Explaining 1M - 4M

[neilkaz]

To play is not a valid explaination, you could have said "non-forcing" or "game forcing" and those would not help.

 

Describe as "preempt or strong no slam interest", or

"wk to 14 pts, signoff", or similar.

I am in complete agreement with you. Not all opps can be expected to be familiar with precision and they are entitled to a reasonable explanation.

 

Certainly the 4M just could be made preemptively on 5+ trumps, low HCP and some distribution, just like in SAYC and 2/1. Note that I only play 2/1 and SAYC

(when PD doesn't play 2/1) so I am not expert on precision, but it certainly makes sence with 4 trumps, a doubleton, and 12 HCP to just close the bidding opposite a known 11-15 HCP opening with 4M.

 

Also, quite commonly when playing SAYC (or something similar along 5 card major lines with non American PD's), they'll jump my 1M to 4M with a bare minimum game force hand, especially if they have no decent suit to respond 2/1 in, and especially when they have 4 trumps. Jacoby 2NT seems, for the most part not played all that much outside North America.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[hotShot]

1M-4M means the same in almost every at least half way natural system.

Not true: 1M-4M is usually played weak, since with good hands you'll take the slow road.

I guess you mean that there is a wide agreement about what 1M-4M means, and that is just what i said.

 

It is non forcing and it shows a limited hand with minimum opening strength (or less) , (usually good) trump support and often distributional strength (to compensate the missing HCP).

Not true: with opening strength in natural systems, you shouldn't support to 4-level. What is partner expected to do with a strong hand? Blacky isn't everything you know. That's why many players use 2NT to show inv+ hands with support, so 1M-4M in natural is weak! In precision, it can be a lot stronger!

Minimum opening strength (or less) means less than 12 HCP, sorry i did not notice that this could be read as having opening strength as a minimum.

Playing precision this is even more obvious , because 1M is limited.

Playing precision, you can do it as a sacrifice with 0HCP. I've done it in the past with success: my LHO had 15HCP, and was V while we were NV. Bidding was at 4S when he had to come in, so he passed. They had 3NT laydown, I went -2 in a 4-4 fit tnx to great distributions and matching hands.

It is saver to sacrifice in a system where the opening bid is limited, but it is discouraging in a natural system too. I grant that it is a systemic weakness (of e.g. SAYC) to be forced to open almost gameforcing strength hands with 1M. But the risk of partner bidding on, is limited by the frequence of these (extra) strong openings.

So it won't happen to often.

This auction is one of the strengths of precision: it's pressure bidding, without a clear picture of responder's hand.  In natural, you don't have this option.

SEF, FORUM-D and BENJI-Acol use a semiforcing opening bid to reduce this problem.

So I onsider the differences in understanding this sequence to be small and not compleatly different.

[mgoetze]

Lazy? Do we have to get into name calling?

 

Lazy is an adjective, not a noun. So no, I didn't call you anything, I was simply describing your attitude (from my point of view). Bridge is a competition, and if you take it so un-seriously that you don't even care whether the opponents are playing 4 card majors, 5 card majors, weak NT, strong NT, strong 1♣ or strong 1♦, then yes, I think you are lazy. A quick glance at the "general approach" area of a convention card, or indeed the minimum lengths for a 1 of a suit opening (5542, 5533, 5443, 4444, 5520, 4430... so much information in just 4 numbers...) should suffice for anything that doesn't require a prealert (and indeed, when I play strong club I'll tell the opponents at the start of the round whether they care or not.) If they are playing the same as you (presumably 5533 a.k.a. "better minor", and do have a glance at the NT range), then go ahead and make some assumptions if you really must. But if they're playing a strong club, and you are not familiar with the variant, you make assumptions at your own risk, and fully deserve to go wrong if you do so.

 

Now as to what gives me the right to assume that an unalerted auction is proceding in accordance with "usual bridge". It seems to me that this is exactly the purpose of the alert system. I suppose after the auction begins 1S-pass-2C I could grab their card, study it, and see if perhaps 1S is a transfer to clubs, or 2C showed hearts, or some such. But I assume that 1S shows spades, 2C shows at least some clubs and some decent level of strength, and so on.

