Goodness, this thread does seem to have made a bit of a meal out of a very simple question. I'm sorry if my original post was the source of some of the confusion. The regulations are simple enough:
If the response can have 11 HCP or more, then it should be announced ("up to 11" or whatever the agreed upper limit is).
If the response has a maximum of 10 HCP then it does not need to be announced or alerted.
What I was hoping to explain was that if all you know is that the pair is playing 2/1, it's not clear which of those cases applies. In the original question it sounded like OP has assumed that 1NT can have up to 11 or 12 HCP for a 2/1 pair, but that would actually be quite an unusual agreement for 1D:1NT. So I wouldn't tell a pair that they should announce 1D:1NT unless they have explicitly told me that it can be 11 HCP. This thread now contains a lot of ideas about what the implications of such an agreement would be, and some of those ideas seem pretty absurd to me, but we don't need to analyze any of this to give a correct ruling. If a pair wants to respond 1NT on 12-counts and have opener try to guess what to do with a flat 14, then that's their problem: we might think it's a bad idea but it doesn't make anything alertable.
I don’t disagree with the general points you make. Also, your original point was perfectly clear the first time you wrote it.
It seems that I am the only person that is having to repeat points because they aren’t perfectly clear, to some, apparently.
The OP detailed a sketch of the convention played by the opponents. On the basis of the description of what occurred, there was an irregularity.
Though you say some of the ideas in this thread are absurd (and remember I don’t disagree with you), the game of bridge is prone to absurdities.
So when a pair turn up to play a convention that contains bids that should be announced, but are not announced, then it is prudent to ask more questions about their conventions / bids than might otherwise seem necessary.
The irregularity should put opponents on notice that the pair either don’t know what they’re doing or they know what they are doing but aren’t particularly inclined to engage with their system as they ought to do.
I appreciate that people have different points of view on things like ‘protecting their interests’, ‘calling the TD’, ‘questioning the opponents’…it’s a long list.
It appears that some people believe that getting a ruling on whether or not the call should have been announced ‘puts the matter to bed” - for some it clearly will. However, for people with a more active interest in what is going on, they are going to take time out to understand the opponents convention a little better.
I can’t make people take an interest in such things, but to suggest taking more of an interest in your opponent’s convention after such an irregularity is an absurdity would be a stretch too far in my opinion. I don’t believe you were suggesting such a thing would be absurd.
I realise this doesn't address anything but Martin's final comment. I have played against a pair where opening 1C or 1D either promised or denied a 4 card major and could be bid on a balanced hand with HCP in the range where the other, stronger, member of the partnership would open 1NT.
Comments
@Martin
I haven't got the enthusiasm to answer your question at the moment or the disposition to simply ignore a reasonable post addressed to me.
Thanks for the discussion and interest.
Goodness, this thread does seem to have made a bit of a meal out of a very simple question. I'm sorry if my original post was the source of some of the confusion. The regulations are simple enough:
What I was hoping to explain was that if all you know is that the pair is playing 2/1, it's not clear which of those cases applies. In the original question it sounded like OP has assumed that 1NT can have up to 11 or 12 HCP for a 2/1 pair, but that would actually be quite an unusual agreement for 1D:1NT. So I wouldn't tell a pair that they should announce 1D:1NT unless they have explicitly told me that it can be 11 HCP. This thread now contains a lot of ideas about what the implications of such an agreement would be, and some of those ideas seem pretty absurd to me, but we don't need to analyze any of this to give a correct ruling. If a pair wants to respond 1NT on 12-counts and have opener try to guess what to do with a flat 14, then that's their problem: we might think it's a bad idea but it doesn't make anything alertable.
@davidcollier
I don’t disagree with the general points you make. Also, your original point was perfectly clear the first time you wrote it.
It seems that I am the only person that is having to repeat points because they aren’t perfectly clear, to some, apparently.
The OP detailed a sketch of the convention played by the opponents. On the basis of the description of what occurred, there was an irregularity.
Though you say some of the ideas in this thread are absurd (and remember I don’t disagree with you), the game of bridge is prone to absurdities.
So when a pair turn up to play a convention that contains bids that should be announced, but are not announced, then it is prudent to ask more questions about their conventions / bids than might otherwise seem necessary.
The irregularity should put opponents on notice that the pair either don’t know what they’re doing or they know what they are doing but aren’t particularly inclined to engage with their system as they ought to do.
I appreciate that people have different points of view on things like ‘protecting their interests’, ‘calling the TD’, ‘questioning the opponents’…it’s a long list.
It appears that some people believe that getting a ruling on whether or not the call should have been announced ‘puts the matter to bed” - for some it clearly will. However, for people with a more active interest in what is going on, they are going to take time out to understand the opponents convention a little better.
I can’t make people take an interest in such things, but to suggest taking more of an interest in your opponent’s convention after such an irregularity is an absurdity would be a stretch too far in my opinion. I don’t believe you were suggesting such a thing would be absurd.
I realise this doesn't address anything but Martin's final comment. I have played against a pair where opening 1C or 1D either promised or denied a 4 card major and could be bid on a balanced hand with HCP in the range where the other, stronger, member of the partnership would open 1NT.