Can you find the grand?

[cherdanno]

Yeah, I should have mentioned the combination of strong opinion with ignorance, my bad.

[mikeh]

I wonder whether there is anyone else in the world who plays internationally, spends a lot of time on bridge, has English as native language but has so little clue about North American standard treatments.

Well, there's me, if two or three overseas tournaments a year counts as playing internationally. Until I read about it in this thread, I didn't know that responding a "natural" 2♣ on a 2443 shape was anything other than a Rexfordian fantasy.

 

Mind you, I wouldn't presume to tell a North American what is standard in North America.

'Standard' is a big tent, encompassing a variety of treatments. To me, the 'orthodox' standard response with 2443 is 2♦, but the 'standard' tent includes the right to respond, without alert, 2♣ on hands such as 2443 whenever that appears, in the opinion of the bidder, to be the better call.

 

By no means would I, as a 2♣ bidder here, always respond 2♣ with 2=4=4=3, even with good clubs. I gave my reasons for the call on this hand, in my first post, and stand by them.

 

I have never seen anything to suggest that Harald or Josh or I are inclined to rexfordian fantasies, and all 3 of us think the particular hand is best handled via 2♣, as do a number of other reputable posters. When a significant percentage of players view a call as reasonable in the context of a given method, that strongly suggests that this approach can be and should be viewed as a variant of standard... not as a deviation therefrom. There is more than one form of standard bidding!

[kenrexford]

Max Hardy actually says "Responder's two-level response in a minor suit will show a suit of at least four cards."

 

He does mention the one exception which is precisely 3=4=3=3.

 

I see how that's much different than what I said. You reversed the order of sentences, or something.

 

You appear to be arguing to extend this to:

 

3=4=3=3 (as Hardy does)

3=3=4=3

3=4=4=2

2=4=4=3

 

and maybe some other 3=2=5=3 perhaps - I am not sure.

 

I'm saying that none of these patterns violate the expectation that 2♣ could be bid with a 3-card suit.

 

Hardy further states that with the exceptional 3=4=3=3 hand responder may elect to bid a forcing no trump and conceal the game force values.

 

Hence, even Hardy uses judgment.

 

You further claim that your extension is minor.

 

I dispute this I think there is a major difference between the rare exception that Hardy notes and the frequent use that you are advocating for short 2♣ responses.

 

When you have a three-card club suit in the Hardy scheme your suit length is not "as expected" to quote your language. It is at the minimum value. When you further weight those minimum length hands with relatively high frequency hands then you have a significantly different style.

 

Again, an interesting nuance. But, how does "a significantly different style" cause a bid that shows at least 3 clubs to become a "psychic" when you have 3 clubs? Is it a psychic because in one approach 2♣ shows at least three cards but in the other approach 2♣ shows a "minimum" of three clubs? You seem to find the use of the word "minimum" as important.

 

If most people open 1♦ as showing "at least three diamonds" because they open 4432 1♦, but someone else opens 1♦ with three diamonds but their style is "better minor," is that a psychic because they might have three diamonds more often?

 

Or, are you insane?

[Cascade]

You appear to be arguing to extend this to:

 

3=4=3=3 (as Hardy does)

3=3=4=3

3=4=4=2

2=4=4=3

 

and maybe some other 3=2=5=3 perhaps - I am not sure.

 

I'm saying that none of these patterns violate the expectation that 2♣ could be bid with a 3-card suit.

3=4=4=2 seems to me to be a violation of "at least three clubs" but maybe I am insane.

 

How do you disclose this 3+ club requirement?

 

Do you respond 2♣ on

 

1=3=6=3

 

1=2=7=3

 

0=2=8=3

 

1=0=9=3

 

0=0=10=3?

[kenrexford]

You appear to be arguing to extend this to:

 

3=4=3=3 (as Hardy does)

3=3=4=3

3=4=4=2

2=4=4=3

 

and maybe some other 3=2=5=3 perhaps - I am not sure.

 

I'm saying that none of these patterns violate the expectation that 2♣ could be bid with a 3-card suit.

3=4=4=2 seems to me to be a violation of "at least three clubs" but maybe I am insane.

 

How do you disclose this 3+ club requirement?

