[blml] GK&E (was: alertability)

[Robert Geller]

This thread has gotten a bit too ethereal for me.  Here's an example
of what I consider to be a real problem (from an actual group
of "non-disclosers" in Japan).   The opponents bid:
	LHO	RHO
	--	1S
	2S	2NT+	alerted
	3C+	4S
	P
After the auction you ask the meaning of 2NT.  LHO says "asks me
to bid 3C."   You ask the meaning of 3C.  RHO says "as requested."
Then you ask, "well, why didn't RHO just bid 4S over 2S, why the
extra bids...."   After further followup questions you finally get 
the real story, which is that if LHO has a super-minimum he will bid
3S, not 3C, in response to 2NT, so 2NT is a strength asking bid and
3C is a positive (or at least non-negative) answer.

But obviously the laws mean for the opponents to reply to the first
question "2NT asks me to bid 3S with a super-minimum, otherwise 3C."

Things like that an overcall might be 4 cards needn't be explained 
(if opponents are novices playing in their first open game ever
maybe it's another story....).

-Bob

 


Nigel さんは書きました:
>[Sven Pran]
>I know of no system agreements that specify a minimum length of 5 cards
>for a simple overcall, this is simply common sense.
>
>[Jerry Fusselman]
>There some good players who overcall at the one level with a really
>good four-card suit. Mike Lawrence, for example. He's a good player,
>He talks about in his book, "Overcalls."
>I often cringe when a bridge player calls an agreement "common sense."
>
>[nige1]
>Or "general knowledge and experience*. In bidding competition problems,
>the expert panel is often nearly unanimous in electing to overcall on a 
>4 card
>suit.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>blml mailing list
>blml at amsterdamned.org
>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

-----------------------------------------------------
Robert (Bob) Geller,     Tokyo, Japan        geller at nifty.com