Obscure, or a real problem?

[kenrexford]

Regional torunament, Stratified Open.

 

My partner opened 1♣, alerted. RHO did not ask.

 

RHO then overcalled 1♦, causing his partner to twitch. LHO started to say "alert," but then he stopped abruptly. So, I asked.

 

He started to ask questions, then, about the 1♣ call. I explained:

 

"Partner has 11-22 HCP's. She has one of two basic hand types. She might have an unbalanced hand with 4+ clubs, but usually 5+ as the only 4-card unbalanced holding is specifically 4414. She might also be balanced, with either 11-14 or 18-19; in that event, her minor holdings are completely unknown. For instance, if balanced, she may have six diamonds and two clubs and stll opt to open 1♣."

 

LHO started to ask a few more questions, when RHO piped up, "It's not Precision."

 

So, I called TD. The situation seems obvious, in that RHO clearly could have used an artificial structure over some 1♣ openings. Sure enough, 1♦ would show the majors after a Precision 1♣. LHO, with six spades and a decent hand, would have landed the two in a spade contract in the stratosphere, very unsuccessfully.

 

I saw two problems; the TD saw a third. The TD focused on LHO asking questions about my partner's 1♣ call before his opportunity to bid. At first, I thought that this was necessary to answer my question. However, in retrospect I agree. Because RHO did not ask, it must not matter. So, LHO should have simply answered the question.

 

This, of course, was impossible without knowing our agreement, as theirs changed depending on ours. The flip of this coin was my thought that RHO should not have made a definition-dependent call (1♦) without seeking explanation of our call.

 

The kicker was RHO's comment that "They are not playing Precision." This is, contextually, a functional equivalent to stating, "I have diamonds, not both majors." As the TD correctly noted, LHO may have drawn a different conclusion as to whether their special system applied over our unique 1♣ opening.

 

The ruling? Result stands (they declared 2♦ or 3♦, making, when any number of spades will be set). No adjustment, no procedural penalty, nothing.

[matmat]

simple solution -- stop alerting your bids :rolleyes:

[paulg]

I don't see much of an issue here, although perhaps you had to be there.

 

RHO's comment that you are not playing Precision is unauthorised information and some TDs may admonish/penalise them for this. In the context though it appears that you have probably not been damaged as LHO would have come to the same conclusion.

 

It also appears that RHO knew that you were not playing a strong club. To ask the meaning of 1♣ in this case would be an infraction (essentially asking for partner's benefit) so it seems wrong to place blame on RHO for this.

 

You do not mention the area of LHO's further questioning, but it sounds as if he is really trying to ask whether you are playing a strong club system. Questioning of this ilk seems reasonable (from thousands of miles away).

 

On the other hand, I expect you need to pre-alert these methods so I wonder why anyone is asking.

 

Paul

[Mbodell]

I don't think you should ask your opponent about the 1♦ bid if he didn't alert it. If you are going to ask anything, you should ask "did you alert the 1♦ bid" due to his starting and then stopping, if it is unclear if the bid was alerted. If the player didn't alert the 1♦ you know it is natural. If he did, then you might want to ask about it.

 

I'm not sure it is clear that your opponent can't ask you questions as it is possible his partner looked at your cc and knew what your 1♣ was even if he didn't. In which case he'd have to know your system to know what partner's bid was. So I disagree with the analysis that says b/c his partner didn't ask about 1♣, the meaning of you 1♣ can't be relevant to the auction. Of course this leads to an awkward situation where your LHO doesn't know if he should alert the 1♦ bid until it is his turn and he can ask about your bids. If your RHO knows that LHO might be in the dark would it still be an infraction for him to ask the meaning of your alert solely to let partner know that your bid isn't precision and so that LHO wouldn't falsely alert/not alert the bid?

 

While I don't like RHO speaking at all once it is your turn to bid, I don't think I would expect LHO to take your bid as anything like precision 1♣. Your bid is much closer to, and much more like, 1♣ natural than 1♣ precision so I can see allowing the contract to stand without any problem. So I definitely wouldn't adjust the table result. I'd at least warn RHO not to do that again and wouldn't be opposed to a PP (in my non-TD opinion).

[skjaeran]

I agree with others that LHO most probably would come to the conclusion that 1♦ had to be natural. Thus I'd let the result stand.

 

However, RHO's utterance is absoulutely not called for, improper and a breach of laws. I'd come quite heavily down on him/her with a PP like 20% of the top of a board (that's heavy in my environment, normally a first time PP would be a warning or 10% of a top).

[kenrexford]

Add into this mix, however, that folks often have agreements to play something over 1♣ if a 1♣ opening is "artificial."

 

BTW, though, I expected to lose this one. The reason I called was that I cannot stand a couple of the infractions here. The worst, IMO, is the four-way overcall structure.

 

1. If you have diamonds, you don't ask what 1♣ means. Bid diamonds real quickly, and partner will work it out.

 

2. If you have both majors, ask what 1♣ means. When you then bid 1♦, partner will know what it means (if 1♣ was artificial).

