coyot

I would not worry about balancing with 1♠ here. First, partner is not blind. He has seen me passing 1♣ - and I will NOT balance with a 5card that was not worth an one level overcall, so this is 99% 4card. Second, I have a nice hand. If opps have 23 HCP, I don't fear going -200 or -300 any often. My clubs look good, my spades look good. Unless my partner happens to have totally useless cards, I assume that 6 tricks shouldn't be so hard to achieve.

It seems I'll be losing a spade, club and 1-2 hearts. If I am to lose 2 hearts, I need two diamond ruffs - so I would ruff a club high in hand - and if it holds, immediately cash 2 diamonds, ruff the 3rd with king, cross with spade ace, ruff the 4th diamond with jack. That leaves me with Q, 109xx, x, -. If the jack holds as well (and LHO is stuck with AQx in hearts and 3 spades, I can now exit with spade to his king, ruff a spade return with a small trump, lead a high heart and hope that ROH produces the darned 7 :) There probably are much better ways, but this is the first that came to my mind...

Pass. P has at least 5 losers, I'm not likely to fix two of them for him - and most of the field will probably bid the same way. Even with Ace of hearts I would probably pass with a spade singleton. OK, I would miss an occasional game... but I would also prevent an occasional disaster...

Sure - 2♥ is then weak, 3♥ is GF and 3♥ via Leb is invit.

kgr's post is not irrelevant. The whole issue about alerting or not 1NT rebid of an opener that might conceal unbid (and biddable) major is very similar to 1NT response to a minor opening. If your system's approach is to look for a major fit first, alerting 1NT rebid that conceals spades is equal to alerting 1NT response that may conceal majors - because the mentioned bidding sequence violates the premise of majors-first. I'm not sure whether the popularity of the treatment should be the deciding factor. But, if so, you would then alert 1♠ rebid as it denies balanced hand. I don't really care which of the two gets alerted, as long as one gets and the regulations are clear on which one. I don't want to have to investigate this each time the sequence occurs and the opps KNOW something I don't know.

Just to clarify, yes, I happen to be the same "coyot" as the one on BBO, and yes, I fly Czech Republic flag (with the short exception of Union Jack a few weeks back). So I did not bother setting the time zone, sorry, never knew I could do that :-). I am sorry if my sentence about educating seems arrogant, but I find it appropriate. Most of the absent alerts are caused by lack of knowledge. Players don't know they should alert, either because they've never heard about alerting or because they assume that everyone plays the system they play... so the transfer of knowledge (=education) seems appropriate. I must admit that I didn't know about BBO alerting rules. What about moving them from bridge library? Or making a link to them so that every new player has to acknowledge them? It has been said before that the purpose of this debate is NOT to make TDs hand out penalties, not in the first place. But, on the other hand, somebody very nicely stated that we need TDs that know the rules, not just babysitters that will sub reds. The purpose of this debate could perhaps be to get to a little more detailed alerting rules, let them be BBO rules, which would not only say "alert if you have any doubt" but also "this should include the following bids". I don't particularly care what the contents of the list would be. I could live with alerting Stayman, Transfers and better minors, I could live without alerting them as well, but I want to have some GROUNDS - and I don't want those grounds based on "what does this particular player THINK is natural".

Czech does not look right Ben. I have checked all postings. Several references to SA and as far as I know Czech is Precision-land. The comments about poles(neighbours?) looks not so friendly. Yes, I will gladly inform. Claus, you seem to know little about Czech. Not at all precision land. There is a strong ACOL group around the Open Team, most of them play Mr. Svoboda's variant of ACOL. Roughly a 100 followers There are three more "local" flavours of ACOL, which are spreading among the new bridge players, usually of older age. In the Eastern part of country, there are lots of WJ players True, the precision group would amount to another hundred. Then there are smaller regional groups - usually one system per town (Limit, Trutnov Dragon - probably precision based). Then there is a strong SA group, mainly among the younger players. (There is a saying that says that we have a thousand players and thousand one bidding systems :))) Living and playing in such a jungle, you learn to alert a lot and explain a lot and it seems ill not to do so. I don't think I have made any unfriendly comments about Poles. I quite understand their position - they come from a country that is almost homogenous when it comes to bidding. Their players regularly score very high, so they have all the reasons to think that WJ = bridge :-). And that's why I spoke about educating them. Some of them don't realize that 1♣ opener should be alerted (and why). This debate arose because the thread starter complained about getting rude comments as the only reaction to his request that someone alert their unnatural bids. I don't think Poles are rude, but I certainly admit that I've seen quite many unalerted 1♣ openers and my experience when asking the players to alert those bids was not 100% positive, as well. BTW, you've checked all postings and think that Czech does not look right? Well, check them again. I explicitly said "here in Czech Republic" at least once.

