Walsh Style -Full Disclosure

[pigpenz]

some people bid up the line and other bypass ♦'s over a club to show a major....should this be alerted or should we just take it for granted?

 

Alot of people who play 2/1 dont really play 2/1 :lol:

[awm]

This is one of those mysterious gray areas in the alert regulations in most places.

 

Recently in an ACBL tournament, some friends of mine got in trouble for bidding 1♠ over a 1♦ opening when holding a strong hand with a much longer/better club suit. Their agreement is to play "majors first always" and apparently this is alertable. Of course, the fact that virtually everyone will bid 1♠ over 1♦ with a weak hand and a much longer club suit is apparently not alertable.

 

I think this is an area where "standard practice" is not alertable and "anything unusual" is, and what's unusual is totally up to the director. To my knowledge most non-acbl regulations also have this problem, since in most cases "natural bids" do not require an alert... but I expect that natural bids that carry really weird implications (for example non-forcing one-level responses by an unpassed hand, or jumps that show four cards in the bid suit and a longer side suit) are surely alertable everywhere.

[LH2650]

The ACBL convention card and the ACBL Alert Chart both show that bypassing 1 diamond to bid a major is not alertable.

 

Also, the ACBL Alert Chart might cause some pain for the director who made awm's ruling.

[Finch]

As ever, it depends where you are playing.

 

Within England and Wales, a 1M response to 1C that might have longer diamonds is alertable (although the corresponding 1D response that e.g. denies a 4-card major unless FG (or INV) is not).

[helene_t]

I think that people who are smart enough to

1) make inference based on an assumption as to whether opps play Walsh

2) notice when opps appear to play Walsh (or not)

3) know that this should have been alerted under jurisdiction XYZ

 

are also smart enough to know that

4) different cultures have different customs as to alert Walsh and/or non-Walsh

5) most partnerships on BBO have no agreements in this area

6) you can't expect from someone who is not a certified XYZ-director to know whether it is alertable or not under XYS-jurisdiction

7) therefore, it's your own responsibility to ask

 

I always alert (non)-Walsh if I have an agreement with p but as a director I would not honor any complaints about people who don't alert such things.

[Gerben42]

I think it is alertable in many jurisdictions, however I think it should not be. Here's why: If you start saying that "anything unusual" is alertable then first you have to define something as "usual".

 

There are two ways an alerting system can be built up.

 

1) Define a standard system and everything else is alertable

2) Do not alert natural bids, alert everything else.

 

Under 1) Walsh is alertable, under 2) not.

The problem with 1) is that if you play a system that is quite different from the standard, then you have to alert almost everything and the value of the alert is lost. However 1) is useful when almost everyone plays something very similar to the non-alertable standard.

 

Another issue I have with 1) is the issue of beginners. Beginners may not have learned Jacoby Transfers and other non-alertable conventions yet. They would be more comfortable with 2).

 

That's why I am for 2), and do not expect a priori that all the inferences are the same from one natural auction to the other.

 

Alot of people who play 2/1 dont really play 2/1

 

What do you mean by that? I guess people who play 2/1 will play 5-card majors, a forcing or semi-forcing NT and strong 2/1 bids. You cannot expect them to play a strong NT, 1♣ promising 3 cards, them to play NMF the way you learned it, etc.

[pigpenz]

main reason I asked this was the hand where opp responded 1♥ to 1♣ holding

 

xxxx♥

akqj♦

[barmar]

Assuming he had no picture cards in the other suits, that's a super-maximum for bypassing, but not completely unreasonable.

[luke warm]

whether it's alertable or not, in FD i have 1H/1S after 1C saying "can bypass longer diamonds"... i have 1D over 1C saying "usually denies 4pcM unless about to reverse"