[Bbradley62]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-07, 15:45, said:

.. but it isn't wrong. With self-alerting (screens or on-line) we still disclose agreements, not what we have in our hands.

Vampyr, on 2012-October-07, 13:59, said:

...however, if the description given was correct, it does not seem that the player did anything wrong.

I hate the description of North's actions as "not wrong", which makes it sound like he could/should have done better if he had wanted to do so. If E/W's partnership agreement is that the 2NT bid shows ♦ and ♠, then North's alert and explanation of his bid as such are absolutely required by the rules of the game.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2012-October-07, 18:00

[aguahombre]

In my world "not wrong" means o.k., right, acceptable, legal, and a bunch of other things. It doesn't mean a little bit wrong.

Choosing to show two suits with that hand is a decision within their agreements, IMO.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-07, 18:15, said:

In my world "not wrong" means o.k., right, acceptable, legal, and a bunch of other things.

And most of those alternatives also have the same nuance -- they de-emphasize the rightness. E.g. saying something is "legal" often suggests "you can get away with it, because there's no law against it".

Using a more positive word emphasizes that not only CAN you do this, you SHOULD (and even MUST) do it.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-07, 14:04, said:

That depends. OP does not mention his jurisdiction, but in the ACBL it is not permitted to psyche artificial bids. Perhaps there is such a rule in other places as well.

Not quite.

Quote

ACBL General Convention Chart, Item 2 under "Disallowed": Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings.

It looks to me like the 2NT call in question was an overcall, not an opening bid, so the prohibition does not apply. I also suspect it happened online.

Added: Oops, I see this was already caught. Sorry. Gigi, please be aware that partnership agreements as to the meanings of bids are not promises to opponents. If the explanation of 2NT was correct, there has been no infraction of law, even if the player systemically had another call which might have better described his hand.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-October-07, 19:30

[ArtK78]

I really don't understand the point of this thread. The 2NT bid made showed spades and diamonds. The player had spades and diamonds. The fact that he also had hearts is not relevant.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2012-October-07, 19:36, said:

I really don't understand the point of this thread. The 2NT bid made showed spades and diamonds. The player had spades and diamonds. The fact that he also had hearts is not relevant.

That means you do understand, the same way others have expressed the same sentiment.

Some of us run into the same situation over the opponents' NT opening. We don't have a method of showing a 3-suiter at a convenient level, so we choose to show two of them. Or we choose to overcall a natural 2M when we incidentally have another 4-bagger.

The disclosure is of what we are showing with the call. The fact that we also have something else isn't any of partner's business during the auction or the opponents' right to know.

They probably have a right to know whether we have a bid to show 5M and 4m when we overcall a natural 2M. I don't think I would like to have such a bid, but that also is irrelevant.

[Rossoneri]

This should really be in the laws forum I think, but TS already has his answers above.