[the hog]

kenberg, on Jan 17 2007, 05:16 AM, said:

This discussion is falling into a pattern. If someone thinks that a player who has not studied Blue Club and kept up to date with its presumably many variations has only herself to blame, then I guess that's a view. Me, if my opponents are playing that over 1D they bid 1H with three hearts and 1NT with five hearts, I think they owe me some clear disclosure of their methods. But I am happy letting a director handle this sort of crap. That's what they get the big bucks for.

Absolutely correct. As this was a longer teams match I cannort see for the life of me why a thorough pre explanation wasn't given.

[Al_U_Card]

Since this is a local teams match, do you not have recourse with the sponsoring organization? Even just a request to provide complete notes et al might suffice.

[hotShot]

kenberg, on Jan 16 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

This discussion is falling into a pattern. If someone thinks that a player who has not studied Blue Club and kept up to date with its presumably many variations has only herself to blame, then I guess that's a view. Me, if my opponents are playing that over 1D they bid 1H with three hearts and 1NT with five hearts, I think they owe me some clear disclosure of their methods. But I am happy letting a director handle this sort of crap. That's what they get the big bucks for.

I don't think it matters what system they play, they have to provide full disclosure.

They even have to disclose partnership experience!

So if partner has bid 1♥ over 1♦ with a 3 carder before, they have to disclose that.

[inquiry]

First one, I think you could have protected yourself... when they said 2♠ showed 10-12, nonforcing and 6♠... I would guess my next question would have been about their weak two (or in this case multi), where I would have eventually dragged out of them the fact that they have no side four card suit.

That seems a weird treatment. That means they open 2♦ only with 6-3-2-2 or 6-3-3-1 distribution. There is no doubt that this is not standard and should be part of the alert... I would have been asking to determine suit quality, etc...

However, I also think a call to the director for HIM to explain the rules of alerting would have been in order (I never try to lecture my opponents... I tend to let the director do it.... one reason is have seen a lot of very bad interpretations of the laws by players, and I expect others have too, so much so, that I tend to ingore little lectures from my opponents...). These jokers need to learn the proper way to disclose their agreements.

[barmar]

Tola18, on Jan 16 2007, 11:00 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jan 16 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

In theory, players of non-standard systems should explain such things but it would slow things down.

More. I have more then once been asked NOT not explain. Us playing a rather unusual system. "We didnt ask".

Except for required announcements, you're never supposed to offer an explanation unless asked to explain an alert. But once they ask, you must disclose as fully as possible.

[awm]

Very poor disclosure on the part of your opponents. It'd be reasonable to call a director even if the match outcome isn't in doubt, to try and give these folks a lesson.

However, I've noticed that disclosure by people playing "standard" methods is often just as poor. Many of these examples could've unfolded similarly if the opponents weren't playing a strange system, and in fact I've found that the majority of people playing "weird" methods (although obviously not these folks) are more likely to disclose their methods properly than people playing standard methods. For example:

P - P - 1♥ - P;
2♠*

*weak

For people playing fairly standard systems, there are definite negative inferences here because of the failure to open a weak 2♠ (or multi or whatever). A guarantee of a side four-card minor, or mediocre spades, or a side suit void would certainly not be an uncommon situation. But most people won't explain this negative inference.

1♦ - P - 1♥

There are a lot of folks who would occasionally respond 1♥ with only three. This is especially common when the methods make it hard to raise diamonds on three-card support (for example precision 1♦ or some natural system with inverted minors). A prototypical example is something like:

x
Axx
xxx
KJTxxx

This is not strong enough to bid 2♣ in most people's methods, yet a lot of folks will shy away from responding 1NT (likely to lead to a poor contract and/or wrong-side a good contract) and instead bid 1♥. This is fairly safe if partner will almost never raise hearts without four (the 4-3 fit at the 2-level with ruffs in the short hand will play fine, and if partner rebids 1NT you can normally back into a club partial). However, very few people ever alert their 1♥ response in this auction as "could be three" especially if opener normally assumes four in their methods. Your opponents in question presumably can raise diamonds on three and only have issues when responder is exactly 3325 and too strong to pass but too weak for the (10-11 hcp) 1NT response. So it's similarly rare, and presumably opener assumes three cards.

On the last example, 1♦ - P - 1NT alerted as 10-11, the opponents didn't actually give any wrong information. It was your side's assumption that the 1NT bid showed some kind of balanced hand, when the opponents never indicated anything except the values. Obviously they should have given more complete information, but surely you could also have asked follow-up questions like "what distribution does this show?" or "what do we know about his shape?"

