Jumping Off From Another Topic

[kenrexford]

One of the threads (Glen and 3NT) is getting way too long for me to keep track of, but some tone of the recent posts induced me to make this post.

 

There is a disturbingly difficult tension between full disclosure, the GCC, and "natural" bidding. I see recurring examples of this, including the "Glen 3NT," responding in major fragments when right to do so and having directors with no real theory try to understand why this is so, and the like.

 

I have seen it most notably in the insanity I face when I open 1♦ in many partnerships. I alert this as showing 4+ diamonds and unbalanced. Then the questions start, by some people. So, I explain that 1♦ shows 10+ HCP's, maybe 23 as a max limit, with four diamonds. I explain that there must also be a stiff or void somewhere, unless partner has 10-12 points as 2245/2254. I explain that diamonds are usually equal or longer than any other suit, but that a club-diamond canape is possible. I explain that a five-card major is possible, if diamonds are longer or extremely better. I explain that Opener will not have a minor two-suiter and 14-16 HCP's (or 12-13 with great controls and extra length) unless the diamonds so outclass the clubs that the hand should be shown as a one-suiter. If they keep letting me speak, I can offer even more detail.

 

This is, of course, both ridiculous and yet technically required. Complete disclosure means that I should tell the opponents everything that they would not expect, in theory.

 

But then, I notice that very few people explain their 1♦ opening such as to tell me whether they promise a four-card suit, what they do with a weak club-diamond canape, what they open with 4-4 in the minors, which minor they open when 3-3, if 4432 is the only exception to a 4-card minor, what they would not open 2♣ with as far as minors are concerned, what their minimum is (and whether they use Rule-of-20), whether they can have a five-card major, what their opening 1NT range is, whether they open 1NT with a six-card minor or a five-card minor but an unstopped suit, and the like, let alone if their maximum is affected by a strong 1♣ opening... Add in Mini-Roman as an alternative?

 

There are so many different nuances that people have to otherwise "natural" calls, from specific style to inference from other options to whatever. And yet, sometimes great definition is required of some and yet overlooked in other situations.

 

I have no particular agenda here. I just empathize with Fred's position and Glen's technique in the other post but am afraid to get caught up in that post-a-thon.

[pclayton]

I would think "unbalanced" would suffice. I wouldn't even think you need to mention that it promises 4 in the suit.

 

If they grill you, perhaps say, "if the auction progresses, more information will be available".

 

Earlier today, we had a discussion (Ben, Justin, and a few others) about the ramifications of a single raise of a major by a passed hand.

 

Ben seemed to think that it was alertable, since I would presumably reverse drury with a good 9 count. I countered that my requirements for a limit raise were no different whether I have a passed hand or an unpassed hand.

 

I am just of the opinion that negative inferences don't need to be alerted. Can anyone come up with a common situation where they should be?

[pbleighton]

I wouldn't alert your diamond opener, unless you are frequently opening 10 counts, in which case it needs to be pre-alerted. You need to alert your conventional NT rebids, of course.

 

Peter

[the hog]

Well I think "insanity" is probably a good heading. Imo you can't alert everything and every possible nuance. It is our job to tell the opps what the bid means, but not EVERY negative inference that follows on from such a bid; after all should we give bridge lessons or lessons in logic at the table? Do the opps even want this?

 

I think an explanation of the meaning of the bid is sufficient. Hence I would take issue with Ben and say that 1M 2M by a passed hand is not alertable, even if you are playing Drury.

[glen]

...I explain that 1♦ shows 10+ HCP's, maybe 23 as a max limit, with four diamonds.  I explain that there must also be a stiff or void somewhere, unless partner has 10-12 points as 2245/2254.  I explain that diamonds are usually equal or longer than any other suit, but that a club-diamond canape is possible.  I explain that a five-card major is possible, if diamonds are longer or extremely better.  I explain that Opener will not have a minor two-suiter and 14-16 HCP's (or 12-13 with great controls and extra length) unless the diamonds so outclass the clubs that the hand should be shown as a one-suiter.  If they keep letting me speak, I can offer even more detail. ...

