A situation that happened to me yesterday

[gwnn]

First of all, hi all and thanks for reading my FIRST EVER BBO Forums post :)

 

This happened yesterday, at the local bridge club, no prizes, no TD, just "fun bridge". Yet it happened to deviate a bit due to this alerting incident. My p and I are two juniors, we play Symmetric Relay. Our opponents are an elderly man with a middle-aged woman. It's only our 2nd time at this club to play together, our first to use an artificial system.

 

I am dealt with this hand:

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=satxxhkxxdkcakjxx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

I open 1♣, hoping my stiff king can do something. My p alerts, and explains 16+ when asked. LHO overcalls 1♦ holding about 6 pts and QJ9xx. The bidding continues:

1♣-1♦-1♥!(4+ spades, I alert and explain when asked)-p-1♠!(relay, my p alerts and explains when asked)-p-2♦!(? I alerted it, it shows a "reverser": 5+ diamonds and EXACTLY 4 spades)-p-2♥-p-3♣!(exactly 4351 hand)-p-3♦!

Now, LHO asks my p: "what is 3♦?" (this was their first question since 1♠). My p says "relay, all his bids were relays". He asks again "so it's NOT natural, it's a relay" he says "yes, only he knows what I hold" I say now, somewhat unduly, "If you want to know, I can tell you his exact distribution". He "nono, it's OK, you'll tell us at the end". And he doubles my relay. My p now XX's, showing 3 controls. This comes back to me and despite the risk of an unlikely missed ♠ slam, I opt to pass this one out. They now ask me what his bids mean and start yelling at me when I tell them 2♦ showed a 5+ suit and dismiss my explanation "it specified his exact ♠ holding, too, not only showing some ♦'s" as being ridiculous and, of course, accuse us of unfair play and what not. LHO also told me "no bid should be alerted if it promises at least 4 cards in the suit bid". RHO said "if you are to alert a suit, you have to specify even without asking that it is natural, but it also promises something else". My p made 4, even with LHO getting 2 trump tricks.

 

Sorry for being so lengthy, probably half of the details would have sufficed.

My basic questions are:

 

1) Do you think "they are right"?

2) For instance, do you need to alert magic D-style 1M openers (8-12 unbal, 4+ cards"? Or if we make up a system with 1♥ promising a 6+ suit? Why do people alert Precision-style 2♣ bids?

3) Can someone finally give me a good indication on what to alert and what not to? WBF says something about being "standard" or opps "possibly needing an explanation". Doesn't that sound a bit ... vague? :unsure:

 

thanks for your kind replies,

 

Csaba

[matmat]

welcome to the forums.

 

blah.

seems like sour grapes to me. you alerted all the bids. they didn't ask. unless I am missing something it's entirely their fault.

[Echognome]

Hi Csaba and welcome to the forums!

 

Although I am sure you will get many well informed answers here, I recommend you also post your question to http://forums.bridgetalk.com/ which is a forum for laws related questions to bridge.

 

One thing they ask you on that site is that whenever you post a laws question, you should tell us your jurisdiction. Indeed, for the questions you are asking, it is important to know what your NBO (National Bridge Organization) is, for alert procedures come under the rule of NBOs.

 

It might not be so helpful for you, but I can tell you exactly how it is dealt with in the EBU. I simply look up in my Orange book (which is EBU specific and tells us the regulation of conventions and alerting):

 

5E1 Passes and bids

You must alert a pass or bid if

(a) it is not natural; or

(B) it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning

 

Then we go down a couple paragraphs to where it defines what a natural bid is:

 

5F1 The following are considered 'natural' for alerting purposes:

(a) A bid of a suit which shows that suit and does not show any other suit; the suit shown will be at least three cards long except that preference bids and raises may be on shorter suits.

 

So by the above, I would alert 3♦ on the basis that it specifies your distribution in more suits than diamonds.

 

You will have to look up the alerting procedures in your own NBO to answer your question fully though.

[gwnn]

So by the above, I would alert 3♦ on the basis that it specifies your distribution in more suits than diamonds.

