4243 alertable?

[jillybean]

The player concerned wants me to remove the word routinely from “You routinely open 4243 hands 1♣” in the opening post but Im not sure how to best word it.

 

We had a lengthy, friendly, discussion after the tournament and one of the questions I asked was “do we agree; with 4♦ and 3♣, the usual opening is 1♦”? - she did not agree with this which indicates to me that xx43 hands will be opened 1♣ more frequently than expected.

 

For certain there is no consensus on this!

[jdonn]

It sounds to me like your partner is trying to be like a politician to not admit the truth so he/she doesn't have to tell the opponents. Of course I'm only speculating on the intentions, but that's sure how it looks.

[Finch]

It doesn't sound like it's jilly's partner, it is someone playing in a tournament she was directing.

 

To be honest, I've never seen exactly this style of opening before, which seems to be

 

- open 1D when 4=4=3=2

- open 1C on all other balanced hands without a non-club 5-card suit

 

the "real" phoney club often opens 1C on 3=2=5=3 12-14s as well, but I imagine that isn't the case here, that's a 1D opening?

[jdonn]

It doesn't sound like it's jilly's partner, it is someone playing in a tournament she was directing.

I think you're right, my mistake.

[mycroft]

My guess - and it's only a guess - is that they play "1D implies an unbalanced hand", but they'll do it in 4=4=3=2 if necessary; but otherwise "all balanced hands are opened 1C if out of other NT ranges".

 

I'm not 100% sure it should be Alerted, but I think it should be pre-Alerted. I think if you tell the opponents the idea, something like "1C then some NT could be (42)43 as well as what's 'standard'", it wouldn't take too long or annoying, especially with macros and BBO.

 

Now that I think about it, it might be one of those things that's best Alerted when it's discovered, like 1NT-2C;2x-2NT "may not have a 4 card Major". 1C-1x; 1NT "may have 4 diamonds and only 3 clubs, if the hand's ..." or "may be 42 in the majors, with 4 diamonds and 3 clubs" or whatever.

 

The spirit of Law 40 means that the opponents should know about the possibility when it comes up somewhen; when seems to be vague.

 

But Check With Memphis for official ruling, as always.

[barmar]

Many folks refer to this type of opening structure as "short club" or a "phony club".

"Short club" usually refers to systems where 1♣ could be a 2-card (or shorter) suit. Typically these systems promise at least 4 cards for a 1♦ opening, so you open 1♣ with 4=4=3=2 hands; and 5-card ♦ systems open 1♣ with 4=4=4=1.

 

Short club bids require an announcement in ACBL, you announce something like "Could be as short as 2."

[blackshoe]

Proper form for that announcement is simply "could be short". It applies when the opening 1♣ or 1♦ bid could be on a suit shorter than three cards (including no cards). If the opponents want to know how short, they can ask.

[jdonn]

Proper form for that announcement is simply "could be short". It applies when the opening 1♣ or 1♦ bid could be on a suit shorter than three cards (including no cards). If the opponents want to know how short, they can ask.

Correct but important to note that is only if the bid is nonforcing. Some people open 1♣ on 0+ or 1+ but have agreed never to pass, which is an alert not an announcement.

[jillybean]

As others have pointed out, 4243 is not a 'short club'

 

Today, the player further clarified that she plays convenient minor (defined as ‘Where opener lacks a five card major, s/he opens the longer/better minor. Guarantees at least 3 cards in the suit.) and asked 14 people at her club who confirmed; no alert needed.

 

I now believe the player opens 1♣/1♦ on whim and her partner is equally in the dark, its hard to undo 30 years of club games. I'll continue to review these openings in my games.

[mycroft]

Right. Convenient minor is fine. But 1C on 4=2=4=3 isn't "longer minor" - so it looks like she'll open 1C on 9753 AKT, but 1D on KQT4 853 (and somewhere in the middle is the borderline) as "better minor".

 

Like anybody playing a non-standard system, she needs to clarify in her mind where that border is, make sure that she and her partner are on the same page, and ensure that the opponents are in the know. How to do that is not terribly important as long as it happens.