It might help to explain the bid, once alerted and asked about, as in some ways like a "standard" 1♦ opener, albeit we know there is no such thing as standard.

 

So "1♦ is like a standard 1♦ opener*, except we don't have a flat hand, and we could have longer ♣s than ♦s. Do you need more details?"

 

If they ask for more, give them the whole description as long as it takes. They asked and you provide free delivery - maybe you will get a tip if you deliver within 30 minutes.

 

*this will make them comfortable that you are not being nebulous, but even better "just like your 1♦ opener"

[kenrexford]

I think the point is being missed a little bit, perhaps because I have a tendency to be obscure.

 

Whereas most folks do not care about subtle differences between one style and another, there is a tendency for people to want all sorts of ridiculous detail about something that is different from what they are used to seeing, even if the difference is extremely subtle. This even occurs among the best players in the world, it seems.

 

In Montreal in 2004, I played in several events with a friend of mine, and I had taught him my style for minor openings, as described above. The difference from standard expectations is incredibly minor, insofar as it could affect opposition bidding. However, the 1♦ opening got an incredible amount of questions and clarifications and caveats and the like. There were an amazing number of people who sought reference to the attachment thing you had to carry around, at "Note 14." This was usually not enough, and many questions followed.

 

However, I never had anyone ask which breed of 2/1 we used, not much about our tendencies as to Weak Two's, etc. Any inferences necessary for defense or bidding would seem to be just as necessary after these bids as after a simple 1♦ opening, but not much concern there.

 

If the nuances of P-P-1M-P-2M because of Drury caused a big stir, this is another example of what I mean. How many people ask about the nuances of an unpassed 1M-P-2M, in light of different approaches to the forcing no trump, Bergen Raises, and the like? Almost never, and almost never alerted. But, toss Drury in, or even two-way Drury, and people get all confused for some reason.

 

People go nuts if Walsh is not alerted after 1♣. But, no one even asks about Walsh after 1♥ or 1♦. In fact, few even know or consciously realize that Walsh affects those auctions also.

 

Oh, and what about the ACBL rule about Stayman...2NT? No one ever asked about the nuances of 2♣ when I played two-way Stayman opposite weak no trumps.

 

I find this sort of thing funny.

[inquiry]

this 1♦ opening has to be alerted because it promises a side suit singleton or void. His partner knows this and can predicate various defensive lines on this premise. Perhaps he can even determine the short suit from his own hand and the subsequent auction. And furhter, he will never be balanced could be the key thing to the other side on defense or offense.

[kenrexford]

Of course it does. And, you are right -- the info to Responder is enormous, as are the implications of later bidding. And, I am more than happy to provide it. If anything, I have faced more angry snips for telling too much about the nuances.

 

What cracks me up is that similar questions should be asked of many other bids, but they are not.

[cherdano]

I am just of the opinion that negative inferences don't need to be alerted. Can anyone come up with a common situation where they should be?

Isn't it a negative inference that Ken's 1♦ is unbalanced? And in my opinion it is clearly alertable.

 

(I admit I don't alert our 1♦ opener which by negative inference can only be 11-13 if balanced. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think its reasonable to have it between "the unlikely strong balanced range is excluded" and "any balanced hand is excluded".)

[helene_t]

American alert procedures puzzle me. The ACBL alert procedures described on their website say basically that most artificial calls (a few exceptions, most notably Michael's cuebid) are alertable while very few natural calls are. In particular, Walsh and negative freebids seem not to be alertable. Matt once said he got a culture schock when he moved to the U.S. because Americans don't seems to alert anything. On the other hand, one of my friends who lived in the U.S. for many years (it was back in the 80s) says that you must alert anything that is non-SAYC, even subtle diferences. Hardy's book partly confirms this since he says that Walsh is alertable. One of Lawrence's books says that negative freebids are alertable.

