[mycroft]

Okay, I knew I was being unclear. Remember that information that is unauthorized to the partner of the player giving it is usable "at their own risk" to the opponents.

What I'm meaning is that since the reason for the question was a failure to say anything in a situation where something is required no matter what the meaning of the call, that any information transmitted is unauthorized for the offenders and authorized for the non-offenders, even if the NOS is innocuously or deliberately using the WeaSeL defence.

Again, that is *not* the current rule; and shouldn't be (for other reasons). But it sure would clear up these minor "forgets" in a hurry - if they noticed, anyway.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2016-May-25, 13:51, said:

Okay, I knew I was being unclear. Remember that information that is unauthorized to the partner of the player giving it is usable "at their own risk" to the opponents.

What I'm meaning is that since the reason for the question was a failure to say anything in a situation where something is required no matter what the meaning of the call, that any information transmitted is unauthorized for the offenders and authorized for the non-offenders, even if the NOS is innocuously or deliberately using the WeaSeL defence.

Again, that is *not* the current rule; and shouldn't be (for other reasons). But it sure would clear up these minor "forgets" in a hurry - if they noticed, anyway.

I think it should be the rule, which was kind of what my question was about.

Anyway, with any luck you were not in a rush to start the round, so the opponents will have told you their basic system (but then again, they don't always mention what their two-level openings are).

[blackshoe]

I do not have the meaning of "the WeaSeL defense" clearly fixed in my mind. I'll make a note of it, if someone will tell me what it is.

Rush? When most EWs come to sit down at our table, usually at least one of them has his cards out of the board before he's fully seated. What rush?

[mycroft]

WeaSeL over Preemption. Works just as well against weak NTs, and unAnnounced strong NTs. Often known in various countries as "The <rival country> defence".

Basically, there are four types of hands.

• with absolute tripe, you pass, quickly. Partner doesn't balance without the nuts.
  
• with interest, but nothing to bid, or with something to bid, but insufficient strength, you ask the range, and then pass. An advanced detail, not played by everybody, is to take about a second for each 3-4 HCP to pass. Partner is encouraged to balance with anything reasonable.
  
• with a clear call, but no game interest, ask, think, and bid. Partner is not enouraged to compete without a big fit, and should use their judgement to pull penalty doubles.
  
• with the big hand, just make the call, probably quickly (bonus points if you can get it on the table before LHO can make the required Announcement). If partner pulls your penalty double, she's walking home.

I can pretty much guarantee that playing this system will improve your results against 1NT openers, no matter the range, by half-a-board a night. That's because when the ACBL switched from Alerting weak NTs (back in 1990) to Announcing them, my partnership median score improved from 49% in that field to 52% in the same field. I can't imagine it doesn't work just as well against unAnnounced 2-openers in England (I know it works well against a weak 2♦ in the ACBL - the only meaning for a 2♦ opener that does not require an Alert).

As I frequently say, this is the only convention that works *better* if you don't know you're playing it, because as overcaller, you'll do the right thing automatically, and as advancer, your brain makes the connection for you without any conscious thought.

[blackshoe]

Thanks, Mycroft.

[mycroft]

Heh - "tell you their basic system". What a laff. (Seriously, it's not required or expected in NA - the top non-names line of the CC (and the fact that the NT range is right underneath that) is designed for that. But of course, finding the card is often an exercise in futility...)

Apart from the two or three that reflexively (and somewhat obnoxiously, in one case) ask "So, what are you playing *today*?" to us (with, to give them credit, good reason(*)), this kind of information is just not exchanged.

(*) "Up to you. Do you want us to play our serious system, our fooling around system, or our mildly illegal system?"