Anyways, I agree that better disclosure would be nice, and that you should call the director when these things happen. It's just unfortunate that this type of thing seems to generate so much more discussion when the opponents play non-standard stuff, even though the same issues crop up almost regardless of methods and people playing weird systems tend (as a whole) to be more proactive with regard to disclosure (at least this has been my experience).

[csdenmark]

awm, on Jan 17 2007, 12:41 AM, said:

Very poor disclosure on the part of your opponents. It'd be reasonable to call a director even if the match outcome isn't in doubt, to try and give these folks a lesson.

No need for that. They have told they play Blue Club and those sequences Frances has mentioned on top of this thread looks completely according to the book.

To me it looks like Frances has been in doubt because it looks like what he calls Blue Club looks to be a very special and private modification. I wonder how to play canape' with 1♦ - 1NT(5-4 majors).

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Jan 16 2007, 05:41 PM, said:

1♦ - P - 1♥

There are a lot of folks who would occasionally respond 1♥ with only three. This is especially common when the methods make it hard to raise diamonds on three-card support (for example precision 1♦ or some natural system with inverted minors). A prototypical example is something like:

x
Axx
xxx
KJTxxx

This is not strong enough to bid 2♣ in most people's methods, yet a lot of folks will shy away from responding 1NT (likely to lead to a poor contract and/or wrong-side a good contract) and instead bid 1♥. This is fairly safe if partner will almost never raise hearts without four (the 4-3 fit at the 2-level with ruffs in the short hand will play fine, and if partner rebids 1NT you can normally back into a club partial). However, very few people ever alert their 1♥ response in this auction as "could be three" especially if opener normally assumes four in their methods.

I think this is a wonderful example, and common for many people in Standard. In fact, I think you can separate it into two groups....

for 1♦-1♥-2♥, 1♥ absolutely promises 4 and 2♥ is frequently done with an unbalanced 3 (particularly 1-3-5-4 shape), and

for 1♦-1♥-2♥, 1♥ might be an unbalanced 3 (paticularly 1-3-3-6 shape) and 2♥ absolutely promises 4.

I don't remember my math, but I'm pretty convinced that you're better off in a 4-3 fit if the 3 also has a singleton at the 2 level (vs. 1NT). Against good players, not only does the alert of 1♥ tell me about the 1♥ bid, but it also tells me about the 2♥ bid, and while the 1♥ with 3 might be rare, the 2♣ rebid with 3 hearts won't be, and I won't expect that if I back into the auction.

I played against a table with 10,000 masterpoints playing 2/1 on Sunday in a qualifier. The auction went (with us passing throughout).

1♦ 1♥
1NT 3NT

I was later very surprised to find out that opener had 4-3-4-2 distribution, and they got an overtrick from it. I'm not sure what they were playing, but there must have been some sort of negative inference going on here. I did make a comment after the hand, but I didn't call the director. Should they have alerted 1NT as could have 4 ♠? Maybe, but I seriously doubt the director would have adjusted it.

[awm]

Keep in mind that a pre-alert of "we play X system" or an explanation of "it's Y convention" is not sufficient disclosure.

It is not the responsibility of your opponents to know your system based on a name, or your conventions based on the name. This is especially the case because many systems have been through a large number of versions (your blue club and my blue club may not be the same, although there are definitely similarities) and because there are a lot of named conventions out there (and a lot of different names for the same conventions).

[csdenmark]

awm, on Jan 17 2007, 01:05 AM, said:

Keep in mind that a pre-alert of "we play X system" or an explanation of "it's Y convention" is not sufficient disclosure.

It is not the responsibility of your opponents to know your system based on a name, or your conventions based on the name. This is especially the case because many systems have been through a large number of versions (your blue club and my blue club may not be the same, although there are definitely similarities) and because there are a lot of named conventions out there (and a lot of different names for the same conventions).

There are not so many variations of Blue Club as those calling themselves Precision. Certainly all don't need to know all kind of systems in details - but those who call themselves advanced need at least to know the basic of the well reputated systems - at least so much that they know where they need to ask.

The problems still looks like Frances has been trapped from his own private modification using the same name. I think it would have been brave of Frances to give it a laugh and continue.

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Jan 16 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

I played against a table with 10,000 masterpoints playing 2/1 on Sunday in a qualifier. The auction went (with us passing throughout).

1♦ 1♥
1NT 3NT

I was later very surprised to find out that opener had 4-3-4-2 distribution, and they got an overtrick from it. I'm not sure what they were playing, but there must have been some sort of negative inference going on here. I did make a comment after the hand, but I didn't call the director. Should they have alerted 1NT as could have 4 ♠? Maybe, but I seriously doubt the director would have adjusted it.