Edited this out, unnecessary teasing :). Claus now knows I'm not American and my "education" is explained below.

You seem to be interpreting this in the opposite way to what I meant. I was referring to what I alert/explain, based on opponent profiles, not what I expect/assume opponent bids to mean. I did that on purpose. I wanted to show that making an assumption either way is bad. I agree that in MBC, when playing against two ppl who play a similar system, you can do without most alerts if you tell them what you play (and it is roughly the same). I don't pester people for not alerting better minors and stayman and transfers IF their profiles show "sayc" - but that holds for me in MBC only. In tournament, there is no room for assumptions. If they don't have CC posted, I assume they bid natural and want to be made aware if not - and I do it for one simple reason - to let people know that they cannot expect their opponents to KNOW their bidding system, whether it is SAYC or WJ.

My guess would be that showing a worthless doubleton will help you find a good 23 HCP game more often than it will help the defense defeat the contract.

WBF says it clearly. If you have a special explicit OR implicit agreement, you should alert the call. I'm not saying the rules are perfect, but there are no better rules. If you have your CC posted, most of the alerts shown are unnecessary. To the quoted part: Why do you exclude 4card heart support? Should 1NT rebid with full support be alerted? Why? It shows a non-forcing balanced hand, doesn't it? I simply think that full disclosure has it's merits. When I play SA based system, whose primary objective is to find major suit fit, I alert bids that would make opponents assume the absence of major suits when it is not true. If 1♠ rebid promises a two-three suited hand and my partner knows it at this very moment, I think the opponents should be given the knowledge as well. I've been playing this way for 4 years and RARELY it happens that somebody feels discomforted by our frequent use of alerts. Maybe coming from a place where there are about 6 frequently used systems spread among a thousand players teaches you respect and full disclosure more. Maybe, if everyone around me played some variant of SAYC, I wouldn't care a bit. Frances, alerting rules and full disclosure ARE closely related. Alerting rules protect the defenders. Alerts give them the hint that they SHOULD ask, because the bid is wider/narrower than they might think. Strict alerting rules are good because you can then keep the auction quiet if opps don't alert - and you KNOW that you're not missing anything interesting. CC contains enough room to cover the opening bids in detail. Yes, my CC says that we open 1NT with any 15-17 up to 7222, but NEVER with a major 5card. Yes, my CC says that the upper limit of 1M opener is 5 losers and of 1m opener 4 losers, no matter what the point count. I am doing my best to give the opps all the information my partner has, because it is the right thing to do. I wonder how would the attitude towards alerting correspond to nationality :). I don't know about most of the folks around here, but so far I have the feeling that Europeans are generally more inclined to alerting than Americans. Frances, be fair - kgr's post is NOT totally irrelevant. It is just a matter of system approach! In Belgium, they evidently consider the "majors first" as a Holy Grail (as do I). I am sure that for example The Hog (following the spirit of his last post when he quoted me) will tell you that to make a 6-9 BAL bid of 1NT with a major 4card is perfectly OK and does not need to be alerted, when it shows balanced hand. If you really want to throw regulations around, I am not aware of ANY alerting regulations in practice on BBO. When you visit the website, nothing. When you install the client, nothing. When you join a table, nothing. Does that mean that we don't have to alert anything at all? If I enter a tournament that does not say anything in it's description about alerts, I'm free to play whatever system and alert no bid, because there are no regulations? I don't think so. Everyone who plays on BBO assumes there are "some regulations". Americans assume they're ACBL regulations, maybe. Majority of others follow the regulations they're used to. I came to the conclusion that in the absence of any mentioned regulations, WBF regulations apply - because almost everyone knows that WBF exists AND their regulations are not complicated. If you play in Belgium and under Belgian regulations, you read them first. OK, what regulations did you read to play on BBO?

Perhaps it would be worth NOT playing re-transfers here - when the declarer shows his worthless doubleton, seeing the strong hand as dummy might no longer give the statistical 1/4-1/2 trick to defense...

My favourite rule is another quality test - will it cost a trick if partner leads the King from Kx in the suit of your overcall? If your hand contains Jxxxxx, it is hardly a good idea to enter the bidding... I make lighter, lead-suggesting overcalls against a passed partner (starting somewhere at good 7-8 HCP), otherwise 10+ on 1st level 5card and 2nd level 6card, 12+ on 2nd level 5card.

