[lalldonn]

I would not have considered pass an LA either, notwithstanding you choosing it. You state spades shows concentration but clubs shows a suit, which I don't think is a normal distinction to make between the two unbid suits. I would also think you are screwed if the next hand bids 3♥ as you have not yet shown anything at all beyond the 2♦ bid. You will have to double then, or bid 3♠, neither of which sounds like this hand with 6 card support and club concentration. I just don't see the point.

Of course it doesn't matter what I think of it if enough other people would consider or choose it or whatever the law says. However I doubt many would choose it, and I really doubt any would choose it or even think of it among the class of players who don't know what 1♦ p 2♦ means in their system.

[gnasher]

 lalldonn, on 2012-August-14, 17:55, said:

I would not have considered pass an LA either, notwithstanding you choosing it. You state spades shows concentration but clubs shows a suit, which I don't think is a normal distinction to make between the two unbid suits. I would also think you are screwed if the next hand bids 3♥ as you have not yet shown anything at all beyond the 2♦ bid. You will have to double then, or bid 3♠, neither of which sounds like this hand with 6 card support and club concentration. I just don't see the point.

My idea was that we can have four or five clubs, but we can't have four spades. AKx is near to a maximum spade holding, but not near to a maximum club holding.

If they raised to 3♥, I would bid 3♠. This is starting to sound a bit Rexfordian, but presumably that shows (1) game-forcing values, (2) spades not good enough to bid on the previous round and (3) too many diamonds to make a penalty double. Something like what I've got, in fact.

I agree that this analysis may not be relevant to the actual ruling, though players of all standards can forget their methods.

[lalldonn]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-15, 02:35, said:

I agree that this analysis may not be relevant to the actual ruling, though players of all standards can forget their methods.

What is the most highly-ranked player (in whatever terms you prefer) that you think would forget something as basic in his system as what 1♦ p 2♦ shows?

[gnasher]

 lalldonn, on 2012-August-15, 10:53, said:

What is the most highly-ranked player (in whatever terms you prefer) that you think would forget something as basic in his system as what 1♦ p 2♦ shows?

At least as high as me. I'm certainly capable of temporarily forgetting my system, and inverted minors aren't ubiquitous in England (which is where the original poster plays).

A few days ago one of my opponents forgot that 1♣-1x(transfer)-1NT showed 18-20 balanced. That was a player who has represented England at junior level.

In any case, we're talking about the partner of the forgetter, aren't we? Good players sometimes play in scratch partnerships, or in partnerships of uneven strength.

[lalldonn]

It's not so much that inverted minors are something everyone plays as much as it is that it's on the convention card (or is it not in England?) Opener's rebids generally aren't so of course one is more likely to forget those.

 gnasher, on 2012-August-15, 11:24, said:

In any case, we're talking about the partner of the forgetter, aren't we? Good players sometimes play in scratch partnerships, or in partnerships of uneven strength.

If your partner isn't a good player and you are then you definitely don't want to pass. It would be totally impractical, they might even pass it out.

[Cyberyeti]

 gnasher, on 2012-August-15, 11:24, said:

At least as high as me. I'm certainly capable of temporarily forgetting my system, and inverted minors aren't ubiquitous in England (which is where the original poster plays).

A few days ago one of my opponents forgot that 1♣-1x(transfer)-1NT showed 18-20 balanced. That was a player who has represented England at junior level.

In any case, we're talking about the partner of the forgetter, aren't we? Good players sometimes play in scratch partnerships, or in partnerships of uneven strength.

I'd add a player who's been close to national selection but never actually been picked that opened 2♦ on a weak 2 in spades while playing it as 8 playing tricks with diamonds, and Ghestem forgetting his own convention

[pran]

 lalldonn, on 2012-August-15, 10:53, said:

What is the most highly-ranked player (in whatever terms you prefer) that you think would forget something as basic in his system as what 1♦ p 2♦ shows?

A couple of years ago I watched the final boards in the Norwegian championship for teams. 8 teams played a complete Round Robin in the final and it so happened that the two leading teams met in the last round.

Apparently the players were completely exhausted at that time because they made the most surprising errors. In fact the victory changed between the two teams several times (I believe three or four times) during the very last tricks played just because of this.

And I still remember the BB being lost by a "silly mistake" during the last board some years ago.

So I don't think "ranking" has much to do with this.