The question was about 2♦. I thought that if it restricted the ♠'s number, it meant that it's an alertable bid. They told me "well if he didn't rebid spades, it's clear that he has 4 spades". Of course that's not true, almost every bid is artificial (2♥ or higher all promises 5+ spades) and it's more like a coincidence that 2♦ actually did promise diamonds. And I found the Romanian Federation's Alert Policy.... Policy's place, missing file B)

[Echognome]

Sorry you did say 2♦ in your post. I still think it is alertable. It actually gets a bit trickier in EBU law because if your first bid is canape, then you only alert the second bid if it may be shorter than the first. However, there are two reasons why that wouldn't apply. First, your spade bid was only "potentially" canape and second, you didn't actually bid 1♠, you bid 1♥ showing spades. Thus 2♦ clarified not only your diamond length, but your spade length. So clear to me that it is alertable.

[the hog]

You don't say what country you are from. You will often get this sort of reaction if you play artificial systems. You did nothing wrong; on the contrary - the way in which your opponents asked their question re Ds was unethical.

Write it down as a learning experience. A good director should be able to explain to the opponents why they are being silly. I can't give you a guide as to what to alert and what not to alert as it depends on your country's regulations.

[aelred]

To find the Romanian Federation's Alert Policy go to the EBL site - Romania currently uses the EBL Systems Policy, Alert Policy, Appeals Code Of Practice or whatever ... not that anyone around here either understands anything of the given policies or cares about them.

 

Anyway, by local standards, your opponents were as courteous as you might get; most would rather question the legality of your agreements at full length - this should contain the magic words "Brown sticker" uttered at least five times - and finally concede that maybe they are legal after all, but that is a very sad situation.

 

What town do you play in?

 

Gene

[Free]

Hi, welcome to the forums :)

 

I get such situations all the time playing MOSCITO (which also uses symmetric relays), but it strikes me that not a single good player has ever complained like this! So I guess your opponents were just a bunch of losers who don't know what questions to ask. Don't waste your time on them B)

[gwnn]

To find the Romanian Federation's Alert Policy go to the EBL site - Romania currently uses the EBL Systems Policy, Alert Policy, Appeals Code Of Practice or whatever ... not that anyone around here either understands anything of the given policies or cares about them.

 

Anyway, by local standards, your opponents were as courteous as you might get; most would rather question the legality of your agreements at full length - this should contain the magic words "Brown sticker" uttered at least five times - and finally concede that maybe they are legal after all, but that is a very sad situation.

 

What town do you play in?

 

Gene

We played in Cluj.

 

I don't think we play any Brown Sticker stuff. As far as I know the Sym.Rel. 1♦ opener which promises a 2 or 3 suited hand without a 5cM and with as few as 0 diamonds is fully acceptable. Or no? I read the classification and I don't seem to find any indication of Br.St. stuff.

[inquiry]

1) Do you think "they are right"?

 

NO

 

2) For instance, do you need to alert magic D-style 1M openers (8-12 unbal, 4+ cards"? Or if we make up a system with 1♥ promising a 6+ suit? Why do people alert Precision-style 2♣ bids?

 

If your 1♥ opening bid promises 6, you must alert. '

 

3) Can someone finally give me a good indication on what to alert and what not to? WBF says something about being "standard" or opps "possibly needing an explanation". Doesn't that sound a bit ... vague? ;)

 

You bid 3♦ on a singleton as a relay that was alertable

 

your partner bid 2♦ in respnse to a relay that showed longer diamonds than spades. This is canape' and is alertable.

[hrothgar]

your partner bid 2♦ in respnse to a relay that showed longer diamonds than spades. This is canape' and is alertable.

I think that its a mistake to bring expressions like Canape into a discussion about relay structures. The expression canape refers to the order that players show suits during natural bidding sequences. I doubt that any alerting structures based on concepts like canape were intended to apply to a relay sequence.

 

Please note: I agree that the bid in question would be alertable in most jurisdictions, I simply differ about the reason why.

[inquiry]

your partner bid 2♦ in respnse to a relay that showed longer diamonds than spades. This is canape' and is alertable.

I think that its a mistake to bring expressions like Canape into a discussion about relay structures. The expression canape refers to the order that players show suits during natural bidding sequences. I doubt that any alerting structures based on concepts like canape were intended to apply to a relay sequence.

 

Please note: I agree that the bid in question would be alertable in most jurisdictions, I simply differ about the reason why.

BridgeWorld.. Canape' bidding a shorter suit before a longer one.

