[BLML] The Monty Hall trap
nigelguthrie at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Dec 20 16:22:30 CET 2010
My experience is the same as Michael's. We were playing a 1S overcall as
any hand that didn't fit any of the many toys we were playing.
Not a 2 suiter, not a weak one suiter, not ... (I no longer recall all
of the options)
Wasn't permitted. As with Michael, this was long before any primarily
I believe that there should be no system-restrictions but I feel that such
conventions should be permitted only if you can describe them adequately.
Suppose my partner opens 2D, I alert, and you ask what it means. I think it
would be ridiculous for a director to allow me to describe it as: a hand
unsuitable for a pass, a 1C opener, a 1D opener, and so on...
On the other hand, sometimes, in a more complicated auction, all that you can
hope for is negative inferences. For example, yesterday, the following auction
(3N) _P (4C) 4H
3N = long minor
4C = pass/correct
4H = Natural.
I asked what opener's double meant. I was told "No agreement". I asked if there
any inferences from partnership style, or experience in other contexts. The
reply was "None".
When the play was over, the doubler explained that his double was intended to
show top-end strength without extra shape. "Well, I knew it wouldn't be penalty
or show heart values" said his partner. We suffered no damage. I complained,
however, that although this interpretation is sensible I would have been
grateful for that information earlier. My partner defended opponents. He
explained it was "general bridge knowledge". Again I was surprised what others
regard as "general bridge knowledge". Especially as different groups of people
sometimes have different and incompatible interpretations.
More information about the Blml