Quote:
For example, Sieg, I don't know a single person who plays 1NT with two different meanings depending on the minimum points for a 1M response in this spot, and rightfully so. It sounds like a terrible way to handle this auction.
I don't know anyone who does against standard 1m-p-1M auctions either, but I suspect that is because of a) lack of disclosure, and b) in a lot of fields either "everybody" is sound or "everybody" is light. But we both know a lot of people who treat 1C(Precision)-p-1H-1NT differently from 1C(Standard)-p-1H-1NT.
Related to disclosure ... for several months, I actually had the agreement with a regular partner that 1m-X-1M(Forcing)-X was a desire to compete while 1m-X-1M(NF)-X was values in responder's major. We gave it up after we discovered that the most common answer to "is 1M forcing?" in club games and sectionals was "I don't know." (Which of the two is a good agreement depends not just on whether 1M is forcing but on how prone to cuteness your opps are-- my point is just that the mixed counter-strategy was hard to implement because of opponents not knowing their system, not that it is necessary a good place to vary your system.)
I actually WOULD seriously consider "Sandwich NT unless the opponents play Wolff or 2nd-round transfers over 1m-1M-2N," as something that is likely to be on the cc's of the people who are most likely to respond light.
---
The 15-17 vs 14+ to 17 item is a prime example, where the defenders will very often be able to place a key card based on knowing declarer can't have 14. I am happy to say that as upgrading has become more popular, so too has disclosure of it on cards.
Last edited by Siegmund; 11-29-2014 at 07:30 PM.