 

FWIW, Dutch alert rules are incomplete and self-contrdicting as well as written in such a bad language as to be litterally uninteligeble (sp? lol). But what I can make from appeal comitee rulings is that artificial calls are generally alertable, while natural calls are alertable only if they differ significantly from what is common in the Netherlands. For example, a natural 2-opening is not alertable whether it promises 5 or 6 and whether it's weak or strong, while a 4+ 2-opening probably is, as is a strong 3-opening. I would guess. Negative freebids are not alertable. Walsh is one of the few things that explicitly is alertable, although it's unclear which of the many "soft-walsh" variants it applies to.

[1eyedjack]

Much of the objection to longwinded explanations centres on the the effort involved in producing the explanation. That can be largely overcome using pre-prepared scripts that describe bids early in the auction, and then using a package such as OKscript to send them to the opponents with a single mouse click. FD may render this redundant eventually. If you have detailed and potentially longwinded agreements that apply later in the auction then this may not be practical, as the number of prepared scripts would increase exponentially.

 

Of course, another objection might be the time that the opponents would have to devote to reading the detail, but to my mind this is a lesser objection.

[kenberg]

Anyone who hopes for clarity or logical consistency in alert rules will be disappointed. I think this is probably not because of stupidity or villainy but simply due to the complexity of the modern game. What's needed, imo, is some general goodwill and a practical approach.

 

For example: 1D promising at least four diamonds is hardly alertable (even though after 1D-pass-1N-all pass opening leader, without an alert, may regard 4-4-3-2 as a possible dummy) but 1D promising shortness somewhere clearly is alertable. Most people open a 3-3-4-3 hand, outside the nt range, with 1D and if you have some other way of handling this then it seems clear that the opponents need to know about it.

 

I realize that good intentions can go bad. The other day online I held 4-5-2-2, opened 1H, heard a forcing NT response. I bid 2C, self-alerted as possibly on a two card suit if 4-5-2-2. It took a while to assure opponents that no, we were not playing some weird response structure to the forcing nt. I was just allowing for the possibility that our system will, on occasion, force me to rebid a two card suit.

 

There are a lot of non-alertable things that strict construction would suggest should be alertable. This afternoon I will play in the acbl tourney with a partner who, as far as I know, has never in her life opened 1NT holding a five card major. So, when she opens 1NT, I know something that the opponents do not. Oh well, that's life, imo. I feel the same about alerting a raise to 2M after a third hand 1M. If responder would bid 2C rather than 2S holding Qxx/Kxx/Axxx/xxx I regard that as weird (no insult intended) but I do not see it as alertable.

 

I have made my peace with the alert system. Perfect it is not, but life isn't perfect either and I still am in favor of it.

[inquiry]

I am just of the opinion that negative inferences don't need to be alerted. Can anyone come up with a common situation where they should be?

Isn't it a negative inference that Ken's 1♦ is unbalanced? And in my opinion it is clearly alertable.

 

(I admit I don't alert our 1♦ opener which by negative inference can only be 11-13 if balanced. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think its reasonable to have it between "the unlikely strong balanced range is excluded" and "any balanced hand is excluded".)

Let;s compare the two one diamond bids...

 

Ken's 1♦ ALWAYS has a singleton or void

Cherdano may have a singleton or void, and if it doesn't it will have exactly 11-13 hcp.

 

Ken has to alert his bid, because the of the fact that he is know to be distribution can be important to his partner or declarer during the bidding or play. Imagine the following auction....

 

1D-(4S)- all pass

 

Declarer might be able to guess that ken is short in spades, or ken's partner might be able to guess from his hand and his own spade void that ken is lijkely short in, say clubs.

 

An auction where cherdano opened 1♦, there is no distributional clues to either partner nor declarer. He may be balanced 11-13, or unbalanced 11 to however many 1♦ is limited by.