 

Do you respond 2♣ on

 

1=3=6=3

 

1=2=7=3

 

0=2=8=3

 

1=0=9=3

 

0=0=10=3?

When I'm playing with someone who bids 2♣ like I like to bid 2♣, and not some random persaon playing basically normal 2/1, I explain 2♣ appropriately.

 

If I'm playing with someone who plays basic 2/1 without any special agreements about 2♣, I don't offer any more of an explanation.

 

But, since you ask,

 

1=3=6=3

 

No, I bid 2♦.

 

1=2=7=3

 

No, I bid 2♦.

 

0=2=8=3

 

No, I bid 2♦.

 

1=0=9=3

 

No, I bid 2♦.

 

0=0=10=3?

 

No, I bid 2♦.

 

I'm not sure what the point to that nonsense was. 2♣ is not meant as a canape bid, just like opening 1♣ with 4432 pattern is not meant as a mini-canape bid for those who want 100% assurance that a 1♦ opening promises 4+ and just like opening either minor with a 3-card suit but both 4-card majors is not meant as a part of a double-canape-system, where you start with your third-best suit.

 

When I personally respond 2♣, I have one of several hand types:

 

1. Support for Opener's major, not 6+ in the other major, and any number of clubs, but not right for a Jacoby 2NT, Artificial 3♣, Artificial 3NT, or Splinter raise.

 

2. 5+ clubs, with clubs being my longest suit.

 

3. 2434

 

4. 2443, but tactics tell me to bid 2♣ rather than 2♦.

 

Now, if you notice, I don't specifically include the Max Hardy exception because that fits into the first possibility -- spade support. And, unless I'm missing something, the only "weird" time I bid 2♣, other than with immediately known support, is when I have 2443 and see a tactical advantage to bidding 2♣, which is this hand.

 

I consider that "tactical advantage" to be unworthy of explanation, because that part is just bridge. All bids are (or should be) expected to be subject to minor variations based on tactics.

 

However, the "I might have support for partner's major, an undisclosed 4-5 card holding in the other major, and may easily be as few as a doubleton club" 2♣ is an unexpected treatment, and should be explained.

[Codo]

Maybe in NA you have other rules, but here:

 

When you open 1 Club with 4432, you need to alert 1 Club.

When you answer 2 Club to 1 M on 3442, you surely need to alert this.

I guess the same is true when you do it on 3343 or 2443 hands and your partner knows this tendancy.

 

Whether the ups of this approach outweight the downs is a matter of taste and very strong players have quite a strong opinion that it does.

[mike777]

This is so silly that I cannot stop myself from continuing this "debate."

 

In response to a 1♠ opening, a 2/1 bid in a new suit is forcing to game.  That fact is not alertable.

 

What about length?

 

2♥, as a standard treatment, shows 5+.  That's normal.

 

2♦, as a standard treatment, shows 4+.  That's normal.

 

2♣, as a standard treatment, shows 3+.  That's normal, if Max Hardy 2/1 GF is normal 2/1 GF.

 

Now, admittedly Max Hardy would view 2♣ as showing 3-card only if 3433 shape specifically.  However, 3+ is the expected, normal range.

 

So, if you have a 3-card club suit that you bid, the length is as expected.

 

Thus, the only "alertable" treatment that would be relevant to this specific situation would be that you also might bid 2♣ with 2443 (or maybe 3343?) if the club honors are good but the diamond honors weak.

 

However, here's the thing.  I bet not all of us voted 2♣ because of an expectation that partner would copnsciously think about that sole exception.  Rather, some probably just bid 2♣ because it seemed right, even if a violation.  That violation, however, is so friggin' minor, and not done with purpose to deceive, that it cannot be logically called a psychic.

 

So, back to the question of alerting.  Should this slight nuance be alerted?

 

I would say this.  There are some 18 bazillion nuances out there as to when in a natural system to open 1♣ and when to open 1♦.  Some always want four diamonds.  Some open "better minor."  Some open 1♦ only if specifically 4432.  Some open somewhat randomly.  If we spent all day alerting these minor nuances,, and not just explaining them if asked, we could never bid.

