TimG

I think the forcing nature of 3♣ makes it "potentially unexpected", even just plain "unexpected". So, yes, there is MI as a result of the failure to alert. I think it is reasonable for North to consider the auctions differently based upon the forcing/non-forcing nature of 3♣. With his 9 HCP and partner's ~5-9, it is certainly possible that this is a partscore deal. There are other arguments to be made, but this is enough for me. How to adjust, I do not know. If North bids 4♥, would 4♠ possibly show a control in a move towards a club slam rather than a four-card suit? If so, 5♣-1 seems a possibility.

I just upgraded to 3.5.2 (as a result of your post) and am able to open links just fine. In fact, the links used to pop up in IE even though firefox is my default browser, but now they are opened in a new firefox tab. So, it is working even better than before for me!

You are probably right in that many pairs who play 1♣ could be any balanced shape (even 4 diamonds and 2 clubs) may have another opening for the ~18-20 balanced hands so that my count is not really reflective of the approach. So, while what I presented was accurate in what I described, it may not be particularly relevant. Sorry if that is the case.

4=4=3=2 isnt 10-11% its less than 5% My, perhaps incorrect, understanding is that some open 1♣ on all balanced hands, leaving 1♦ to show an unbalanced hand, so that 1♣ would be opened with 4=4=3=2, 4=3=4=2 and 3=4=4=2. That is what I meant to address and what I meant by "all 4333 and 4432 hands".

If 1C = 11-14 balanced without 4 diamonds or 15-17 unabalanced with 5+ clubs or 18+ any then 1C is (about): weak balanced 55% medium clubs 11% strong any 34% Reduce the weak balanced range to 12-14 and: weak balanced 46% medium clubs 14% strong any 40% In either case, opener has 2 or fewer clubs around 14% or 15% of the time. Edit: In a natural system where 1C is opened on all 4333 and 4432 hands (not in range to open NT), a 1C opening is made on a 2-card club suit about 10% or 11% of the time.

Depends. I think there is a difference between "could be two but only with specifically 4=4=3=2" and "any balanced 12-14 without a 5-card d/h/s". The former can adequately be treated as natural. As for the later, it is less clear. 1♦ is opened on balanced hands with 4 diamonds. So, the minimum balanced version of a Polish 1♣ is also only 2 with specifically 4=4=3=2.

I agree with Tyler that a short pause in a competitive auction ought not be considered a tempo break. Doesn't a quick pass without any pause for thought potentially pass UI? By complaining about a short pause, it seems that East is in a position where no tempo can ever be right. It would be good practice if everyone always paused briefly before calling, especially in a competitive or potentially competitive auction. It is not really relevant to the hand, but if North's 3♠ bid is used for comparison, it seems that there is no alternative to West's 3♥.

The common variations of Polish Club that I have seen use a 1♦ opening which shows 4+ diamonds -- not nebulous at all. I don't think that a Polish 1♣ opening is that much different than a "natural" 2+ 1♣ opening which seems so popular these days. Yes, a Polish 1♣ could have 0 clubs, but only in a strong hand 18+ or 19+ depending upon variety. When the opponents have one of these hands, it's unlikely that you'll need to be worrying about such things as whether a club bid is a cue-bid raise of partner's overcall. But you might want to be bidding clubs naturally to find a sacrifice or just pre-empt the auction. You might want to be doing this over the more and more common 2+ 1♣ opening in a natural framework as well. I did not mean to suggest that it doesn't need some discussion, just that it is not that much different from something that most people encounter with regularity. I think I have seen players choose to use 2♣ as a natural overcall and 2♦ as Michaels.

True. But in ruling the director is instructed to consider things such as "normal play*" and what might be "irrational" which suggests to me that although play has ceased how the play might have gone is something to be considered. * includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Law 70E1 includes "unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play". So, the Laws specifically allow for discovery by failure to follow suit after a claim. To me, and I fully understand that there is room for disagreement here, declarer's post pause comment that trumps are 4-nil speaks to him being aware of the situation, or that he would have awoken to the situation when he cashed the first high trump. I think that if declarer had not been aware that the Nine was outstanding, he would have made no comment about trumps 4-nil after the pause because the 4-nil break would not have mattered.

The common variations of Polish Club that I have seen use a 1♦ opening which shows 4+ diamonds -- not nebulous at all. I don't think that a Polish 1♣ opening is that much different than a "natural" 2+ 1♣ opening which seems so popular these days. Yes, a Polish 1♣ could have 0 clubs, but only in a strong hand 18+ or 19+ depending upon variety. When the opponents have one of these hands, it's unlikely that you'll need to be worrying about such things as whether a club bid is a cue-bid raise of partner's overcall.

