[BudH]

pescetom, on 2019-May-27, 14:18, said:

I too find this very interesting and I follow your rebut of Barmar's arguments.
But in that case should one not have alerted 2NT?
I remain surprised that 2NT over partner's minor as showing both minors is considered expert standard and doubtful that both partners would arrive at this conclusion undiscussed.

In my opinion, if I sat down with a random very good expert, and I held this 1=3=5=4 hand on this auction, I would bid 2NT and I think my partner would work it out. The only thing that makes sense is 4 clubs and 5+ diamonds, OR both red suits (with minors much more likely).

[Tramticket]

I am not in the ACBL. Under EBU alerting regulations, this call would be not require an alert if natural and would require an alert if the partnership has agreed that it is artificial or if you believe that it may be artificial, but cannot explain the call (Blue Book: 4 A 5). You might think that it may be artificial because you have forgotten the agreement or because you don't have an agreement about a specific sequence, but believe that it is similar to a situation where you do have agreement, or you believe that a natural meaning is simply impossible (it might be argued that this applies here). But whatever the reason for thinking it may be artificial, you should alert, which I think is pretty clear.

But reading this thread, I have no idea what I should assume in ACBL land if there is no alert of an opponents's 2NT bid. Do I assume natural? Do I assume artificial? Do I assume that they have no idea what they are doing? It all seems a bit unclear!

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2019-May-27, 17:33, said:

Most would play that 2NT was a good raise to 3C, with 3C being a weak raise. If you have diamonds you bid them.

I would have thought it would show an extreme two-suiter (any two suits), unsuited to a penalty double, rather like a 2NT overcall of a natural 1NT opener, but I defer to Lamford's greater experience.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-May-26, 18:36, said:

The phrase "mistaken explanation" in the law book refers to a mistaken explanation in the context of the partnership's understanding.

An explanation such as you describe may or may not be reasonable, but is it legal? It seems to me that the "likely shows" bit might be seen as saying what you're taking it to mean — which I think you'll agree is improper.

Implicit agreements are tricky. They can arise through mutual experience or awareness, but I don't think you're talking about the former here. As for the latter, I think you'd have to be pretty sure that a mutual awareness exists before you base an explanation on it.

I agree it's tricky, but I stick with my statement.

If I make an undiscussed bid, I usually do it on the assumption that partner is familiar with the same "expert standard" that I am -- that's the "mutual awareness" you refer to, right? And I think they're justified in explaining it similarly.

Also, there are some well known meta-agreements, like NT calls in competition that are unlikely be natural are usually 2-suiters. If I expect partner to work it out, I think it's reasonable for them to explain it that way.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2019-May-28, 08:16, said:

IIf I make an undiscussed bid, I usually do it on the assumption that partner is familiar with the same "expert standard" that I am -- that's the "mutual awareness" you refer to, right? And I think they're justified in explaining it similarly.

Yes, and if that's the case, I agree that explanation is justified.

barmar, on 2019-May-28, 08:16, said:

Also, there are some well known meta-agreements, like NT calls in competition that are unlikely be natural are usually 2-suiters. If I expect partner to work it out, I think it's reasonable for them to explain it that way.

Perhaps my opinion is colored by the fact that most of my partners will have no clue what "expert standard" — or "meta-agreement" — means.

[axman]

johnu, on 2019-May-25, 18:45, said:

Partner obviously had a brain cramp. If you think you can make 8 tricks in NT, why wouldn't you want to defend against 1NT? The one thing 2NT isn't is natural.

Talking about brain cramps, I once had this auction

---

Opponents asked partner what 1NT meant and he answered "natural, maximum passed hand". Yikes

It occurs to me that it is possible to respond accurately** as to what a calls means even when there is no agreement/system as to a call. Hence, the formulation of a question takes on the destructive powers of a weapon.

**the same can be said about inaccurately

axman