strong NT.Sorry, I disagree. At adverse vulnerability and matchpoints, I cannot think of a hand where I would pass over a weak no-trump but bid over a strong no-trump unless I was playing a different defence. It is a lot more important to compete over a weak no-trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMorris Posted May 20, 2014 Report Share Posted May 20, 2014 It's common not to interfere over weak NT unless you have something like an opening hand. He has a nice diamond suit, but his hand may not be good enough to overcall with in his style. On the other hand, he might want to make an obstructive bid over strong NT. Sometime last year an top class England international on vugraph made a similar comment ie competition over a weak NT should be constructive. It was somewhat ironic to me as playing against him a couple of weeks earlier he had competed all vulnerable on a complete pile of rubbish (about a 5 count) in the hope that his partner had enough to bail him out and/or we would misdefend. I disagree with the comment then and now - get in over a weak NT especially non-vul. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahydra Posted May 21, 2014 Report Share Posted May 21, 2014 Sometime last year an top class England international on vugraph made a similar comment ie competition over a weak NT should be constructive. It was somewhat ironic to me as playing against him a couple of weeks earlier he had competed all vulnerable on a complete pile of rubbish (about a 5 count) in the hope that his partner had enough to bail him out and/or we would misdefend. I disagree with the comment then and now - get in over a weak NT especially non-vul. Andrew Robson also wrote a recent article to this effect in English Bridge, even advocating Landy on 4-4 etc. ahydra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Andrew Robson also wrote a recent article to this effect in English Bridge, even advocating Landy on 4-4 etc.If going down this route I think it is better to play one of the old-fashioned but still reasonable 3-suited defences such as Cansino or Sharples. You can adapt these to compete on most half-decent hands. This a different mentality from Asptro, M-L, etc though; in those the idea is that the hand with shape takes action; in the 3-suited methods the hand with some values gets into the auction and then we scramble to a playable spot. Silly question, but did N-S not announce their NT range at the beginning of the round? That would seem to be a pretty glaring omission within the local regulations. Finally, I still have no idea what the explanation is meant to mean and find it strange noone asked a supplementary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Silly question, but did N-S not announce their NT range at the beginning of the round? That would seem to be a pretty glaring omission within the local regulations. Finally, I still have no idea what the explanation is meant to mean and find it strange noone asked a supplementary. Yes, they did. The OP said: "Skeleton system-cards but both sides summarise their system, including opening 1N ranges before playing a board." I assume that "protective" is similar to "balancing" -- you're doubling with moderate values in case partner had a decent hand that was not able to act in direct position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Sorry, I disagree. At adverse vulnerability and matchpoints, I cannot think of a hand where I would pass over a weak no-trump but bid over a strong no-trump unless I was playing a different defence. It is a lot more important to compete over a weak no-trump.What you are disagreeing with is (as Barry said) a common policy. The idea is that a direct overcall of a strong NT is recognized as merely competitive because it is so rare we would consider being in game; but, after a weak NT, overcalls should have the playing strength of a 2-level overcall of a suit opening so CHO can advance constructively. Coming in with a weak single suit or 2-suiter over a weak NT is inviting partner to create a disaster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 I still remember one of the first times I played against someone playing mini-NT. They explained (after the round) that one of the things they liked about it was that less experience opponents thought it was "safe" to compete with garbage because opener is so limited. But it's not opener you have to worry about, it's his partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Somewhere I read a mini-NT described as "I have a limit raise for you here partner, what do you want to do with it?" B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 But it's not opener you have to worry about, it's hisyour partner.FYP :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 Zel and Barry seem to be having fun with each other, here. But both have important points...neither with much to do about rulings, but rather about weak NT. The threat level of competing over a weak NT is pretty much the same as that of coming in direct seat with 2 (lower) over a normal 1x Opening. Both Responder and Partner are alive and are wild cards to be feared if we are messing around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 Andrew Robson also wrote a recent article to this effect in English Bridge, even advocating Landy on 4-4 etc. ahydraRobson's article was specifically about tactics at matchpointed pairs For the full chapter & verse on defending weak NT vs strong NT you need to read my artcile in August english bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 Robson's article was specifically about tactics at matchpointed pairs For the full chapter & verse on defending weak NT vs strong NT you need to read my artcile in August english bridge. I look forward to reading it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted June 4, 2014 Report Share Posted June 4, 2014 For the full chapter & verse on defending weak NT vs strong NT you need to read my artcile in August english bridge.Will it be available online? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oof Arted Posted June 13, 2014 Report Share Posted June 13, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=st863h95dkqj72ca4&w=sk42hkj72d643ct63&n=saj95ha43d98cqj85&e=sq7hqt86dat5ck972&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1n(11-14)p(Hesitation+question)pd(Protective)ppp]399|300|SBU. Local congress. Match-pointed pairs final. Experienced players in regular partnerships. Facts not in dispute (director is reading book beside table). Skeleton system-cards but both sides summarise their system, including opening 1N ranges before playing a board. Over East's 1N opener, South hestitates for a few seconds and asks the range. West says "11-14". South and West pass. North doubles. When asked, South says "Protective". EW draw attention to South's (agreed) hesitation. EW ask the director, who says "play on". Table-result: 1NX-2 (NS +300). EW claim damage. Your ruling?[/hv] Whilst not quite the typical 'French Defence' to a Weak NT opening to signify holding a 12-14 count hand It is still UI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 13, 2014 Report Share Posted June 13, 2014 Whilst not quite the typical 'French Defence' to a Weak NT opening to signify holding a 12-14 count hand It is still UIAnd so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.