 

Now, those of us who play funky 2♣ would alert these funky 2♣ calls.  However, when responding to a question online, it doesn't seem necessary to note that your specific 2♣ call would happen to be a funky 2♣ call if you think that a non-funky person would and should also bid 2♣.  Just how long do you want posts to be?  Do you want every nuance thrown in?

 

I mean, I open 1♠ on really rare occasion with a four-card suit in first or second sat.  Should I have provided a dissertation as to when and why?  Or, was "1♠" sufficient, seeing as everyone would open 1♠ too?

 

I also play "Sparts" with some people, where a 2♦ opening shows 5♠, 4-5♥, and a weak opening.  Thus, 1♠...2♥ shows extras in some form.  Should I have explained that, or can I just rely on the fact that everyone opens 1♠ and rebids 2♥ and because the nuance I would have would be irrelevant to the problem?

I expect 2c=4c+...very very often 5+.......over one major

2) I respond on assumption 2c=5 very good clubs......

[awm]

I tend to agree with Cascade here.

 

If your normal practice is to respond 2♣ to 1M with 2443 distribution (i.e. 2♦ promises 5+ or the like) then this should require an alert. This is much like if your methods included opening 1♣ on the same shape. The fact that these clubs bids could be three cards in standard methods (without an alert) is not relevant because the hands where the club bids could be three cards will not normally include a four-card diamond suit.

 

Of course, you are always allowed to use judgment in deciding what to respond. It is quite possible that even if you normally bid 2♦ with 2443, there might be some hands with very weak diamonds and/or very strong clubs where you select a 2♣ response instead. This is just judgment although it might be classed as a "tactical bid" and does not require an alert provided that these hands are relatively infrequent.

 

On the hand in question however, you have two of the top five diamond honors. This is not the same as having four tiny diamonds and wanting to avoid suggesting that as a possible trump suit and/or stopper for notrump. If you think this hand merits a 2♣ response, my impression is that you are probably responding 2♣ on most 2443 hands -- at least I cannot see any obvious reason that this hand is a 2♣ bid that would not apply to the vast majority of other game forcing hands with the same distribution. Certainly many arguments can be made in favor of 2♣, but they also favor using a 2♣ response as an artificial relay (2♦ consumes more space, we don't really want to play in diamonds unless partner can introduce them himself, etc etc).

 

Elianna and I might have the following auction:

 

1♠ - 2♦(1)

2♥ - 4♣(2)

4♠(3) - 4NT(4)

5♠(5) - 5NT(6)

6♠(7) - 7♣(8)

7NT(9)

 

(1) Yes, we bid four-card suits before three-card suits.

(2) Conventionally showing a raise to 4♥ with a club control and extra values. 3♥ is NF.

(3) Cuebid; avoiding the void cuebid opposite partner's first bid suit.

(4) 1430 keycard

(5) Two with the trump queen. Again avoiding showing void in partner's suit.

(6) King ask.

(7) Spade king (sometimes we avoid this call, but opener has quite a good hand here)

(8) Last ditch try for 7NT. In most fields I'd probably bid 7♥ here though.

(9) Lots of extra tricks.

[kenrexford]

On the one side, you have the idea that bidding 2♣ on 2443 if it seems tactically best but normally you would bid 2♦, and hence the bid of 2♣ is neither alertable (with those parameters) nor a psychic.

 

On the other hand you have a claim that 2♣ is a psychic.

 

In the middle, you have a possible dispute as to when 2♣ may or may not be alertable.

 

Within that middle, you have the extremely fine line from AWM that 2♣ is alertable if you occasionally bid 2♣ with 2443 but not alertable if you occasionally bid 2♣ with 2443, the difference being how often those occasions come up, by some unarticulated standard.

 

I'm not sure how this extreme nuance works in the real world, or that it even makes sense. I cannot imagine how one would alert this. "Alert." "Yes?" "We on rare occasion bid 2♣ with 2443 shape." "So does everyone else." "Yes, but we do it three more times per year than average, given a normal expectation of boards played for a year by the average ACBL member in our current bracket for this event."

 

Even if those of us who bid 2♣ with this hand meet the criteria for above-average use of the 2♣ call, on the basis of a one-hand example, I cannot imagine that this alert is needed.

