[mycroft]

Siegmund, on 2012-October-10, 19:23, said:

@mycroft:[re: inverted being limit+ or GF+]

I guess I am glad it didn't come up when I was at your table last month!

Nah, no worries. A) I'll tell you what 1♦-2♦ means (rather than "inverted"); B) you'd get it right, because *we* play it the sane way (but I'd say that, wouldn't I? Seriously, though, given the weak NT, "limit" means "GF unless you have the overstrength-weak 2.")

Was fun to play against you "last month" (took me a second to figure out what that meant, given that it was 12 days ago).

[bluejak]

lalldonn, on 2012-October-11, 09:09, said:

Apology accepted, and don't worry, I won't rub it in that what seems so obvious to you is not the least bit relevant to the discussion that was being had. But your post did a great job of solving why the following incredible mystery occurs.

Of course it is relevant. I am just so sorry that I assumed people would know it was relevant without my having to explain in detail.

As to why people are rude to me, I was referring to at the table. I understand that after years of the normal rudeness on the internet my courtesy has worn very thin where people who are often offensive are surprised when people are offensive back.

But I still do not understand why people are allowed to be rude to me when I am playing, and then I am very courteous to opponents.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-11, 05:41, said:

This seems to be a somewhat dangerous assumption. For example, do you think that the majority of players who explain "Stayman" play the sequence 1NT - 2♣; any - 3♣ as a natural weak takeout? Because that is the (original) meaning in Stayman. Similarly for inverted minors - can you tell me what the standard collection of sequences and understandings is for this? Because I have no idea. Another example is Jacoby 2NT - how many players saying this do you think promise 16+ hcp? Because that is the original form as I understand it. Similarly for rebids by Opener - jumps to show voids came well before jumps to show a side suit. So what is standard? Or does standard just mean what you think it is, regardless of whether Aunty Betty has ever heard of the changes to their favourite convention that they learned 60 years ago?

I said that the name encompasses many of the followon sequences, not all. And I was certainly not trying to justify using the name of the convention as an explanation. The point you make is the exact reason why the regulations say this isn't allowed, and I fully believe in this principle, and I think I practice it.

It doesn't matter what these bids meant 60 years ago. Experienced bridge players know how they're common used these days. They also know what kinds of variations exist, so they know what questions to ask if the explanation is not complete.

If the auction goes 1NT-2♣, do you need to know at that moment what a later 3♣ bid would mean? If the 3♣ bid comes up, you can ask for an explanation at that time.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2012-October-10, 17:42, said:

I'm also going to point out, like Vampyr, to lalldonn that "inverted" means GF. At least it does throughout District 18 and 19.

Not just GF. It is also a limit bid, approximately 10-15; this treatment is apparently fairly common in what I guess is our Home Counties equivalent of District 18 and 19.

Note: I am not making this up.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-October-11, 18:02, said:

As to why people are rude to me, I was referring to at the table. I understand that after years of the normal rudeness on the internet my courtesy has worn very thin where people who are often offensive are surprised when people are offensive back.

But I still do not understand why people are allowed to be rude to me when I am playing, and then I am very courteous to opponents.

What on earth are you talking about, and what relevance has this to this, or any other, thread?

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2012-October-11, 19:23, said:

It doesn't matter what these bids meant 60 years ago. Experienced bridge players know how they're common used these days. They also know what kinds of variations exist, so they know what questions to ask if the explanation is not complete.

And what about inexperienced bridge players? Or players that learned their methods 60 years ago and cannot imagine anyone playing them differently? More than that, I probably qualify under your definition of experienced even when I have not played any high level bridge. Yet I had never heard of inverted meaning game-forcing before reading these forums. Apparently Josh hasn't either and I daresay noone is going to suggest he is not experienced. And this is just for inverted minors, a very common and simple convention. For other conventions the situation might be worse - how many variations of Jacoby 2NT are there around?