 

While this is a relay, and while responder didn't bid spades to show spades (bidding hearts instead), the fact is this auction shows longer second suit (diamonds) than first suit (spades). Call it a mule or a rose, or a step response, the implication is it is a canape sequence, which is alertable, EVEN IF NATURAL (hence showing diamonds). That is the point.

[Free]

It doesn't really matter if this is called canapé or not, it holds a special meaning which should be alerted...

[hrothgar]

your partner bid 2♦ in respnse to a relay that showed longer diamonds than spades. This is canape' and is alertable.

I think that its a mistake to bring expressions like Canape into a discussion about relay structures. The expression canape refers to the order that players show suits during natural bidding sequences. I doubt that any alerting structures based on concepts like canape were intended to apply to a relay sequence.

 

Please note: I agree that the bid in question would be alertable in most jurisdictions, I simply differ about the reason why.

BridgeWorld.. Canape' bidding a shorter suit before a longer one.

 

While this is a relay, and while responder didn't bid spades to show spades (bidding hearts instead), the fact is this auction shows longer second suit (diamonds) than first suit (spades). Call it a mule or a rose, or a step response, the implication is it is a canape sequence, which is alertable, EVEN IF NATURAL (hence showing diamonds). That is the point.

 

Let me make sure that I understand you:

 

Assume that I am playing a relay system.

 

I open 1♦ showing 4+ Hearts. Partner rebids 1♥ as a relay. I then rebid 2♣ showing a two suited hand with Hearts and Diamonds. Partner now rebids 2♦ as a second relay leading to the following response schedule

 

2♥ = 4 Hearts and 5+ Diamonds

2♠ = 5+ Hearts and 5+ Diamonds

2N = 4 Diamonds and 5+ Hearts, high shortage

3♣ = 2-5-4-2 shape

3♦ = 3-5-4-1 shape

3♥ = 2-6-4-1 shape

3♠ = 3-6-4-0 shape

 

According to your logic, the 2♥ response would be alertable since opener is showing exactly 4 Hearts and longer Diamonds, but none of the other responses are alertable since the length of the Heart suit is greater than or equal to the length of the Diamond suit. (Me, I'd say that each and every bid in the sequence is alertable because it carrier specific information not related to the suit named)

 

In a similar fashion, lets assume that I once again open 1♦ and partner once again relays with 1♥, this time I have a 2 suited hand pattern with Hearts and Clubs producing the following response schedule:

 

2♥ = 4 Hearts and 5+ Clubs

2♠ = 5+ Hearts and 5+ Clubs

2N = 5+ Hearts and 4 Clubs, high shortage

3♣ = 2-5-2-4 shape

3♦ = 3-5-1-4 shape

3♥ = 2-6-1-4 shape

3♠ = 3-6-0-4 shape

 

Here, once again, I'd argue that all of these bids are alertable regardless of the relative length of the two suits. Furthermore, a bid like 3♣ which is a natural response that happens to show longer Hearts than Clubs is very much alertable because it carries additional information.

 

As I attempted to explain before, Canape refers to a design choice used when defining natural bidding sequences: if you have a two suited hands do you start by showing the longer of the two suits or the shorter of the two suits. The concept really isn't applicable to an artificial coded bidding system like Symmetric Relay.

[inquiry]

Let me make sure that I understand you:

 

Assume that I am playing a relay system.

 

I open 1♦ showing 4+ Hearts. Partner rebids 1♥ as a relay. I then rebid 2♣ showing a two suited hand with Hearts and Diamonds. Partner now rebids 2♦ as a second relay leading to the following response schedule

 

2♥ = 4 Hearts and 5+ Diamonds

2♠ = 5+ Hearts and 5+ Diamonds

2N = 4 Diamonds and 5+ Hearts, high shortage

3♣ = 2-5-4-2 shape

3♦ = 3-5-4-1 shape

3♥ = 2-6-4-1 shape

3♠ = 3-6-4-0 shape

 

According to your logic, the 2♥ response would be alertable since opener is showing 4 exactly 4 Hearts and longer Diamonds, but none of the other responses are alertable since The length of the Heart suit is greater than or equal to the length of the Diamond suit. (Me, I'd say that each and every bid in the sequence is alertable because it carrier specific information not related to the suit named)

 

In a similar fashion, lets assume that I once again open 1♦ and partner once again relays with 1♥, this time I have a 2 suited hand pattern with Hearts and Clubs producing the following response schedule:

 

2♥ = 4 Hearts and 5+ Clubs

2♠ = 5+ Hearts and 5+ Clubs

2N = 5+ Hearts and 4 Clubs, high shortage

3♣ = 2-5-2-4 shape

3♦ = 3-5-1-4 shape

3♥ = 2-6-1-4 shape

3♠ = 3-6-0-4 shape

 

Here, once again, I'd argue that all of these bids are alertable regardless of the relative length of the two suits....