[lalldonn]

It's meaningless to compare "made a silly mistake" to "didn't know the most basic parts of his own system".

[barmar]

If you're not playing with a regular partner, it can be very easy to forget whether you agreed on a particular convention. The player in question in this thread admitted that he couldn't remember whether they'd agreed to play inverted minors or not.

I've been playing a weekly game on BBO (and OKB previously) with a woman for 8-10 years, using the same card with a bunch of advanced treatments. She's a good player, yet she frequently forgets Lebensohl. I figure it's because except when she's playing with me she's playing random pickups in the MBC, and it's not something you use without discussion.

[lalldonn]

This is all so goofy. In general, bad players forget what they are playing more often than good players do, especially when it comes to very simple bids. That is part of what makes them bad players. Therefore if someone has forgotten a bid, it's a sign that they are a bad player. Not proof, just a clue, just like playing a hand badly would be a clue but not proof that someone is a bad player. No amount of examples of good players forgetting what a bid means suggests otherwise. All it suggests is that no one is perfect.

[barmar]

We're not talking about forgetting what a bid means. We're talking about getting confused about what conventions you're playing. If you frequently change partners, and change agreements as part of this, it's very easy to get confused like that. Remembering sets of conventions is much harder than remembering how a convention works, because there's usually no systemic logic to it -- it's just an arbitrary collection.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2012-August-15, 22:55, said:

Remembering sets of conventions is much harder than remembering how a convention works, because there's usually no systemic logic to it -- it's just an arbitrary collection.

Oh, I don't know. There's "systemic logic" to agreeing to play Lebensohl after interference over 1NT, I think. But I don't play it with any of my regular partners because all of them are convinced they can't remember it. OTOH, the cards I play with those partners are very similar, but not identical, which does make it harder to remember which conventions I'm playing at the moment — which is why I try to remember to review the appropriate card before the session starts.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-16, 06:50, said:

Oh, I don't know. There's "systemic logic" to agreeing to play Lebensohl after interference over 1NT, I think.

But what is the systemic logic that you play Lebensohl with A, B, and C, but not with D, E, and F? That's the point I was making -- there's not necessarily a link between the partner and the particular collection of conventions you play with them.

However, I'll admit that there may be some general categories. When playing with novices, you'll play with fewer and simpler conventions, than you might with an experienced player. But even then, some of your students may be more advanced than others. Keeping track of which ones play inverted minors, RKC, upside-down signals, etc. isn't easy -- at the beginning of the session you have to scan the CC and then remember all the choices (you can also refresh your memory between hands, but that's often too late to avert a mistake).

[mr1303]

Well, the player who forgot was me. You may make your own decision as to whether or not I'm a bad player, but the reason I forgot was because this was a partner whom I played rather a lot with up until 6 months ago, when work took me to another part of the country. This was the first time we'd played again in 6 months, and this was the first set of boards that we'd played.

Anyway, it was largely moot, since everyone and their uncle was in 3NT making some number of tricks and +150 was a bottom either way, just thought it was interesting.

[lalldonn]

Obviously you aren't one

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2012-August-16, 10:36, said:

Keeping track of which ones play inverted minors, RKC, upside-down signals, etc. isn't easy -- at the beginning of the session you have to scan the CC and then remember all the choices (you can also refresh your memory between hands, but that's often too late to avert a mistake).

Eh? You can look at your opponents' system card (assuming they have one) whenever it is your turn to call or play.

mr1303: you do know you can edit your own posts, right? I gather you got to 2NT (+150) and -150 in post #34 was a typo. If you'll confirm that, I'll just delete the erroneous post.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-16, 17:27, said:

Eh? You can look at your opponents' system card (assuming they have one) whenever it is your turn to call or play.

Eh? I think the opponents' card won't be helpful in determining what your partner is playing.

[blackshoe]

Heh. No it won't. My bad.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-August-16, 17:27, said:

Eh? You can look at your opponents' system card (assuming they have one) whenever it is your turn to call or play.

mr1303: you do know you can edit your own posts, right? I gather you got to 2NT (+150) and -150 in post #34 was a typo. If you'll confirm that, I'll just delete the erroneous post.

I did it for you, after he edited it down to virtual nothingness.

[mr1303]

Thanks. Incidentally the +150 was for 4D +1 rather than 2NT + 1,