Even Stayman might be problematic. Say for argument that I have agreed with my partner to play a double of 2♣ as Landy against non-promisary Stayman and clubs against normal (promisary) Stayman. Opponents say Stayman and I hold both majors. If I ask whether that is promisary I am transmitting UI to partner unless I do it every time and the TD believes me. Surely it is better to simply ask what it means and to do this every time someone describes 2♣ as Stayman. Yes it might be a waste of time but why should WE be (potentially) disadvantaged because the opponents could not follow simple instructions?

[RMB1]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-12, 01:47, said:

... I have agreed with my partner to play a double of 2♣ as Landy against non-promisary Stayman and clubs against normal (promisary) Stayman.

Is Stayman normally "promisary"?
Does tradition Stayman (various strengths with 4 card major or weak with clubs) count as "promisary"?

The problem you describe is best dealt with by checking your opponents convention card at the start of the round and agreeing with partner whether the opponents' Stayman counts as promisory.

[gnasher]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-12, 01:47, said:

If I ask whether that is promisary I am transmitting UI to partner unless I do it every time and the TD believes me.

If you do it every time, you're not transmitting UI. The question of whether the TD believes you is a separate matter.

If you really asked about Stayman every time, though, you would quickly be able to accumulate evidence to show to a sceptical TD, supposing that you were unlucky enough to encounter one.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-11, 21:18, said:

What on earth are you talking about, and what relevance has this to this, or any other, thread?

It is just something that happens, makes the game less enjoyable for me, and I think a shame.

As to its relevance here, you will have to ask the person who quoted it here.

gnasher, on 2012-October-12, 03:08, said:

If you do it every time, you're not transmitting UI. The question of whether the TD believes you is a separate matter.

If you really asked about Stayman every time, though, you would quickly be able to accumulate evidence to show to a sceptical TD, supposing that you were unlucky enough to encounter one.

I think you would also run into some very annoyed opponents, despite it being your absolute right.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-October-12, 08:43, said:

I think you would also run into some very annoyed opponents, despite it being your absolute right.

While one "should carefully avoid… action that might cause annoyance…" (Law 74A2) I think that when one has "an absolute right" to take such action, the player who becomes annoyed is just going to have to live with it.

[Bbradley62]

Add "Too many Secretary Birds routinely behave like asses" to the list of reasons why more young people don't play.

[blackshoe]

That might be true - if young people played enough to run into said SBs.

[Bbradley62]

It is almost impossible to play your first session of duplicate (assuming it's not a beginner game) without running into at least one.

[Trinidad]

Agree. Before I played my first session of duplicate, my bridge teacher specifically warned me and told me not to accept any BS from SBs.

Rik

[mycroft]

So, who teaches the supposed YPs to do dumb, illegal-by-regulation things in the first place? They don't come in doing that - they learn from experience. What experience? Not the SBs; but the rest of the people who may not be *trying* to gain an advantage by speaking gibberish to the YPs - tell me, what does "Hamilton" mean? Without context, and the YPs don't have context, it probably means $10 - but certainly succeed.

Yes, there are SBish things that YPs, and newer players in general, should not put up with. But starting off learning about Full Disclosure isn't one of them.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on 2012-October-10, 18:35, said:

I know what inverted means because I play it. But are you really suggesting that means I know how other people play it? I do not know what inverted means when someone else says it because they may not play it my way.

After 1♣ - 2♣ - I rebid 2♠ to show a spade stop, and no heart or diamond stop. I have run into quite a few people who play it as natural. Why? I have no idea: perhaps they have not given up on a 4-4 fit.

I play the inverted raise as virtually denying a 4-card major (it can have one if it has slam interest opposite a weak NT and at least 5-card minor suit support). Is till play 1C-2C-2S as natural. Not because I'm looking for a 4-4 fit, but because telling partner you are unbalanced with 5 clubs and 4 spades helps partner evaluate his hand. Earlier this week we had an auction starting 1D - 2D - 2S (4 spade, 5+ diamonds). Responder had KQ doubleton spade, which was now a huge holding for playing in diamonds, and we bid swiftly to 6D. The other table bid the equivalent of 1D-2D-2NT-3NT and played there. Bidding out your shape is a very common principle in lots of auctions.