 

3. If you have diamonds only, ask what 1♣ means IF 1♣ is Precision, and then pass. Partner might guess right.

 

4. If you have both majors, and 1♣ is not Precision, ask and then or bid 1♠. That latter is more sophisticated, as it implies spades and a conventional second suit.

[blackshoe]

IMO, this 1♣ bid does not require a pre-alert.

 

Perhaps RHO is one of those rare ACBL players who actually looks at opponents' CC before the start of the round. Perhaps LHO did the same. Or perhaps not.

 

The TD is obligated to deal with all the problems, not just the one most obvious to him.

 

My ruling:

 

to RHO: "Your comment 'it's not Precision' is blatant passing of UI to your partner. This is a violation of Law 73B1 (read it out) for which I am giving you a procedural penalty of 25% of a top (standard in the ACBL)*."

 

to LHO: "Your partner's comment is UI to you. You must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it in your future actions on this board (Law 73C, read it out)".

 

to RHO: "Your partner's reaction to your 1♦ bid is UI to you. Law 73C applies equally to your future actions on this board".

 

To you: "if you feel you may have been damaged by use of UI, call me back at the end of the hand.

 

To the table: "Play on."

 

*Most ACBL TDs are reluctant to issue PPs. I think this is unfortunate - and in the long run, bad for the game.

[awm]

The table result should stand here. It seems very unlikely that your LHO would decide that you're playing precision (or that 1♦ overcall should be majors) after processing the explanation of 1♣. I also think LHO is perfectly within his rights to say "the meaning of 1♦ depends on what your 1♣ is" and ask for an explanation of 1♣ before explaining.

 

It's true that RHO should not have announced "it's not precision" during your explanation. While it might be reasonable to assess a procedural penalty, I would note that you've given a rather long winded (though accurate) explanation of your agreements and LHO was probably sitting there looking a bit confused while trying to process the multiple options. I suspect RHO was trying to speed matters up rather than trying to cheat.

[paulg]

Add into this mix, however, that folks often have agreements to play something over 1♣ if a 1♣ opening is "artificial."

 

BTW, though, I expected to lose this one.  The reason I called was that I cannot stand a couple of the infractions here.  The worst, IMO, is the four-way overcall structure.

 

1.  If you have diamonds, you don't ask what 1♣ means.  Bid diamonds real quickly, and partner will work it out.

 

2. If you have both majors, ask what 1♣ means.  When you then bid 1♦, partner will know what it means (if 1♣ was artificial).

 

3. If you have diamonds only, ask what 1♣ means IF 1♣ is Precision, and then pass.  Partner might guess right.

 

4. If you have both majors, and 1♣ is not Precision, ask and then or bid 1♠.  That latter is more sophisticated, as it implies spades and a conventional second suit.

In my experience this happens far more in the ACBL than the UK.

 

In Scotland it is a matter of regulation that everyone pre-alerts their system (as 98% play Benj Acol it does not take any time). In England and Wales, people generally pre-alert their system and the Law & Ethics Committee has just reinforced that they should (though it is yet to tell everyone officially).

 

Throughout the UK players exchange convention cards. The regulations also stress the danger of creating UI when asking questions.

 

All of this is very different to my experiences in the ACBL (ask, do not assume!), even though I've only played at the Nationals (where I'd expect behaviour to be better).

 

Paul

[han]

I agree that the score probably shouldn't be changed but that RHO deserves a serious beating (pointwise).

 

This was the third of your threads that I read, and I agree with each of your director calls, and I'm appaled by the behavior of your opponents. The rulings were very poor.

[pclayton]

Ken, I believe in practice you say "can be short", rather than "alert" in ACBL land.

 

1♣ would never be a stiff right?

[kenrexford]

Ken, I believe in practice you say "can be short", rather than "alert" in ACBL land.

 

1♣ would never be a stiff right?

I'm not sure that this is accurate.

 

"Could be short" typically implies a 1♣ opening with 4432 when balanced.

 

For us, the minors may be 3-2, 2-3, 4-2, 2-4, 5-2, 2-5, 4-3, 3-4, or 3-3. 2245/2254 are also possible. With 6♦/2♣, you use judgment/tactics, such that this is possible. Even 4441 (stiff club) is possible if the club stiff is an honor (judgment/tactical).

 

I have heard many folks tell me that "could be short" is better here, but I don't think that this meets my obligation.

[whereagles]

I think we should change this forum's name to "Rulings and appeals". That's what we do here after all, no? B)

[sheepman]

Is LHO not entitled to look at your CC during play?

 

Would solve the problem surely

[blackshoe]

Once, when I objected to an opponent's browbeating my partner with repeated questions about our system, and suggested that the answers to her questions were on my CC, she replied superciliously "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions!" So I called the director, who did nothing :)

[matmat]

Is LHO not entitled to look at your CC during play?