You can "assume" that I would say the others are not alertable, but you would very wrong.

 

First your 2♥ rebid was not in diamonds, you bid ♥ and it showed diamonds. That is not canape', that is bidding one suit to show another. It is alertable rather it showed 4D, 5d, 6d...

 

Same thing for 2♠ rbid, it shows diamonds (not to mention specific legnth details... it is a clear alert.

 

Same thing for 2NT... it shows diamonds but the bid is in NT.

 

Same thing for 3C... you bid clubs and it shows diamonds.

 

Now for 3♦, you bid it, it shows longer hearts and shorter diamonds, but a diamond suit. It is alertable, however because it promises a splinter in clubs and a fragment in spades

 

As for 3H and 3S, they promise diamonds and are thus clearly alertable..

 

Nor for the auction at hand.. the argument went as follows...

 

1C*-1D*-1H*-1S*-2D*, where 2D was alerted. The arguement the opponents used was straight forward. One doesn't alert a natural bid, and 2D showing diamnods is natural (similar to 3♦ is your example). But also similar to 3♦ in your example, this 3♦ carries addditional information. That inforamtion is that diamonds are longer than spades, and in fact, it redefines 1♥ (showing spades) to showing exactlty 4 spades. Information provided (and there maybe others as in your examples if other options were available)... 1) only 4S, 2) at least 5D. That is alertable even if the RULES say natural bids (here a 'naturla 2D showng diamonds) are not to be alerted. The reason being canape' bids are alertable.

[hrothgar]

Nor for the auction at hand.. the argument went as follows...

 

1C*-1D*-1H*-1S*-2D*, where 2D was alerted. The arguement the opponents used was straight forward. One doesn't alert a natural bid, and 2D showing diamnods is natural (similar to 3♦ is your example). But also similar to 3♦ in  your example, this 3♦ carries addditional information. That inforamtion is that diamonds are longer than spades, and in fact, it redefines 1♥ (showing spades) to showing exactlty 4 spades.  Information provided (and there maybe others as in your examples if other options were available)... 1) only 4S, 2) at least 5D. That is alertable even if the RULES say natural bids (here a 'naturla 2D showng diamonds) are not to be alerted. The reason being canape' bids are alertable.

Fine, lets restrict ourselves to looking at this one specific sequence:

 

The version of Symmetric relay being used is based on High Shortage First. The 2♦ response promises precisely 4 Spades and 5+ Diamonds.

 

Assume for the moment that the players were using a Symmetric Relay variant using Low Shortage First. In this case, the 2♦ would promise precisely 4 Diamonds and 5+ Spades. The suits are being bid in a natural order. Do you believe that this response requires an alert?

 

For what its worth, I think that the sequence is alertable. Responder promises precisely 4 Diamonds, which is very different than standard bidding structures.

 

Symetric relay is incredibly structured. With a few rare exceptions, everything is alertable because it promises 4+ cards in a side suit or denies 4+ cards in a side suit or whatever.

[gwnn]

Yea, well I can only imagine what they'd have said if I'd alerted a 1♥ opener because it denies 5 spades.

 

Glad to see you think I'm right, I might just stick around B)

[helene_t]

I don't think we play any Brown Sticker stuff. As far as I know the Sym.Rel. 1♦ opener which promises a 2 or 3 suited hand without a 5cM and with as few as 0 diamonds is fully acceptable. Or no? I read the classification and I don't seem to find any indication of Br.St. stuff.

Yes, the nebolous 1♦, if part of a strong-club system, is a blue-sticker convention. Likewise, you can play a nebolous 1♣ as part of a strong-diamond system. There may be restrictions on the set of shapes contained in the 1♦-opening if you play a system without a strong 1♣ opening.