[smerriman]

Huibertus, on 2025-May-25, 02:58, said:

Apart from that, it's not hard. Weak NT's need to be announced, not just once but when the occur

So do strong NTs. There's nothing at all special that suggests a lack of announcement implies a strong no trump.

As I said, the lack of announcement makes it clear E/W's score gets rolled back, but that doesn't mean N/S get a double shot for free.

[mycroft]

Variable NT: That was my go-to argument (apart from "Announcements defanging WeaSeL improving my club results by a board a night") for "all NTs are announceable and should be".

Board 1: 1NT opening by North (Announced "10-12").
Board 2: p-1NT by South. No Announcement. What's the range?

Back in the 18-month period in the ACBL before "all NTs are Announced", if you said "15-17, because N-S know how to Alert and we can trust them to get it right", well, you'd be right (what's different about N-S on board 2?). This time. If you said "10-12, because they said it last time and didn't think they needed to remind us again" - well, you'd be right on a different day, I promise you, against a different pair. Just not this one.

When I put that question to players and fellow directors I was having this (usually frustrated) discussion with, my experience was that it was about 50-50 what they'd answer. Maybe 60-40 in favour of 15-17.

"Okay, so you only can not Announce if it's "15-17 at all vulnerabilities and seats". So then you get the "you don't have to say that any more, you know." "Yes, we do." game that was so much fun back in the "introduction of Announcement" days when it went 1NT ("12-14")-p-2♦ ("Alert") "you don't Alert any more, you just say 'Transfer'." "Thank you. Alert." Frequently there would be two or three rounds of that before we got frustrated enough to violate the rules and say "it's not a transfer. Maybe you should ask?"

[blackshoe]

I'd ask them if they've actually read the regulation. I'd expect "no, but..." to which I'd reply "What should I do if 2♦ is not a transfer?" If they reply "don't say anything" I'd say "so there are only two possible meanings for 2♦ here, natural diamonds, or hearts?"

People who opine from ignorance need a slap upside the head.

[lamford]

smerriman, on 2025-May-24, 14:53, said:

OK, so consider the scenario where N/S are perfectly aware that E/W are playing a weak no-trump. For example, a 1NT rebid was explained as 15-17 on the previous board (as lamford said was actually the case).

Can South now freely double on this hand? If 1NT goes down, great; if not, you ask for a correction to 2M.

This seems to be a standard gambling situation which South contributed to by not asking when asking seems automatic, especially given the previous board. And that being the case, we can't conclude what Huibertus did that "South already showcased he WAS going to bid majors over a strong NT, so very likely would NOT pass over a weak NT."; without the double shot South may well have passed an announced strong NT.

If this were an event where "everyone" plays a strong 1NT, and South is a weak player where they would be "confused" by the last hand rather than knowing how weak no-trumps work, so that their failure to ask is understandable (though the fact the meaning was clear to North suggests otherwise), then it seems fine to just adjust the score to either 2♥ or 3♣, depending on whether or not East would come back in (is everyone assuming it would be normal for an 11 count opposite 12-14 to pass out 2♥?).

But otherwise, I would say E/W should be adjusted to some combination of 1N, 2♥, 3♣, the first included if others would pass as South. N/S would also receive a similar adjustment but partially adjusted down to compensate for their own contribution towards 1Nx.

It is possible that the question on the previous board was "what is your no-trump?" or similar, rather than "what is your no-trump rebid?" The last range a tired South heard was "15-17". I think all Souths (the player has played for England women) would bid over 1NT, but would indeed be more inclined to bid over a strong NT.

For me the silver bullet is that the person failing to announce was an EBU County Director, who also knew the opponents played a different defence to a strong and a weak NT. If he had announced, South would not have doubled!

The concept of doubling as a gambling action, knowing the NT range, is misconceived. That is not what happened.

[barmar]

smerriman, on 2025-May-25, 03:24, said:

So do strong NTs. There's nothing at all special that suggests a lack of announcement implies a strong no trump.

Nothing in the laws or alert procedures, but many players are aware of the "15-17 doesn't need to be announced" rumor, while weak NT players know that they need to announce their range. So if someone fails to announce their range, it's "obvious" that it's a strong NT, since there's no reason why they would think they don't need to announce.

If you think the opponent might be playing weak NT and forgot to announce, you can ask to be sure. But doing so might wake up the opponent (perhaps they forgot to take note of the condition that affects their variable NT). Legally, your question is UI, but I don't see how we could enforce this. So asking potentially disadvantages you.