 

I suspect a simple auction like 1D-P-1H-P-1NT, cherdano has limited his hand to 11-13 hcp, but so what? If I had that auction, I would limit mysefl the same way. No alert needed. But on say, 1D-P-2C-P-2NT, I think an alert is need to say that this 2NT, by agreement, is limited to 11-13, since others might no reach the same conclusion on what this 2NT rebid shows.

[inquiry]

While we are on the subject, the hog commented that I thought P-P-1H-P-2H requires an alert if you play Drury. This is, no doubt, because of a comment I made yesterday while kibitzing a pair of BBF members who had this auction (actually all four players are among top posters on the BBF).

 

The 2H bidder held,

 

JT9x

Kxxx

Axx

Jx

 

Which I thought would qualify for a lightish limit raise, and yet a very constructive 2H bid was made. So I asked first the question if they played Drury. The answer was yes. Then I asked how much stronger a hand he had to hold to use Drury, as opposed to making the raise. Answer not much, change the spade J to the Queen.

 

Then I asked a fairly simple question (I did not make a definative statement), did he think 2H needs to be alerted when playing drury? I even noted that in my experience people did not alert such a 2H raise.

 

A discussion ensued, with it correctly pointed out that drury is used with "limit raise" hands and that it does not affect the stregnth of simple raise. Clearly in such a use the answer that 2H does not need to be alerted is correct.

 

I have started playing a flavor or drury, however, where the following is true....

 

After an initial pass, 1NT is semi-forcing at best. .This can lead to some problems if you keep your P-1H-2H raise as constructive. The reason being, partner might pass the 1NT when you are weak with a fit. The solution, which by way I have seen many others use, is to use drury with sound constructive raises, and have the immediate raise be weaker. Clearly the NS pair were not using this style. But playing it, 1NT bid will never have 3 card support. Over 2♣, the opener bids 2♦ with normal opener that would accept a limit game raise and 2♥ with any thing that would not. Over 2♦, responder can bid 2♥ (constructive raise) or more that 2♥ with the limit raise. This means P-1H-2H is "less than constructive" and MUST be alerted, at least imo. There is no need to explain what you WOULD Have bid with a construtive raise, you simple state "weak raise, not construtive" or something like "promises 3 cards, 2 to 7 hcp" (or whatever your range would be). BTW, if I was 3-4-3-3 and weak, I would treat that as 3 card support. Partner knows this. Should that be mentioned? I think not. That is "just bridge" and partner does not act on that possibilty.

[jtfanclub]

Ken's 1♦ ALWAYS has a singleton or void

He points out that it doesn't...he could have 10-12 and both minors 2245. I don't know if he's so strict that 2263 and 2272 hands cannot open 1 diamond (or if his methods have another bid for that).

 

I think that as long as it doesn't aboslutely promise a singleton or void, it's not alertable. I have spoken to the rulings@acbl.org about these things and have been told to not alert it.

 

I like Glen's answer. It's also legal in the ACBL to not explain unusual circumstances. If it's rare for you to open 1♦ with a 5 card major, you don't need to alert that, and if they asked if you could have a 5 card major, you can say 'we don't generally have a 5 card major'. You don't have to go into more detail than that. The fact that once in a blue moon you open 1NT with a singleton, or 1♦ with a 5 card major, or your 5 card major with 4 cards, does not make it alertable nor does it need to be part of the explanation.

[kenrexford]

Ken's 1♦ ALWAYS has a singleton or void

He points out that it doesn't...he could have 10-12 and both minors 2245. I don't know if he's so strict that 2263 and 2272 hands cannot open 1 diamond (or if his methods have another bid for that).

Actually, I left that issue out. :P

 

Technically, you have options with a 6322/7222 hand. If you want, you are free to open this 1♣, planning to call it "balanced." Sometimes there is a method for showing a "balanced hand with lopsided diamonds" after starting 1♣.

 

However, it is true that you may elect to open 1♦ with 6322 or 7222, such that the expectation of a stiff or void is not absolute when Opener proves to have a sixth diamond. This is usually explained as a tactical exception.