I play this style: a 1♠ bid by opener shows an unbalanced hand. Trust me, i know all the arguments against the style, but it works (for me and my partners, at least). However we alert the 1N rebid, as well as the 1♠ rebid. I don't actually know if the alert is mandated and, until i get told otherwise by a director, I will continue to alert...

[Stephen Tu]

http://www.acbl.org/...alertChart.html

For the ACBL, clearly natural 1nt/2nt responses & rebids of expected strength ranges are non-alertable for possibly bypassed 4 card majors.

At one time some of these were alertable but it was changed a few years ago. So now you have to ask the opponents for whatever negative inferences are available.

[the hog]

mikeh, on Jan 17 2007, 10:40 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jan 16 2007, 05:58 PM, said:

I played against a table with 10,000 masterpoints playing 2/1 on Sunday in a qualifier.  The auction went (with us passing throughout).

1♦  1♥
1NT    3NT

I was later very surprised to find out that opener had 4-3-4-2 distribution, and they got an overtrick from it.  I'm not sure what they were playing, but there must have been some sort of negative inference going on here.  I did make a comment after the hand, but I didn't call the director.  Should they have alerted 1NT as could have 4 ♠?  Maybe, but I seriously doubt the director would have adjusted it.

I play this style: a 1♠ bid by opener shows an unbalanced hand. Trust me, i know all the arguments against the style, but it works (for me and my partners, at least). However we alert the 1N rebid, as well as the 1♠ rebid. I don't actually know if the alert is mandated and, until i get told otherwise by a director, I will continue to alert...

I too play this style. Bidding 2 suits for me also shows an unbalanced hand - at least some 5422 shape. Jtfanclub, I am surprised that you are surprised, as this is very common practice.

Fwiw, we pre alert.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Jan 16 2007, 05:01 PM, said:

Except for required announcements, you're never supposed to offer an explanation unless asked to explain an alert. But once they ask, you must disclose as fully as possible.

Not entirely true. A player is entitled to ask for an explanation of the entire auction whenever it is his turn to call or play. Law 20F. Of course, full disclosure principles apply. This holds even if there have been no alerts.

It is true one is not supposed to explain why one alerted unless asked.

[matmat]

csdenmark, on Jan 16 2007, 05:57 PM, said:

awm, on Jan 17 2007, 12:41 AM, said:

Very poor disclosure on the part of your opponents. It'd be reasonable to call a director even if the match outcome isn't in doubt, to try and give these folks a lesson.

No need for that. They have told they play Blue Club and those sequences Frances has mentioned on top of this thread looks completely according to the book.

To me it looks like Frances has been in doubt because it looks like what he calls Blue Club looks to be a very special and private modification. I wonder how to play canape' with 1♦ - 1NT(5-4 majors).

This is bullcrap.
If I ever play against you remind me to pull out the local home-brewed club system. it's got a name, it's called seismic club. I'll be sure to tell you ahead of time that we are playing it, but will, intentionally, fail to announce or explain any of the bids. Let's see how you'll like it. I mean, it's standard seismic club... you should know it...

[glen]

csdenmark, on Jan 16 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

Frances I am not sure you have much to complain about here. You have been informed of your opps.

Did you misread the starting post? Let's take just the first example.

starting post said:

US: Please explain the auction
THEM: 1H natural, possible canape
THEM: 2S non-forcing

That is how they explained the auction. You really believe that is properly informing the opponents? Is this all you would type into a FD description? If you don't believe this is properly informing the opponents, then you are sure that there is "much to complain about here". In that case you should retract your contention.

The point is that numerous follow-up questions were required to drag the information out.

Contrast to:

US: Please explain the auction? *

THEM: 1H natural, four or longer, possible longer second suit**, always unbalanced, 10-16 points.
THEM: 2S non-forcing, 8-10*** has four card minor since would have opened a Multi without one.

* I suggest "please explain the auction, fully describing each of your bids as much as you know about them"
** this assumes in their system, any other suit can be the longer suit, even the other major
*** 10-12 range provided by them makes no sense in their system context, so 8-10 likely real range.

[jikl]

Earth to Planet Claus. Earth to Planet Claus.

No response. Oh well.

Sean

[SteelWheel]

QUOTE (awm @ Jan 16 2007, 05:41 PM)

Quote

There are a lot of folks who would occasionally respond 1♥ with only three. This is especially common when the methods make it hard to raise diamonds on three-card support (for example precision 1♦ or some natural system with inverted minors). A prototypical example is something like:

x
Axx
xxx
KJTxxx

This is not strong enough to bid 2♣ in most people's methods, yet a lot of folks will shy away from responding 1NT (likely to lead to a poor contract and/or wrong-side a good contract) and instead bid 1♥. This is fairly safe if partner will almost never raise hearts without four (the 4-3 fit at the 2-level with ruffs in the short hand will play fine, and if partner rebids 1NT you can normally back into a club partial). However, very few people ever alert their 1♥ response in this auction as "could be three" especially if opener normally assumes four in their methods. Your opponents in question presumably can raise diamonds on three and only have issues when responder is exactly 3325 and too strong to pass but too weak for the (10-11 hcp) 1NT response. So it's similarly rare, and presumably opener assumes three cards.