 

Please note that that's what gets me about a lot of "standard" players; they say "it's standard" - which may be correct, but it's not Law 40. There are also situations where there are two or more subtly different ways to play <something> that are all "standard", and thanks, but I'd like to know which one - *and you have an absolute requirement to tell me*, just as they'd be upset if I only described 1S-3S in my Precision system as "weak", when I show up with 8 high.

[jillybean]

It seems to me, some people have never bothered to understand WHY it is important to alert an unusual minor opening and therefore take exception when queried. People don’t see a failure to alert a minor opening as being in the same league as failure to alert a precision or polish ♣ opening for eg.

[blackshoe]

My response to "it's standard" or "<name of convention>" is "I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. Could you explain further, please?"

[pigpenz]

The ACBL rule is very clear about this. Bids with an unusual or unexpected meaning are alertable. What's unusual? Director's discretion.

 

Thus the rule is, if Blackshoe is directing, then you do not have to alert. If Jdonn is directing, then you do have to alert. In some cases the rules may depend on who "you" are as well as who the director is.

 

Don't like this type of rule? Tough, ACBL used to have alert regulations with less leeway for "director discretion" -- they purposely changed it in the last update to be fuzzier.

yes and never ever quote Bridge World to an ACBL TD.

[JoAnneM]

I agree completely with jdonn. Active Ethics is promoted, even demanded, by ACBL, and that requires full disclosure. In my long years in duplicate bridge it is the wannabee experts who have the most trouble with this concept, the true experts, no matter their age, are expert at full disclosure and Active Ethics.

 

Notice at the vugraph tables how many bids are alerted that don't get alerted in your local club. And, we have a national champion playing regularly at an online to which I belong, and he and his partner alert religiously, with accompanying explanations. I imagine there are some there that think he is a "wuss". lol

[jtfanclub]

I agree completely with jdonn. Active Ethics is promoted, even demanded, by ACBL, and that requires full disclosure. In my long years in duplicate bridge it is the wannabee experts who have the most trouble with this concept, the true experts, no matter their age, are expert at full disclosure and Active Ethics.

Disagree in this case, although I might have agreed when I first read the OP.

 

If I tend to open 43 in the minors with the 4 card minor, but do it with the 3 card minor when the 4 card is complete junk, I think that it's a mistake to alert it. All I'm really doing is confusing the opponents and possibly revealing information to partner (because of unintentional emphasis in my wording or whatever). The second one isn't an issue in Vugraph because it's being written down- my partner doesn't get to see it.

 

When I play Precision, where 1 diamond promises 4 or more diamonds but could be longer clubs, I'll announce just before the opening lead if appropriate. But every director I've spoken to on this believes that this one diamond bid should not be alerted just because it could have longer clubs, because it's more likely to introduce UI or cause problems by people afraid to ask for fear of introducing UI than it is to actually be useful.

 

There is a 'usual' function going on here. If the bid usually means what the opponents expect it to mean, then it shouldn't be alerted. If a later call makes the unusual meaning more common or more important, then you alert later. Even for 'standard' experts, there are cases where they'll respond 1♥ with 3 across a 1♦ opener. But that doesn't mean you alert the 1♥ bid because one time in a million it'll be short.

 

If every time they have 4 diamonds and 3 clubs, they open 1 club, then that should be alerted. But if it's limited to the rare case of 3 good clubs and 4 awful diamonds, I don't think that's alertable. And based on the later posts, I think that's what they were actually playing.

[jdonn]

If I tend to open 43 in the minors with the 4 card minor, but do it with the 3 card minor when the 4 card is complete junk, I think that it's a mistake to alert it.  All I'm really doing is confusing the opponents and possibly revealing information to partner (because of unintentional emphasis in my wording or whatever).

Got it. Don't alert because:

 

- The opponents are idiots.

- Partner is unethical.

- I can not CONTROL the volume OF MY voice when I get EXCITED about CERTAIN words.

