[Elianna]

An argument came up between me and an opponent. Whom I can't stand. What's your opinion?

[blackshoe]

First, arguing with opponents is (a) a waste of time and ( not in accordance with the laws of the game. If you have a disagreement, call the TD and let him settle it.

Second a 2♣ response to 1NT is never alertable if it asks opener to show a four card major. Read the alert procedure.

[rogerclee]

We'll never get a unanimous poll about a bidding decision, but let's hope we can at least get a unanimous poll about this.

[jdonn]

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

[matmat]

and there we have it. a non-unanimous vote...

[jchiu]

Mateusz just had to click on the monkey option!

[matmat]

jchiu, on Apr 20 2008, 04:50 AM, said:

Mateusz just had to click on the monkey option!

i didn't.

[Elianna]

jdonn, on Apr 19 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

[matmat]

Elianna, on Apr 20 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

what is the problem with this, exactly?

[gwnn]

Elianna, on Apr 20 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 19 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

All the more reason to opt for choice 3.

[rogerclee]

Elianna, on Apr 20 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 19 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

THIS GUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

Yes, I hate him.

[Elianna]

rogerclee, on Apr 20 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

Elianna, on Apr 20 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 19 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

THIS GUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

Yes, I hate him.

No, you hate his partner.

Whereas, I think that his partner is nice, and that this guy is highly annoying.

[jdonn]

Elianna, on Apr 20 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 19 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

It may or may not have been clear, but my post was a pathetic attempt at humor, I have no idea who the person is that you are talking about.

[rogerclee]

Elianna, on Apr 20 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Apr 20 2008, 01:35 PM, said:

Elianna, on Apr 20 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 19 2008, 04:40 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

THIS GUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

Yes, I hate him.

No, you hate his partner.

Whereas, I think that his partner is nice, and that this guy is highly annoying.

I dislike both of them pretty strongly.

[jillybean]

Rubbish! We do seem to have a number of different interpretations of the laws, by both players and TD’s and its frustrating.

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Apr 20 2008, 11:40 PM, said:

Rubbish! We do seem to have a number of different interpretations of the laws, by both players and TD’s and its frustrating.

Don't pay any attention to those other people. If they disagree with me, they're clearly wrong.

[helene_t]

Elianna, on Apr 20 2008, 07:54 PM, said:

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

I wonder what the TD is supposed to do about this. A procedural penalty, adjustment to 2♥ in a 2-2 fit when advancer has spades, or both?

[mycroft]

Helene, start with education. Always.

If after two explanations of "you just Alert weak NT overcalls, and when asked, state 12-15" (frankly, I wouldn't mind if this were an Announcement, and I wouldn't mind if they did Announce, but if you call me over, I'll give the Book ruling" *by the TD*, they still do it, then we hit 'em with a PP. As a TD, I'd be watching and making sure I'd seeded the field with players who would call the TD for "overactive Alerting" on this pair.

You can't say "partner would forget" in this situation, but I guess you could threaten them with it :-) But I'd rather just tell them the rule, and make sure they follow it. There's enough hair-triggering and antagonism in the game as it is.

Michael.

[mycroft]

In the original case, of course, the rule is:

"No Alert is required for any bid of 2C over partner's 1NT opening ... if it requests opener to bid a four-card major, regardless of whether the Stayman bidder promises a four-card major."

... or if it promises or does not promise strength.

Having said that, I Alert my EHAA 1NT-2C auction, as its primary statement is "I can't place the contract, but I have at least INV values"; the fact that opener will reply with a 4-card major if he has one (or 2NT or 3C with both) is usually ancillary (Yes, I know it gives away information, but it allows *everything* else to be Pass/Correct, including 4C; opposite 10-12, I think it's a winner). Probably not necessary, but it's not going to confuse anyone. We Alert our weak 2 openers as well, mostly because the standard response to our Pre-Alert is "you'll just Alert them when they come up, right?"

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on Apr 21 2008, 09:54 AM, said:

Helene, start with education. Always.

If after two explanations of "you just Alert weak NT overcalls, and when asked, state 12-15" (frankly, I wouldn't mind if this were an Announcement, and I wouldn't mind if they did Announce, but if you call me over, I'll give the Book ruling" *by the TD*, they still do it, then we hit 'em with a PP. As a TD, I'd be watching and making sure I'd seeded the field with players who would call the TD for "overactive Alerting" on this pair.

You can't say "partner would forget" in this situation, but I guess you could threaten them with it :-) But I'd rather just tell them the rule, and make sure they follow it. There's enough hair-triggering and antagonism in the game as it is.

Michael.

Indeed. In the case at hand, I would explain to the partner of the player who provided UI ("we play systems on") that he is now constrained to make every effort not to take advantage of that UI. I would add to the opponents that if they feel, after the play or when dummy comes down, as appropriate, that they may have been damaged by the player's failure to meet that goal, they should call me back, and I will look at adjusting the score.

This is a case, though, where it may be difficult to find a basis for score adjustment. After all, what are, generally speaking, the "logical alternatives" to following your agreed system?