This whole sub-topic is of great interest to me, as someone who has played a lot of strong club systems in my day. Here in the US, the ACBL GCC specifically forbids a conventional understanding that a 1♥ bid may occasionally be made here on a 3-card holding. Yet what other call am I, as a thinking bridge player, supposed to make in this situation?

I independently "re-invented the wheel" and improvised a 1♥ call the first time I was confronted with this type of auction (actually, the second time--we won't talk about the disaster that occurred the first time..but the disaster was what made me realize there had to be a better way to handle this hand type). After awhile, my pards and I realized that we had an implicit partnership agreement. Being ethical, we started to alert it. And then one day, somebody called the TD on us. We were advised that it was ILLEGAL to have such an agreement.

Following this, I showed a hand very similar to Adam's example hand above to several of the best TDs the ACBL has. I told them that they were playing Precision, and partner had opened 1♦ (potentially as short as a two-card holding), RHO had passed, and asked them what they would do. In each case, the answer was the same: They would all bid 1♥. Now that I had sprung the trap, I then referred each TD to the ACBL regs on what constitutes a "suit" as the ACBL defines it, and all the other relevant regs. I left one top TD in particular, scrambling for an acceptable way to explain such an improvised call, a way that would not be deemed to have been drawn from the "dark side". He couldn't come up with one.

So what's the final outcome? Nobody is going to take away my license to play bridge. People can talk to me all day long about the Work/Goren point count system and how this many high card points is necessary for game, and this many for slam, and eight ever and nine never, all day long; for me bridge is not a game of following rules, it's a game where you are rewarded for thinking, not for following rules. If I think it's right to fudge on my heart length because I believe it will be the best way to handle the auction, I'm going to do so. The only problem is that now, I'm forced to NOT DISCLOSE this agreement, because the ACBL doesn't care to allow me to play bridge; instead, I'm expected to play some other game that looks sorta like bridge, but actually comes closer to Euchre (at least when it comes to matters like these).

Make no mistake, I'm exceedingly unhappy about this situation, but that's the state of play in ACBL-land.

And PS: In Al Roth's book, "Picture Bidding", (not one to embrace new and different ideas just for the sake of novelty), he devotes an entire chapter to the topic of responding in three-card majors to partner's 1-minor opener. I would have just loved to have seen someone call the bridge police on him. I'm willing to bet that the TD would have just laughed it off and moved on.

As for the rest of us, we're just boxed in, and forced to play in a manner that leaves me extraordinarily uncomfortable, from an ethics point of view, but with no hope for a resolution in sight.

Oh, and Frances: Even though you won by 90 imps or so--You wuz robbed. I would complain to the sponsoring organization. You have an obligation to protect the integrity of the event. Not all of the other teams will be as easily able to refrain from getting their brains twisted by this team's lack of FD. You should want this match to determine the best team in the event on the merits, and not based on which team can most readily baffle the field with its BS.

Claus: Bwah Hah. Nothing else need be said.

[csdenmark]

officeglen, on Jan 17 2007, 05:52 AM, said:

csdenmark, on Jan 16 2007, 10:41 AM, said:

Frances I am not sure you have much to complain about here. You have been informed of your opps.

Did you misread the starting post? Let's take just the first example.

starting post said:

US: Please explain the auction
THEM: 1H natural, possible canape
THEM: 2S non-forcing

That is how they explained the auction. You really believe that is properly informing the opponents? Is this all you would type into a FD description? If you don't believe this is properly informing the opponents, then you are sure that there is "much to complain about here". In that case you should retract your contention.

The point is that numerous follow-up questions were required to drag the information out.

Contrast to:

US: Please explain the auction? *

THEM: 1H natural, four or longer, possible longer second suit**, always unbalanced, 10-16 points.
THEM: 2S non-forcing, 8-10*** has four card minor since would have opened a Multi without one.

* I suggest "please explain the auction, fully describing each of your bids as much as you know about them"
** this assumes in their system, any other suit can be the longer suit, even the other major
*** 10-12 range provided by them makes no sense in their system context, so 8-10 likely real range.

I don't misread I think. The explanation is completely according to book. Thats the implication of canape'.