[mycroft]

I understand, sorry to confuse where you intended to avoid it.

But even N/B need to understand that there is an answer to that question - even if it's the only one they learned, "well, it'll be 6 cards 2/top 3, of course,..." - partly because other people (like you and I) play it very differently, and so they can answer the question when asked by "you and I" (and them, once they realize it's something worth knowing on defence).

And yes, it does help determine the answer to the questions about further agreements. Or at least, given N/B, it helps their mentor teach them the answer to these questions about further agreements. Many will teach it "all in one piece", of course, with their favourite style for students; which is good, but can add to the "there's only one way to play" for B/N.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-December-07, 10:10, said:

I didn't want to go there in N/B but what your weak 2 looks like changes what's best IMO, we play very wide ranging weak 2s so it's reasonably clear to play change of suit NF, the more tightly defined your weak 2s, the less useful this is.

We play quite wide ranging weak 2s but still prefer change of suit forcing, in combination with Ogust where we can get out at 3 level if opener does not have the goods (if opener is fairly likely to be 5-card I can see that NF would gain appeal).

[thepossum]

DavidKok, on 2021-December-07, 04:03, said:

....

At my local club it is popular to psyche 2NT....

? popular and psyche

Call the director

Club rules

[DavidKok]

I have, and the director adjusted the score most of the time. But I predict it will continue to happen.

[Gilithin]

DavidKok, on 2021-December-11, 03:39, said:

I have, and the director adjusted the score most of the time. But I predict it will continue to happen.

Wow, you must be on very friendly terms with the TD. First of all, is there really a RA that bans a 2NT response on anything but "strong" hands? If there is, how do they define "strong"? Take ♠Ax ♥Axx ♦AKxx ♣AKxx in response to 2♠ for example. Is that "strong"? Because if so, to LTC fans it has the same 6 losers as ♠Qxxxx ♥- ♦Qxxx ♣Qxxx. So you have to accept that the latter hand is also "strong", since pairs are allowed to use this own choice of evaluation method. Take away the 3 kings - ♠Ax ♥Axx ♦Axxx ♣Axxx - can a player respond 2NT now? 8 losers gives us ♠xxxxx ♥- ♦xxxx ♣Qxxx. So now we would have that a void and any stray queen is "strong".

As long as a pair do not say that the 2NT hand is "always strong" and have never has a hand come up where the bid was made without a strong hand (whatever that might mean), I do not see what MI has been provided. Absent a fully illegal agreement, the TD should only rule against the pair if there is both MI and damage resulting from that MI. If the TD is adjusting "most of the time", I strongly suspect that they are completely clueless as to the rules of the game and are simply anti-psyche, a position that is not only wrong but dangerous when combined with a mindset that the only valid agreement is the one that they think should be played.

[DavidKok]

The pair in question does have the written agreement that 2NT is always strong, but they also like to bid it (without mentioning this) with weak hands and lots of support. That is a breach of the rules, regardless of what the local rules regarding 2NT are. It is perfectly legal to play 2NT as 'asking bid, does not promise or deny anything' here, but you have to announce it as such.

It seems you are coming down rather harsh on our director. I think any errors here are mine, and I have not explained the situation sufficiently. Rest assured they are not 'anti-psyche', are well aware of the rules of the game and enforce them regardless of how 'friendly' the players at the table are with them.

The whole paragraph on LTC is a waste of ink. The existence of strong and weak hands is not up for question, regardless of how you choose to evaluate them. The relevant criterion for the opponents is not the playing strength of responder but the combined defensive strength of the hands, i.e. the risk when overcalling.