 

That may seem so to you, but the fact of the matter is that each SO can decide for themselves what they want the purpose of the alert system should be, and if they think the same as you, they still get to decide what constitutes "usual bridge". You had better alert your non-polish 1♣ opening in Poland, because anything else is not "usual bridge" for them.

 

So if you think that this should be alertable, go ahead and ask the ACBL to make any 1 of a suit opening denying as many as, say, 17 HCP alertable. Or you could just have a glance at the convention card. As for the game raise, once you know that the opener is limited, it's "general bridge knowledge" that the response can be quite wide-ranging, as far as I'm concerned.

 

This is not a far-fetched example. Some 2/1 players play that over 1S, the bid of 2NT is Jacoby and that 2D and 2H each show five cards. With 2-4-4-3 distribution, and perhaps with 3-4-4-2 distribution, they bid 2C (or at least some do). Yes I expect an alert, even if this agreement is on their card. Lacking an alert, I expect the 2C bid to suggest clubs might be a reasonable strain in which to play the hand. Since I wasn't born yesterday, I know I won't always get that alert and so I may well ask about the auction before I lead. I'm not lazy, and I like to think I am not naive either. Although sometimes I wonder.

 

Well, hey, if you've figured out that they're playing 2/1, you're not as lazy as you were making yourself out to be earlier. In my 2/1 system, 2♣ can have yet a third meaning (GI with 3-card support) so I'll certainly alert it, but if you're worried about this, check the alert regulations of your SO, or if in doubt, just ask. WTP?

 

No doubt the alert procedure is in need of some clear philosophical exposition, particularly the self-alerts for on-line play, and I welcome any such discussion. My view is that in bridge the opponents are supposed to be told of your general methods, and to this end it should be their resonsibilty to have some idea of the "usual meanings" of bids, and it should be the bidder's responsibility to alert opponents to deviations from "usual bidding". Of course "usual bidding" is clearer in some cases than in others. I am not in charge of the bridge world, and I hope those who are will clarify whether this understanding of the alert system is about right.

 

Really, to Polish players it's extremely obvious that 1♣ is a 3-way opening, so I hope you're not expecting them to alert it. And if you play against them, please be honest about your 1♣ opening (probably 2-way - either clubs or balanced...)

[Winstonm]

Although I do not believe "to play" is an adequate answer, if you are talking about ACBL online events I have sympathy for you as some of those players almost badger you to define what not only your partner might hold but what you hold as well.

 

I was once playing in an online ACBL tournament, and my opp asked privately what my partner's bid meant. I responder as usual, with the best description of our agreements that I could. She wrote back and said, well, does he have so and so...you know, you HAVE to tell me.

 

So yes, getting badgered in this manner can lead to some curt responses. Still, the opponents are not required to learn your system. They are entitled to know that 1M-4M can be bid on 0-14 HCP with a fit. That's what you should tell them. That's what they have the right to know. If they press after that explanation, then you are the one who should call for the director to keep the opponents from badgering.

[kenberg]

I don't know how things are in Poland, but where I come from there are a whole flock of adjectives that can get you into a lot of trouble in a bar. Nouns also. Anyway, I am not challenging you to a duel or anything, so we can put this stuff aside about whether I am or am not lazy. I have been called worse.

 

Now to alerts and explanations. I agree that "normal bidding" in Warsaw may seem very non-standard in New York and vice-versa. Still, we need some idea of what is to be alerted/explained, and what isn't. We need to be able to play hands within some reasonable time frame, so some sensible guidelines are needed. If little is alerted then potentially every call might have other than the expected meaning, leading to extensive questioning about every auction. Not desirable, imo. So what I would like is some sort of general consensus that allows folks to assume with confidence (and correctly) that they understand an unalerted straightforward sounding auction, and that they will receive disclosive answers to questions about things they have questions about. Fundamentally, methods are supposed to succeed because they are better methods, not because the users of that method are successful in concealing their use.