 

When I play Precision, where 1 diamond promises 4 or more diamonds but could be longer clubs, I'll announce just before the opening lead if appropriate.  But every director I've spoken to on this believes that this one diamond bid should not be alerted just because it could have longer clubs, because it's more likely to introduce UI or cause problems by people afraid to ask for fear of introducing UI than it is to actually be useful.

This has already been touched on. I'll be clear.

 

Opening 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors is not highly unusual and unexpected.

 

Opening 1♣ with 4-3 in the minors is highly unusual and unexpected.

[mycroft]

Yeah, but opening 1C with 9632 AKT in the minors is not highly unusual or unexpected - just good(?) judgement.

 

Opening 1C with 9632 T85 in the minors, treating it as 3-3, may be less good judgement, but is it truly "highly" unusual or unexpected? If so, where is a reasonable borderline?

 

Not everybody has yet become a convert to "length rules on openings, strength is irrelevant"; they tend to win when partner finds the right lead (and lose in many other cases).

[jtfanclub]

If I tend to open 43 in the minors with the 4 card minor, but do it with the 3 card minor when the 4 card is complete junk, I think that it's a mistake to alert it.  All I'm really doing is confusing the opponents and possibly revealing information to partner (because of unintentional emphasis in my wording or whatever).

Got it. Don't alert because:

 

- The opponents are idiots.

- Partner is unethical.

- I can not CONTROL the volume OF MY voice when I get EXCITED about CERTAIN words.

 

When I play Precision, where 1 diamond promises 4 or more diamonds but could be longer clubs, I'll announce just before the opening lead if appropriate.  But every director I've spoken to on this believes that this one diamond bid should not be alerted just because it could have longer clubs, because it's more likely to introduce UI or cause problems by people afraid to ask for fear of introducing UI than it is to actually be useful.

This has already been touched on. I'll be clear.

 

Opening 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors is not highly unusual and unexpected.

 

Opening 1♣ with 4-3 in the minors is highly unusual and unexpected.

Woo hoo! Selective quoting at its best.

 

Maybe I should use bold instead of italics.

 

Don't alert if the usual meaning of the bid is the expected meaning of the bid. If there is a rare exception where the meaning of the bid is not the expected meaning of the bid, that is not an alert.

 

How many examples would you like of this rule? If 1♣ (1♠) P is usually a weak hand but could be a trap pass, this is not an alert. If 1NT p 2♣ usually has a 4 card major but might not on rare cases, this is not an alert. If you use 1NT P 2♦ as showing hearts 99% of the time but the other 1% you're just setting up for keycard in hearts because it's the only way you can find out about the location of the queen of hearts, it's not an alert.

 

Sure, 4 diamonds and 5 clubs isn't unusual, but I open 1 diamond with 4-6. Still not alertable. If I opened 1 diamond with 4-7 and even had a rebid just for 4-7, it still wouldn't be alertable. Why? Because 1 diamond usually means the expected meaning. If a later part of the auction made the rare freak more likely, it would be an alert then.

 

If 43 in the minors always opened 1 club, that would be common, and alerted.

 

If 43 in the minors is opened with the longer minor, but in rare exceptions where the longer suit is very weak but the shorter suit was very strong it gets opened with the shorter minor, that is not an alert in my opinion, and I suspect in most directors' opinion. In Vugraph or online where there's less cost in an alert, maybe you should do it as a courtesy.

[jdonn]

Sorry I thought we were talking about the topic under discussion, not changing it to some different case! Maybe it would help to reread the first sentence of the entire thread.

 

You routinely open 4243 hands 1♣ - is it alertable under ACBL regulations?

 

I have never disagreed that if you make very rare exceptions about suit length based on suit quality there is no need to alert. No need for me to 'selectively quote' your ridiculous examples.

[jtfanclub]

Sorry I thought we were talking about the topic under discussion, not changing it to some different case! Maybe it would help to reread the first sentence of the entire thread.

 

You routinely open 4243 hands 1♣ - is it alertable under ACBL regulations?