 

Would solve the problem surely

entitled -- of course they are.

 

often people are too lazy to do this, and also, (for shame) i have ran into instances where:

 

- pairs have two convention cards that disagree

- the convention cards are for "different" partnerships

- the convention cards are not up to date

[jtfanclub]

Good Lord.

 

Talk about burying the opponents in a mountain of bullpoop.

 

"Partner has 11-22 HCP's. She has one of two basic hand types. She might have an unbalanced hand with 4+ clubs, but usually 5+ as the only 4-card unbalanced holding is specifically 4414. She might also be balanced, with either 11-14 or 18-19; in that event, her minor holdings are completely unknown. For instance, if balanced, she may have six diamonds and two clubs and stll opt to open 1♣."

 

How about....

 

"Balanced or a club suit. May have longer diamonds than clubs if balanced".

 

Now, I hate two-way overcalls as much as anybody. And I understand Full Disclosure. But you have to admit that giving the opponents an explanation that they'll understand on the first go-round is part of disclosure as well.

 

Now, the opponent should have told you literally what the bid means "Natural across a 2+ club suit, majors across a completely artifical one club opening". But whether these opponents deserved a talking to or a PP would depend on what level of skill they're playing it.

[kenrexford]

Good Lord.

 

Talk about burying the opponents in a mountain of bullpoop.

 

"Partner has 11-22 HCP's. She has one of two basic hand types. She might have an unbalanced hand with 4+ clubs, but usually 5+ as the only 4-card unbalanced holding is specifically 4414. She might also be balanced, with either 11-14 or 18-19; in that event, her minor holdings are completely unknown. For instance, if balanced, she may have six diamonds and two clubs and stll opt to open 1♣."

 

How about....

 

"Balanced or a club suit. May have longer diamonds than clubs if balanced".

I agree that this shorter message should work. However, in practice it does not. I've given verying versions of explanations for the call for almost 20 years. I've had a number of really strange follow-up questions. The fewest strange questions have occurred after this latest version of the explanation.

[matmat]

hmmm

time to start carrying a deck of flash cards with descriptions, and when an opp asks you about a complicated bid, hand them a flash card?

[TimG]

Is LHO not entitled to look at your CC during play?

 

Would solve the problem surely

I believe a player is permitted to look at an opponent's convention card only at their turn to call (or play).

[TimG]

Talk about burying the opponents in a mountain of bullpoop.

I tend to agree with this.

 

From an organizational standpoint, the simple solution is to not allow such conventions in a stratified event.

 

Whether appropriate or not those who use unusual methods ought to take special care not to create these kinds of situations.

[pclayton]

Ken, I believe in practice you say "can be short", rather than "alert" in ACBL land.

 

1♣ would never be a stiff right?

I'm not sure that this is accurate.

 

"Could be short" typically implies a 1♣ opening with 4432 when balanced.

 

For us, the minors may be 3-2, 2-3, 4-2, 2-4, 5-2, 2-5, 4-3, 3-4, or 3-3. 2245/2254 are also possible. With 6♦/2♣, you use judgment/tactics, such that this is possible. Even 4441 (stiff club) is possible if the club stiff is an honor (judgment/tactical).

 

I have heard many folks tell me that "could be short" is better here, but I don't think that this meets my obligation.

It does not imply a 4432. Where did you pull this out of?

 

A few years ago when I played a 10-12 NT, both of our 1♣ and 1♦ openings were prepared. We would open 1♣ just like you any time we held a balanced 13-15, even if we held a 3352 or a 3262 (and judged these to be balanced). We were advised an announcement was proper.

 

The cc is marked in blue which is consistent with an announcement.

[Guest Jlall]

Could be short implies 4432 because 99 % of the time the opps announce "could be short" that is the system they are playing.

 

Agree with the decision to say alert even though technically you can get away with "could be short."

[barmar]

The ACBL Alert Procedures says that you announce "After a non-forcing opening 1♣ or 1♦ for which the opener could have fewer than three cards in the suit opened."

 

In your system, is responder required to bid something (assuming LHO doesn't overcall), so that you can clarify which type of opening it is?

[jtfanclub]

Talk about burying the opponents in a mountain of bullpoop.

I tend to agree with this.

 

From an organizational standpoint, the simple solution is to not allow such conventions in a stratified event.

 

Whether appropriate or not those who use unusual methods ought to take special care not to create these kinds of situations.

I wouldn't go that far.

 

I would say that most organizations give extra leeway in situatons like this. My personal favorite is....

 

"1NT" "12-15"

"What are we playing against a 12-15 No trump, P?"

"Hmmm...12-15 they said? How about Capaletti?"

"OK, capp it is. 2♦".

 

I called the director, and all they got was a warning.

 

I'm not sure I'd be against that as an official rule- that RHO could make such a decision after an opening. Since it isn't an official rule, then obviously I wouldn't rule that way, but I wouldn't adjust in a case like this, though there'd be at least a warning and maybe a PP.