 

But, even if it is, HOW CAN THIS BE A PSYCHIC????? I mean, awm, you said you tend to side with the lunatic fringe Cascade in this debate, and Cascade's argument was that 2♣ is a psychic call.

[MarkDean]

I am surprised to see people calling 2♣ here is standard in North American bridge. I have played against many NA experts in the last few years, and have watched my share of Vugraph of NA experts as well - and I would expect a 2♦ bid to be favored by a large majority.

 

Ken, of course it is a gray line. I think we would all agree that if you played 2♦ as 5+ and 2♣ as a catch-all that it should be alerted, and that if you bid 2♣ with 2443 once per three years it should not. We can disagree as to where the line is, but it is going to be arbitrary and hard to define whereever we put it.

 

I agree it is not a psychic call, but if you reguarly (sorry, no exact frequency here) do bid 2♣ with this hand type or other shapes not standard, and do not alert it, I think that is illegal, regardless of your intent when you bid it that way.

[awm]

The word "psych" is fraught with weird connotations. I'd put it this way.

 

The first question is, do you have an agreement to normally respond 2♣ on 2443 game forcing hands? If so, this agreement requires an alert because most people do not bid three-card minors in preference to four-card minors. Similarly an agreement to open 1♣ on a 2443 shape requires an alert.

 

Assuming you do not have such an agreement, then any time you choose to respond 2♣ on a 2443 hand it's a deviation from your agreements. Obviously you're allowed to deviate from your agreements. The interesting questions here become:

 

When is a deviation from agreements so frequent as to become a de facto agreement and require disclosure? If you are playing in a regular partnership and you always respond 2♣ on all game forcing 2443 hands, then it will quickly become an agreement! Similarly, if you respond 2♣ on "almost all" game forcing 2443 hands (with an occasional exception when the diamonds are headed by three of the top four honors say) then it quickly becomes an agreement. Obviously there is some gray area. My argument is that the hand given is a fairly "normal" 2443 game force (i.e. the diamonds are not particularly good nor particularly bad) and that if you respond 2♣ on this hand it is probably your tendency to respond 2♣ on a wide range of hands with this shape.

 

When is a deviation from agreements a psych? This is arguable, but I'd say that part of the difference between a "judgment call" or "tactical bid" or "minor deviation" and a psych is that the former three require some logical justification for making the call in question which does not revolve around deceiving or confusing the opponents, and which would not apply to such a wide range of hands that it potentially becomes an undisclosed agreement. An explanation like "I would normally respond 2♦ on this shape, but my diamonds were so terrible that I selected a 2♣ response instead" would be typical. On the hand in question, I don't see any explanation that wouldn't apply equally to so many 2443 hands as to make for an agreement (i.e. "I wanted to conserve space" or "I know we don't want to play in diamonds unless partner can bid them" don't cut it because these would apply to almost all hands with the given distribution). So under this reasoning, such a 2♣ response is a psych.

[Cascade]

On the one side, you have the idea that bidding 2♣ on 2443 if it seems tactically best but normally you would bid 2♦, and hence the bid of 2♣ is neither alertable (with those parameters) nor a psychic.

 

On the other hand you have a claim that 2♣ is a psychic.

 

In the middle, you have a possible dispute as to when 2♣ may or may not be alertable.

 

Within that middle, you have the extremely fine line from AWM that 2♣ is alertable if you occasionally bid 2♣ with 2443 but not alertable if you occasionally bid 2♣ with 2443, the difference being how often those occasions come up, by some unarticulated standard.

 

I'm not sure how this extreme nuance works in the real world, or that it even makes sense.  I cannot imagine how one would alert this.  "Alert."  "Yes?"  "We on rare occasion bid 2♣ with 2443 shape."  "So does everyone else."  "Yes, but we do it three more times per year than average, given a normal expectation of boards played for a year by the average ACBL member in our current bracket for this event."

 

Even if those of us who bid 2♣ with this hand meet the criteria for above-average use of the 2♣ call, on the basis of a one-hand example, I cannot imagine that this alert is needed.

 

But, even if it is, HOW CAN THIS BE A PSYCHIC?????  I mean, awm, you said you tend to side with the lunatic fringe Cascade in this debate, and Cascade's argument was that 2♣ is a psychic call.

I think you completely misunderstand my position.