This sort of sounds like NS are due a bonus because their opponent made a sloppy claim. I don't think assigning a normal result to NS is "harsh" at all. To those who think the pregnant pause woke declarer up and that this makes a difference, don't you think that playing a high trump and seeing north discard would also have woken him up? (Yes, I understand there is some question whether declarer might think the 8 is high once seeing the remaining trumps are divided 4-0. The fact that the nine is outstanding might have been gleaned from the fact that the claim was not immediately accepted, but surely the 4-0 break would have been evident to declarer.)

I agree.

IMO, the questions (and resulting UI) do not suggest bidding 3♠ over passing. If north had come up with a takeout double over 3♥, I would consider that to have been suggested over passing. It's questionable whether 3♠ was even a LA.

I don't think that would be the end of it. You'd also need to look at hand where both sides opened 2D. Presumably the looser definition of 2D at one table will affect the result from time-to-time when 2D is opened at both tables -- maybe the looser definition makes it more difficult for the opening side or the more narrow definition makes it easier for the other side. There would also be times when neither side opens 2D that there would be different inferences available at each table. I think that in order to tell whether the looser style is better or worse you'd have to take into account all these things (and likely more) rather than just the situation where 2D is opened at one table and not at the other. I have been told about this, but I have not read the studies myself. I would suggest the studies were flawed if they only looked at situations where the actions were different at each table. There is also the possibility that competitive bidding has evolved since Vernes concluded that weak overcalls were losing bridge. Maybe they were losing bridge because advancer was not adequately prepared to deal with the weak overcalls. Today's players have available many more devices or methods to deal with competitive auctions (and more experience using them). Or, maybe weak overcalls are more effective today because of the methods (like negative doubles) that have been nearly universally adopted by the opening side. I'm not confident in my knowledge of bidding history, but I don't think that everyone, even at the World Championship level, played negative doubles in the 50s and 60s.

Unless you want different sets of alerts for different events, you would need to make the alert system very simple to accommodate beginners. Even something like 4th suit forcing will not be obvious to a beginner, but would not be alerted if you define the alert system as being based upon deviation from SAYC or 2/1.

That strikes me as very difficult, rather than showing that 2♦ wins IMPs over the long run, you'd likely have to start by showing that opening 2♦ with this hand loses fewer IMPs than passing and (possibly) giving the opponents a free run. Next, you'd have to figure out some way to quantify how much better your weak 2♦ fares if these types of hands are removed, and how removing these hands from the 2♦ opening bid changes life for the opponents when you do open 2♦. Even the, you might not be done.

2♦ for me.

I think west is primarily to blame. I don't like doubling 3♥ and once partner pulls to 3N it's easy to imagine a running club suit and the ♥A as the only tricks available (before the defenders cash out).

Or: I'm in the 1NT camp either way.

I would respond to those who have complained to you, my letter to them would include: 1) A thank-you for bringing the matter to your attention along with mention that curtailing this sort of behavior is important to your organization; and 2) A description of the ways in which the matter should be handled (either calling the director at the time or by filling out a recorder form and giving it to a director or the recorder). 3) A note that, although you will discuss the matter with the directing staff, there will likely be no charges against the offending player without either a director call or a recorder form. Also, that it is not too late to submit a recorder form. I don't think that ACBL regulations provide for investigation by the President of the organization, but neither do I think there is anything which precludes a President from submitting a recorder form based upon the complaints received. If you think the matter should be investigated, that is the course of action I take.

Which policy is the poll directed at: the alert policy, or the policy of never making adjustment for failure to alert certain calls?

Wow - other than the name, I don't agree with anything in this thread 3 years later. :rolleyes: 2 more years and you don't even agree with the name.

Seems like enough for 6♥ to me.

Two overcalls for me; 2nd one is close.

This is quite a hole in the agreements of the EW pair. If the double is not for penalties, then 2♠ must be natural. If 2♠ is not natural, then double must be for penalties. Perhaps it is a hole in their agreements, but I imagine that they have lots of company in not having discussed the sequence. Personally, I don't understand why. After a takeout double of 1♥, a subsequent double of 1♠ is a penalty double absent a specific agreement to the contrary. At least, that is the way it has been for about 80 years. Today, double never seems to mean double. It's not often discussed because it is not a common occurrence for intervenor to double and then bid responder's suit. I'm not sure I buy your suggested default agreement. I think lots of people would assume that in a sequence like 1H-X-1S-X the second double was responsive even if they had not specifically agreed to that. I'm not saying that I endorse that agreement, just that I think that is what lots of players would assume. As you say, today double never seems to mean double.