I think it is generally OK to just specify the name of the convention, unless I am aware that we play a non-standard version - but use this treatment for well-known conventions only. Transfers are OK without description, so is Stayman (if it systematically promises at least one major 4card). I alert my Stayman as it can be also weak, willing to any response. I don't really care about people who're not willing to ask what Precision means. I don't feel embarrassed asking for a system I don't know. For this reason, I am happy when opponents just say Precision, because my knowledge of this system is sufficient to know roughly what's going on... If the opponents ask what does that convention, I will, of course, provide full disclosure. There are cases when a simple description drives me mad. 1♣-1♠-2♦-2♠. When they alert and I ask, about 50% players here say "Fourth suit", to which my usual response is "Oh, thank you, I wouldn't figure that out :D), these numbers are so complicated". It's always the problem of a person living in "one system" environment for the whole life - they never realize that other people might play FSF differently :)

Unless somebody comes up with BBO standard, the ONLY rules that we can safely adopt are WBF rules. Under those rules, SAYC better minor IS alertable. Under ANY rules (maybe with the exception of Poland, not sure), 1♣ in Polish Club IS alertable. sceptic: 1) Yes, I do alert better minor openers 2) I don't care what is the standard for alerting in Poland. With full respect to Polish players, unless they're playing on their home turf under their country rules, I will want them to alert their [1CL] opener. I WILL ask for adjusts in tournaments if the alert absence could cause any damage. And once BBO allows procedural penalties, I will report them to TDs for not adhering to the rules. 3) I don't expect opps to TELL me everything for a few boards unless I ask, but I DO expect them to use alert button to let me know that there is something I could be interested in. I will alert my bids no matter what opps profiles say, no matter what our profiles say. I will alert my bids no matter what my CC says. The rules say so and following those rules shows respect for opponents. The only exceptions would be, in MBC, when both sides announce the system they play and it happens to be the same system (or very similar). Epeeist: If you happen to assume (from their profiles) that opps play SA2/1 and later discover that they were playing precision, what will you do? Will you just think "oh, my bad, I should have not made that assumptions"? Will you report them to abuse for "misleading you"? (And will you report them to abuse, if they alerted their 1♣ opening?)

Please don't try to educate me. I am not interested in the american way! If you really want to teach somebody something - try to explain the americans what it means to go international. A nice and completely wrong assumption, Claus. I am not american and I don't think that educating people to follow WBF rules is "the american way".

Depends on what agreements you have. I prefer to bid 3♥ with minumum and 4card (LOTT) and show shape by bidding doubleton. In that case, I'd probably pass, but not sure. If the bid shows maximum, no doubt about game. I don't know what the odds for the game would be, but bidding [3HE] would be betting that partner has a working doubleton... Another important factor in the decision would be what is the field like and whether we need to score or are happy with average on this board. In any aggresive-looking field, bid the game.

Oh yes it is. It conveys a special agreement in this case (as 1♠ would be the "natural" bid in most systems and quite likely in the system used in this case.) The 1NT rebid which may have a 4 card Major is certainly NOT alertable. Jimmy, I don't alert it and wouldn't dream of doing so. It is a natural bid. The 1NT bid is a suggestion of a contract opposite a partner's limited response. It is totally natural and therefore not alertable. I don't know of any player in serious competitions here who alerts this. Jilly and others, would you rebid 1S holding this shape: xxxx xxx xxx xxx for example? I don't think so! Sorry, Hog, not true. There simply are two possible meanings for the 1NT bid (and 1♠) 1NT either it denies 4card major or not 1♠ either denies balanced hand or not. (Of course, I admit that you might play a system where the above is not true and you can bid 1♠ or 1NT as you see fit - but I think that this approach is not widely used as it robs you of possibilities of better describing your hands). We might argue which of the two possibilities is natural, but as far as I know, majority of bidding systems PREFER finding a major fit to specifying shape and point range by default. (Hence 1M openers 5332). From this, I draw the conclusion that "hiding" your major and showing the shape and point range first is the less natural thing than bidding 4card major. Since you and your partner most likely HAVE an agreement about the above, your opponents are entitled by the bridge rules to be made aware that a special agreement exists. (Hiding your 4 spades with 4333 shape might be either another partnership agreement or your decision not to bid according to the system - if partner expects this type hand to be bid as 1NT, he should alert, if he expects you not to have 4 spades, he should not.)

