[Vampyr]

When discussing alternative calls, is it necessary to make it crystal clear to partner what offender's intention was? What if they are not on the same wavelength? How can we say in front of partner "this is his bid, and this is what it means"?

Of course offender needs to be taken away from the table. This has not changed. The only difference is which replacement calls are going to be permitted without penalty. Maybe more than before, maybe fewer, maybe the same but different ones, but still you have to take the plays away, and you still may need to know a lot about their system.

Also, I think that it is a very good idea if the director chooses one attributed meaning. Again he would have to know tha pair's system, but all things considered this is probably best.

[gordontd]

Not content with expressing this view at every opportunity in other threads, you have now given it one of its own!

Since I have expressed my contrary view in other threads I shan’t repeat it here.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-October-30, 14:47, said:

Not content with expressing this view at every opportunity in other threads, you have now given it one of its own!

Since I have expressed my contrary view in other threads I shan’t repeat it here.

Well, maybe someone else can explain what happens when it goes 2NT-2♦. You stand there in front of everybody and ask "did you mean to show diamonds?" "Did you mean to show hearts?" "did you mean to open a Multi?" How can the hand continue with this amount of UI?

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-30, 16:03, said:

Well, maybe someone else can explain what happens when it goes 2NT-2♦. You stand there in front of everybody and ask "did you mean to show diamonds?" "Did you mean to show hearts?" "did you mean to open a Multi?" How can the hand continue with this amount of UI?

We don’t need to know what was intended- we are concerned with “attributable” meanings. Hearts or Diamonds are the obvious ones, but I would offer to take the player away from the table if they thought I had missed a possibility

[WellSpyder]

gordontd, on 2017-October-30, 16:07, said:

We don’t need to know what was intended- we are concerned with “attributable” meanings.

We also have to be concerned with the denomination specified.

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-31, 02:57, said:

We also have to be concerned with the denomination specified.

Now you're just intentionally trying to drive me crazy, right?

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2017-October-31, 08:59, said:

Now you're just intentionally trying to drive me crazy, right?

No, honestly I'm not, barmar - though I can see why it might have that effect! But I don't understand the point of telling us that we don't need to take a player away from the table to be able to implement 27B1(b), if we still need to take them away from the table to be able to implement 27B1(a).

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2017-October-30, 16:07, said:

We don’t need to know what was intended- we are concerned with “attributable” meanings. Hearts or Diamonds are the obvious ones, but I would offer to take the player away from the table if they thought I had missed a possibility

So you say if you meant hearts you can bid the lowest bid that will show hearts and if you meant diamonds you can bid the lowest one that shows diamonds. Spelling it out for partner. And then hearing "no I was trying to show something else"... At this point you might as well just dispense with the bidding and have the players describe their hands in normal sentences.

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2017-October-31, 10:55, said:

No, honestly I'm not, barmar - though I can see why it might have that effect! But I don't understand the point of telling us that we don't need to take a player away from the table to be able to implement 27B1(b), if we still need to take them away from the table to be able to implement 27B1(a).

I wonder about the actual mechanics of 27B1(b). You tell the player the meanings you have attributed to,the call, and find out (how?) whether a comparable call exists? I really cannot understand how this is all to be accomplished in practice.

Maybe certain people, instead of saying that I am being difficult, which doesn't really seem to be a synonym for clueless, could spell it all out in easy to,follow steps.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-October-31, 20:17, said:

So you say if you meant hearts you can bid the lowest bid that will show hearts and if you meant diamonds you can bid the lowest one that shows diamonds. Spelling it out for partner.

What's wrong with this? The end result is no different from what would have happened if you'd never made the insufficient bid in the first place.

The point of this is to try to get the normal bridge result.

Quote

And then hearing "no I was trying to show something else"... At this point you might as well just dispense with the bidding and have the players describe their hands in normal sentences.

What allows the player to say "no I was trying to show something else"? Partner should take the replacement bid at face value.

And if the insufficient bidder was trying to show something else, why wouldn't he replace it with a bid that shows that?