 

Ken

[luke warm]

playing 2/1, the 4S bid (for me) is standard bergen.. 5+ and 0-7 hcp... playing strong club, my FD simply has 'sign off' checked and 'to play' written... if opps ask i'd say "4S was bid either to make or as a preempt - that is the only agreement we have regarding this bid" ... i guess i could write all that down but i don't really see the need... the opps aren't disadvantaged any more than partner, both know exactly the same thing about my hand

[DrTodd13]

Is "to play" the same thing as "I think this is the par contract for our side?" Is the latter an acceptable explanation? Is it my duty to tell opps what a par contract is...to explain the concept of even if I go down, I may still lose less points that if you made a cheaper game contract? If your agreement is that this bid is predicting the par contract, then should you have to be forced to provide a point range based on prior evidence of what kinds of hands your partner may think is the par contract?

[Echognome]

Jack says "Possibly preemptive." I wonder if that is sufficient. :)

 

I think if the opponents ask, then you should say that it is wide-ranging. It can be preemptive with long trumps or just what responder has a good hand, but no slam interest opposite a limited opener.

 

Having "to play" on the FD file is sufficient in my opinion as with any alert, opponents can ask further if they have queries.

[sfbp]

I am used to the auction 1M-4M being "to play" because I play precision more often than not. Furthermore I am used to opponents who describe their 1M-3NT bid as being "Hx or better" or perhaps "doubleton support"

 

Imagine my dismay when opponents from a good team at an NABC (who we nearly beat) alerting 3NT as "a normal 4H bid with a King extra". Suffice it to say that the lead, very unpleasant, player in this team, was a lady who had more MP than all of us 4 put together, and that her teammates (we had already switched seats, lol) were generally not exactly forthcoming about their explanations, especially as we chased them to within an inch of their collective lives.

 

Nowhere did the opposing players indicate that this 3NT bid was preemptive and weak. The TD basically agreed with me.

 

Turns out it was moot, because even with this score corrected in our favour we would lose by 1 IMP. But it sure left a nasty taste.

 

Let me make a plea: never never tell opps "std" or "natural" (unless the natural is describing something like a simple overcall opening or rebid of a new suit). There is a good chance that there is something about the bid that your opponent will misunderstand.

 

My favourite example of this principle was the time when you, Richard, explained the sequence (1D) p (1H) 2H as being "standard". Many many people, without explanation, would take this as being some sort of 2-suited takeout. But you were insistent that no further explanation was required.

 

Stephen

[hrothgar]

My favourite example of this principle was the time when you, Richard, explained the sequence (1D) p (1H) 2H as being "standard". Many many people, without explanation, would take this as being some sort of 2-suited takeout. But you were insistent that no further explanation was required.

I apologize for saying "standard" rather than "no agreement".

[kenberg]

I doubt that there is a standard meanig for (1m)-pass-(1H)-2H. It's my opinion that a majority of players whom I know play it as showing hearts, but I have not taken a poll. I would be reluctant to make such a call with someone I have not discussed it with.

 

This business of "no agreement" also needs some thinking. Here is something from a recent tourney: 1D-(1NT) -X. I was asked to explain my double. Technically, there is no agreement since I in fact have never discussed this with my partner. Practically, I was confident partner would understand it as being for penalties. What's to say? In f2f, it's easier. Partner can accurately say that we have not discussed it and certainly have not agreed to any artificial meaning for it. Probably that's what I should say for my self-alert also, but it doesn't feel right. I just responded that I thought we could beat 1NT.

 

It seems to me we are still hashing out exactly how to handle self-alerts and subsequennt explanations for online bridge. Or at least I often feel uncertain. Most online games, at least the ones I play in such as the ACBL tourneys, have only somewhat well defined systems. There is a lot of "I guess he means.." and "I hope he understands ...". It's not the Spingold.

 

Maybe ACBL, or someone, should run some tourneys where partnerships are expected to be regular practiced partnerships with full explanations of systems posted online. I would play in such a tourney (I keep threatening to work up an online card complete with details), and my thoughts about explanations would probably be different from what I now believe suitable.

 

Ken

[cwiggins]

If you want written definitive confirmation that 1M-4M must be alerted, you could email rulings@acbl.org for a response by a national tournament director.

 

I don't think it's necessary. "Precision Today" says that the 1M-4M raise should be alerted in ACBL events. Since the authors are the editor of the ACBL Bridge Bulleting (Brent Manley) and a long time player of Precision at the national level (David Berkowitz), I consider it 100% certain that 1M-4M must be alerted in ACBL events. My second piece of evidence: players in local ACBL events have been penalized for not alerting 1M-4M.