I see no great difference between the two quotes. And in my culture the author would be treated the same way because he would not get enough time to finish the second one. Erkson That shows how different the cultures are. Must admit that I would not want to live in your culture, though, because it makes a big difference to me whether you criticise someones action or decision or criticise him as a person. And I would certainly agree with the 2nd type of qoutes being taken out and shot. Even the original message that caused this whole issue was over my limit of good manners (though not by a big margin).

Perhaps the solution would be a customizable file with "bid definitions". Example file: 1♣ - natural | better minor 1♦ - natural | better minor | natural denies major 4card unless GF values and 5+♦ 1♥ - natural | 4card is enough | natural and denies other major | transfer to spades ... This would cause the system to show a dropdown with possible meanings. If you click on alert, you have to choose one item (separated by |). Since for higher bids there would be a lot more possibilities, perhaps it would be good if the system could "recognize" which partial popup menu to use... I.e: Opening and response section: [2HE] weak 6card or 5+4minor | 6+card 2-5 HCP | 5+card 12+HCP | 3card 6-9 HCP | transfer to spades Opener rebids 2♥ 6card 12-15 | 4card 12-17 | 4card 16+ I know this looks complicated, but these files would have to be generated only once for each bidding system, could be shared by the community. Also, natural meanings would not have to be covered here, so you would have only to describe conventional possibilities. The above system would give the players the "easy alerting" and "as little typing as possible" while not being automated in any way (and therefore not being able to give any extra info to opps as mentioned in the examples above). The "bidding system" file would be plain-text to allow easy changing. And I believe that pretty soon somebody would come up with a simple program that would allow you to take your system file and modify it for you with various gadgets. I.e. you would select "I want to play weak jump shifts as 2-5 HCP" and it would automatically add/modify an entry in 2♦,2♥,2♠. (The editing mechanism itself would be fairly simple, would take a few hours max... the only hard part would be filling the editor with gadget data.)

Of course it matters. I mean, if I wanted to kill time clicking on cards, I would play Solitaire, not bridge! I don't want to punish players who do not alert. I want to educate them so that they will alert! And, yes, I do alert Stayman on BBO ;). I agree that people might not be used to alerting, but unless you want to spend most of your time on bbo filling "explain call" boxes, this is the only way! And, yes, it does hurt to ask. It simply wastes time, both my and their. It is much more efficient if you stick to alerting, because then, absence of alert tells the opponents "this bid is natural, or at least I think so". Alerting is the easiest (and maybe the only feasible) way how to make bridge enjoyable. The other options are a) asking everytime what a bid means :P everyone playing the same system. I think that we need both educated players (that will be told WHY it is important to alert) AND educated TDs AND tools that will allow the TDs to hand penalties to those players that do not accomodate. Should the not-alerting-is-ok policy prevail, I quit.

With the singleton diamond, your hand is worth 17 DP, so once partner confirms spade fit, bid 4 anyway. What is the minimum stength he promised by the double?

Can't happen to me - 1♦-1♥ 1NT-... If I have to bid 1♠ with this hand, then partner must expect trouble if I don't stop clubs - and I will gladly bit 2♦ on 4card. I mean, why should I bid 2♠ with 4243 shape??? It is well known that when opener is under forcing, repeat of his first suit does not promise extra length! Anyway, one more reason to play 1NT including spades :P

I don't think it's a good idea to bid 3NT directly... partner will never know what you need from him to make - and with what he should bid higher. Leave 3NT for some sophisticated bid i.e. better than gambling, but based on a long suit. A partner with AAQ will then know that it is safe to try for a slam. I would expect 3NT in 4th place to be 7 tricks in a minor and 2 stopped suits at least... With 18-19 balanced, you'll be easy off bidding slowly. With the hand above, I'd calmly open 1♠ - and if a Drury limit raise comes, make a slam try, otherwise end up in 3NT and sadly go one down on bad spade and heart break.

If you play 1♦-3♦ as weak 5card, you should not bid 4 or 5 based on the fact that LOTT does not work here - because HCP aren't likely to be 20-20. Partner promised something 2-5? 3-8? 5-8? Anyway, if he is minimal, they have approx. one extra honor card, plus you have heart wastage, plus they still can have diamond ace. AND, you have terrible shape! All this says pass. Sure, it may turn out that 5♦ would be a good save, or 4♥ does not make and you'd have pushed them, but it may as well turn out a disaster. in short, both 4♦ and 5♦ bids are wrong. Maybe the 5♦ worse than 4♦, because the hand has nothing extra, but 4 is as bad with the Qx in hearts. 4♥ most likely makes if your p has diamond ace... and you have heart loser or two AND 5 losers in black suits