 

I have never disagreed that if you make very rare exceptions about suit length based on suit quality there is no need to alert. No need for me to 'selectively quote' your ridiculous examples.

Halfway through the thread, Jilly changed what was under discussion. In my first reply, I said that while I might have agreed that any 43 in the minors opening 1♣ should be alerted, her new version (that they only open it under these rare circumstances) it should no longer be alerted.

 

I thought I had made that sufficiently explicit, but looking back on it I see that I didn't. So I think we're arguing with each other in spite of being in agreement, and I'll leave it at that.

[jillybean]

Halfway through the thread, Jilly changed what was under discussion.  In my first reply, I said that while I might have agreed that any 43 in the minors opening 1♣ should be alerted, her new version (that they only open it under these rare circumstances) it should no longer be alerted.

 

I dont like being mis quoted, what I said was;

 

 

The player concerned wants me to remove the word routinely from “You routinely open 4243 hands 1♣” in the opening post but Im not sure how to best word it.

 

We had a lengthy, friendly, discussion after the tournament and one of the questions I asked was “do we agree; with 4♦ and 3♣, the usual opening is 1♦”?  - she did not agree with this which indicates to me that xx43 hands will be opened 1♣ more frequently than expected.

 

 

Its clear that this player should alert!

[jtfanclub]

I dont like being mis quoted, what I said was;

.

.

.

 

Its clear that this player should alert!

I didn't quote you, let alone misquote you. This is a quote:

 

Today, the player further clarified that she plays convenient minor (defined as ‘Where opener lacks a five card major, s/he opens the longer/better minor. Guarantees at least 3 cards in the suit.) and asked 14 people at her club who confirmed; no alert needed.

 

I now believe the player opens 1♣/1♦ on whim and her partner is equally in the dark, its hard to undo 30 years of club games. I'll continue to review these openings in my games.

 

It is clear this is NOT an alert, unless you can prove that what they're playing is not convenient minor! If they, on rare occassions and in their bridge judgement, decide that the convenient minor is the shorter one does not make it alertable, nor does it change it from being convenient minor.

 

If their partner was truly equally in the dark, then either it's part of convenient minor, and therefore not alertable, or it's a psyche, which is also not alertable. You alert non-standard agreements. You don't alert calls where the agreed meaning is standard and the partner is as much in the dark as to the actual holding as the opponents.

[Echognome]

You would have to be really careful to define "in the dark". Of course if she has a regular partner and varies her openings between the minors, then her partner is "not in the dark" as to the reliability of her bids. The agreement to "randomize" if you will, may be an implicit agreement, but it's an agreement nonetheless. So if, on a whim, I decide to open 1♣ holding ♠ATxx ♥KQxx ♦Qxx ♣Qx and my partner would expect me to open 1♦, then fine. However, if I do it regularly, and partner would expect that some of the time I would open 1♣ and some of the time I would open 1♦, then I think that should be alertable.

 

N'est ce pas?

[jillybean]

jtfanclub you are right, you didnt "quote" me. Just to be sure, quote "her new version (that they only open it under these rare circumstances)" are your words not mine.

 

I think the openings are clearly non standard when the player disagreed with the question “do we agree; with 4♦ and 3♣, the usual opening is 1♦?”

 

My comment about her partner being 'in the dark' was in regard to not knowing if her parter is opening on 43, 34, 32, 23.. rather than being unaware that her partner randomly opens minors.

[Tcyk]

With less than three cards in a minor suit, it should be alerted as "may be short." This applies to the Precision Club players that open 1D with less than two as well. It must be alerted every time, even when you have six cards in the suit. This is the most common infringement on the laws of bridge that I see on BBO. Perhaps they are playing Viennese Club where an opening bid of 1C denies five cards in any higher suit. Lacking a 5-card suit and the strength for 1NT, they must open 1C ... and it must be alerted. When I was an active director I asked my one pair that played canape to pre-alert that fact. Their minor suit opening bids always promised four or more cards but often promised a longer major.