 

I also neglected to mention (but do when alerting) that 1♦ might not have a stiff or void if the 1♦ opening is third seat and weak/minimum. Again, tactical concerns dictate whether a third seat opening will be made with 1♣ or 1♦ when in that weak/minimum range.

 

As you can imagine, the 1♣ alert is also very complicated. The deinition we give is that a 1♣ opening shows (a.) 10-23 HCP's with 4+ clubs and unbalanced, or any balanced hand with 11 to a bad 14 or 17 to a bad 19. The 1♣ opening, if balanced, may feature a longer diamond suit, up to even seven cards in length, even if clubs are only doubleton. We also note that we open 1♦ when the hand is 2245 or 2254 and 10-12 HCP's. We also note the tactical concerns for third/fourth seat openings. In one version, affected by the major opening structure, we even noted that the 1♣ opening may be based upon a 5332 hand with a five-card major if Opener has 17-18 HCP's. We also note the 5-card major with longer clubs option.

 

You can see a practical reason for liking IMP's. LOL

[jtfanclub]

As you can imagine, the 1♣ alert is also very complicated. The deinition we give is that a 1♣ opening shows (a.) 10-23 HCP's with 4+ clubs and unbalanced, or any balanced hand with 11 to a bad 14 or 17 to a bad 19. The 1♣ opening, if balanced, may feature a longer diamond suit, up to even seven cards in length, even if clubs are only doubleton. We also note that we open 1♦ when the hand is 2245 or 2254 and 10-12 HCP's. We also note the tactical concerns for third/fourth seat openings. In one version, affected by the major opening structure, we even noted that the 1♣ opening may be based upon a 5332 hand with a five-card major if Opener has 17-18 HCP's. We also note the 5-card major with longer clubs option.

I have to admit, my description would be 10-23 hcp with clubs, or a hand with any balanced shape, could be as short as two clubs, could have a 5 card major. I wouldn't include anything about 6 or 7 diamonds (they should know what balanced means), nor would I include that there are some balanced ranges that it could not be (unless you're playing Romex, they should already know that). Nor would I include the rare 6 clubs and 5 spades in the description.

 

To me, full disclosure stops being FD if it becomes confusing as to what the person could actually have. If I know you're balanced or clubs, that's good enough for me. Not only does that tell me what you have, but it tells us what defense to use (whatever we use vs. Polish Club). If you make the explanation long and with all sorts of special cases, we might get confused and one of us use defense vs. Polish while the other might use defense vs. Precision.

[blackshoe]

American alert procedures puzzle me. The ACBL alert procedures described on their website say basically that most artificial calls (a few exceptions, most notably Michael's cuebid) are alertable while very few natural calls are. In particular, Walsh and negative freebids seem not to be alertable. Matt once said he got a culture schock when he moved to the U.S. because Americans don't seems to alert anything. On the other hand, one of my friends who lived in the U.S. for many years (it was back in the 80s) says that you must alert anything that is non-SAYC, even subtle diferences. Hardy's book partly confirms this since he says that Walsh is alertable. One of Lawrence's books says that negative freebids are alertable.

"Michael's cuebid"? Michael who? :P

 

Trying to apply what was written in a book 20 or more years ago to alert procedures that were written six years ago is probably a waste of time.

 

"Alert anything that is non-SAYC" is something I've run across in online bridge, but never in f2f bridge. Perhaps a club might say that, but I don't think the ACBL ever did.

 

There are a lot of examples in the alert procedure (as opposed to the chart, which is what most people seem to rely on). They really do help. For example:

 

1♣, 1♦, or 1♥-P-1NT If the 1NT bidder could or could not have four cards in one or both majors, again no Alert.

1♣-P-1♥ or 1♠ If the major-suit bidder could be passing up a four-card or longer diamond suit, no Alert is required.

 

Hardy may have been right back in the 1980s that Walsh was alertable then. It isn't now.