Balrog
8/11/2012 9:38:00 PM
In article <b261ab75-6d44-4540-a245-a44c7aca1dfc@googlegroups.com>,
mc110011cm@gmail.com says...
>
> On Saturday, August 11, 2012 2:48:37 PM UTC-4, Balrog wrote:
> > In article <e1a77ea7-3a78-4a09-ab69-9b4fc9f6b1bc@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > mc1... says...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 2:07:31 PM UTC-4, Balrog wrote:
> >
> > > > In article <34e07166-8aa0-4b81-8876-560a1973e6fd@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > larrymstein@earthlink.net says...
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > my rho opens 2 spades, weak. i have 5 clubs and 5 diamonds and opening strength.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > i would think that 2nt by me tells partner that it means unusual no trump.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > is that standard practice or a partner agreement thing. what would you bid to show 5/5 in the minos?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > The unusual notrump shows a good hand or a bad hand. With something in
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > between, overcall in the higher-ranking suit, then bid the lower-ranking
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > suit.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > This is a ludicrously categorical statement. There are many good players who would simply not bid 2NT with a bad hand 5-5.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Christopher Monsour
> >
> >
> >
> > Whether or not to use the unusual notrump on any particular hand is an
> >
> > individual judgment call and has nothing to do with what I said. Next
> >
> > time, get a basic understanding of the subject matter before you start
> >
> > using words like "ludicrous."
>
> I said the statement was "ludicrously categorical", which it is, as *vide infra*, and which is fair argument that makes a point. I didn't say "Barry Rogoff is ludicrous" nor that he has an insufficient grasp of the subject matter (though I soon might), which would be an *ad hominem* argument. See the difference?
>
> I do have a basic understanding of the subject matter. "Unusual notrump" refers to a NT bid that either shows both minors or shows the two lowest unbid suits. It does not have a specific range. *You* may agree with your partner that the hand must be weak or strong. ABC may agree with his partner that the hand must be medium or better. DEF may agree with his partner that it may be any strength. And GHI may agree with his partner that the strength depends on
vulnerability. All of them are playing "unusual notrump". Thus, the categorical statement that "The unusual notrump shows a good hand or a bad hand.", excluding in-between hands, is simply, unequivocally false.
The truth depends on what you consider to be the authoritative
definition of the convention. I have described how it's most commonly
used among the vast majority of advanced to world class players. My goal
is to help someone understand, not to argue semantics.
>
> > According to Wikipedia:
> >
> >
> >
> > "When the right-hand opponent opens 1H or 1S, the immediate overcall of
> >
> > 2 NT shows at least 5-5 in the minor suits (that is, at least five clubs
> >
> > plus at least five diamonds) and, presumably, a weakish hand (6 to 11
> >
> > points)... If the 2 notrump bidder bids again freely, then it shows a
> >
> > strong two suiter. To distinguish the weak and strong holdings, many
> >
> > partnerships agree not to use the unusual notrump for intermediate hands
> >
> > (about 12 to 14 points); they would simply overcall with one of their
> >
> > suits and show the other later if the bidding offers a chance."
>
> If I had a nickel for every inaccuracy in Wikipedia, I'd be a rich man. And I rather think that if you need to refer to Wikipedia for a definition of "unusual notrump", you are the one who does not have "a basic understanding of the subject matter" at hand here.
Wikipedia was just a convenient source that I used to save time. Consult
any other source and you'll find pretty much the same information.
>
> Christopher Monsour