 

What explanation to give is difficult. Drawing on quotes from "Precision Today," you might say that 1M-4M is "Wide ranging. Could be a traditional weakish hand with long trumps, or it could be a flattish hand with game values." See "Precision Today" page 104.

 

As one posting pointed out, any explanation risks leaving something out. As if to emphasize this, in the finals of the Spingold on Sunday, Rodwell raised 1♥ to 4♥ holding:

♠A3

♥953

♦KJ10983

♣A2

 

For slam, opener would have to hold the ♥AKQ and ♦AQ, at which point declarer would have 13 tricks. With only the ♦A, the slam would be 50-50. With "frequent upgrading," Rodwell could be pretty sure that Meckstroth didn't have that hand. If opener held the ♦Q, a black suit lead at trick one may well establish a second trick for the defense. So 4♥ seems an entirely reasonable bid. But I don't think people would envision a 6322 hand as a possiblity if I were to say "flattish hand."

 

My personal explanation is: "Wide ranging. Could be a traditional weakish hand with long trumps, or it could be a hand with game values but partner thinks slam is not possible."

 

If you want official agreement with whatever language you use to explain the raise, you can write to rulings@acbl.org with your preferred explanation and ask them whether it is okay.

[awm]

A recent funny example came up in the national open swiss in Chicago. This is considered a "national championship" level event in the US, although certainly not as prestigious as the spingold or reisinger.

 

My partner opened 1♣, alerted as strong (16+) and RHO bid 2♦. This was not alerted, and was explained as natural. After the hand, turns out RHO had a heart preempt. They had agreed to play transfer bids over strong club, but LHO wasn't sure this was on at the two-level and declined to mention any such possibility.

 

The director stated that the correct explanation was "no agreement" without any further elaboration. I found it somewhat unbelievable that this pair (a married couple who had been playing together for many years and accumulated many masterpoints) could feasibly have "no agreement" about a simple two-level jump overcall in a national championship event... but that's what the director said.

[1eyedjack]

If you want written definitive confirmation that 1M-4M must be alerted, you could email rulings@acbl.org for a response by a national tournament director.

But only if the answer that you seek is within the context of ACBL jurisdiction. Not that the OP raised the matter of alertability, only how the bid should be explained.

[the hog]

Guys, Guys!

"To play" is probably not the best explanation, but cool it a bit Ben. Its not the worst explanation ever given and it certainly couldn't be described as "impolite". Vague yes, but impolite no.

[whereagles]

Perhaps you could say: "to play, ambiguous: high card or shape based".

[Finch]

The director stated that the correct explanation was "no agreement" without any further elaboration. I found it somewhat unbelievable that this pair (a married couple who had been playing together for many years and accumulated many masterpoints) could feasibly have "no agreement" about a simple two-level jump overcall in a national championship event... but that's what the director said.

Well, I found it suprising over the weekend the extent of the sequences in which Nickell/Freeman seem to have "no agreement".

[kenberg]

The director stated that the correct explanation was "no agreement" without any further elaboration.  I found it somewhat unbelievable that this pair (a married couple who had been playing together for many years and accumulated many masterpoints) could feasibly have "no agreement" about a simple two-level jump overcall in a national championship event... but that's what the director said.

Well, I found it suprising over the weekend the extent of the sequences in which Nickell/Freeman seem to have "no agreement".

I often am at least a little suspicious of "no agreement". There are degees of understanding. However, in support of the possibility that it may be so, here is a recent example from my own play:

 

RHO opened a big club, I bid 1H, LHO passed, partner bid 2C. Hmm. We are a regular partnership and no doubt we should have discussed this but we hadn't. Over a "normal" 1C opening partner's 2C would either be heart support and invitational values (or more) or else a very good hand which he will describe further later. Over a totally artificial club it seems there is good reason to believe it shows clubs. I did not alert, they did not ask. The auction staggered through to some successful end, I was declarer and told the opponents I was not sure of the 2C. They let it be and we managed to play the hand without needing a director. Had they asked, I would have said just what I have said above.

 

 

I had decided that it probably did not show clubs, and I guessed right. I think it probably should show clubs, I just guessed that it did not.

 

 

Ken