[gordontd]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-27, 03:14, said:

But I am sure you do know plenty of books and courses that teach beginners not to open 1NT with a 5 card major. Perhaps not so many these days as was once the case but all of those old books are still around and the majority of players do not keep up with the "latest" trends. And I am also absolutely positive that you are well aware that "highly unexpected" for London is rather different from many other parts of the country, something that the regulations obviously do not address at all.

I refer you to my post #9 above which I think covers your first point.

Of course if you are playing in an environment where responding 1NT while bypassing a four-card or longer major suit is expected, no-one will alert and no-one will be taken by surprise so there will be no question of a ruling.

[sanst]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-26, 17:50, said:

Why are you not reading Law 19A from the book to these people?

Because you first have to explain the difference between a call and a bid. Besides, they're not interested in law text. The only reason they play is,t's a nice way to spend the afternoon or evening, chat a bit and play something they call bridge. The result is not very important, for some totally unimportant.

[helene_t]

sanst, on 2017-January-26, 15:52, said:

I've more than once tried to explain that the sequence (pass)-double is not allowed.

Ha-ha, my favorite TD call was about a player who violated the rule that second seat has to play low.

[weejonnie]

sanst, on 2017-January-26, 15:52, said:

Most play 5 card major and a 1♣ opening bid shows 2+. That's about the only bid they alert and adding, though nobody asks, "can be two".

In England prepared or short 1♣ openings (which are not forcing but may be made on two cards or fewer) are announced (not alerted) as "may be n" - so obviously 'correct' procedure depends on RA.

[sanst]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-27, 06:12, said:

In England prepared or short 1♣ openings (which are not forcing but may be made on two cards or fewer) are announced (not alerted) as "may be n" - so obviously 'correct' procedure depends on RA.

In Holland anouncing is not part of the regulations and its not allowed to explain a bid without being asked. Not that it matters in this case.

[Vampyr]

StevenG, on 2017-January-26, 09:33, said:

I don't see the relevance of that. Most people are learning from friends in kitchen bridge, then non-affiliated clubs, not from accredited bridge teachers. My views are based on what I see week in, week out, not what I would like to see.

I don't think that Gordon was implying that these people took bridge lessons. I think he was using methods taught as a sort of metric on what can be considered normal or abnormal.

sanst, on 2017-January-27, 06:44, said:

In Holland anouncing is not part of the regulations and its not allowed to explain a bid without being asked. Not that it matters in this case.

We had problems with things like alerting 2♦; played most frequently as natural and weak weak but could be eg Multi or Benji. Same with opening 1♣ -- back in the day you alerted it if it could be three(!), again most frequently played as natural, might be short, but could be Precision, Polish etc. The current regulation works much better.

[blackshoe]

sanst, on 2017-January-27, 05:02, said:

Because you first have to explain the difference between a call and a bid. Besides, they're not interested in law text. The only reason they play is,t's a nice way to spend the afternoon or evening, chat a bit and play something they call bridge. The result is not very important, for some totally unimportant.

So just tell them it's illegal, and if they argue, tell them to STFU. If they do it again, issue a PP.

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-27, 09:45, said:

So just tell them it's illegal, and if they argue, tell them to STFU. If they do it again, issue a PP.

How to lose a pair of potential bridge players - 101.

If I may add - when at school, I had been playing bridge (rubber) for some time so, when the opportunity arose at the first duplicate I attended (a teams event between schools), I claimed 150 honours! The TD very kindly explained that the scoring in rubber and duplicate were different and honours didn't count.

[blackshoe]

See the smiley there, weejonnie? It was meant to indicate that I was kidding.

I guess "I don't get English humor" works both ways.

And yes, the director at your first duplicate handled that situation exactly the way he should have done, and the way I would have done.