 

To summarize:

 

I made a claim that one particular 2♣ bid was psychic;

 

I stated that 2♣ with 4=3 in the minors could be a matter of judgement;

 

I claimed that if you are playing standard then 2♣ with 4=3 in the minors is a deviation;

 

I claimed that if you bid 2♣ with 4=3 in the minors without disclosure then you are either violating your standard system or inadequately disclosing your methods.

 

I also acknowledged that I see some merit in the 2♣ response.

 

Disclosure in bridge is primarily in advance - "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them."

 

Disclosing a bid as 3+ is insufficient when there are hands with 3 clubs where you will bid 2♣ and others where you will not. I mean there is nothing implicit in 3+ that suggests that 4=3 in the minors will bid this way but 7=3 will not.

 

This differs from say 5+ majors where it is implicit that normally we will not have a longer suit. Although occasionally for some judgement reason we might have a lower ranking six-card suit.

 

One of the differences in the requirement for disclosure is that 5=6 hands are infrequent (2% and not all of those will be opened with the major in many partnerships) in the set of hands with a five-card major where as balanced hands with 4=3 in the minors are frequent (up to 27% in my simulation - unbalanced clubs longest, 1=4=4=4, 3=4=3=3, 2=4=4=3, maybe 3=3=4=3 - but in any case significant in my view) in the set of hands 'unbalanced with long clubs or balanced with 3+ clubs". Hardy's frequeny - 3=4=3=3 with some discretion to bid a forcing 1NT - is less than 10%. That is somewhere from 15-20% of the time you have only three clubs in a situation where your opponents might not expect this playing your style.

 

To me this is inadequate without proper prior disclosure nor an alert.

 

I would feel very uncomfortable playing a method that i was hiding the details of from the opponents in the way that you and others in this thread appear to be advocating. Details that could easily affect decisions of the opponents particularly in defense and particularly when your hand is hidden as declarer.

 

I believe this lack of disclosure is plainly against the spirit and letter of the laws on disclosure.

 

As I have said earlier if it is not disclosed then either it must be a deviation from your system (psyche or otherwise not deliberate or minor) or your disclosure is inadequate.

 

Perhaps only the 'lunatic fringe' expect the opponents system to be freely disclosed and not a hidden secret.

[kenrexford]

Of course, all of this is easy for me to handle, because MY 2♣ responses are clearly worthy of an alert. I don't have to go back and count whether the x% of the time when my 2♣ call is based on specifically 2443 pattern rather than on an accepted pattern is z% higher than the y% of the time that others bid 2♣, with x and y being numbers in the 0-2% range and z being some unknown fraction of that difference.

 

I still think y'all are nuts, though, if you think that the person who opts to once and a while bid 2♣ with 2443 because "it looks right" should have his partner alert if "it looks right" more often for this person than it would for the "average" person.

[gnasher]

I cannot imagine that this alert is needed.

Having read this thread, you now know that a significant proportion of players wouldn't expect an unalerted 2♣ response to be made on a 2443 shape. Therefore you know that if you don't alert it, a significant proportion of your opponents will be misled. You appear to be both intelligent enough to understand the purpose of alerting, and honest enough to want to meet that purpose. Why would you now not alert 2♣?

[kenrexford]

I cannot imagine that this alert is needed.

Having read this thread, you now know that a significant proportion of players wouldn't expect an unalerted 2♣ response to be made on a 2443 shape. Therefore you know that if you don't alert it, a significant proportion of your opponents will be misled. You appear to be both intelligent enough to understand the purpose of alerting, and honest enough to want to meet that purpose. Why would you now not alert 2♣?

Did you miss something?

 

I said that my 2♣ is clearly unusual, as I mikght have a doubleton with an unbid 5-card major suit (other major), so that I would alert MY 2♣ bid.

 

But, I would laugh my ass off if someone alerted me to their 2♣ call to explain their percentilic nuances.

[Codo]

Maybe you will stop laughing when I make a brave 2 diamond bid against you, fail and later the TD give me a better score because of your failure to alert.

 

But hey this is BBF, we should have strong opinions without looking at the facts.

[kenrexford]

Maybe you will stop laughing when I make a brave 2 diamond bid against you, fail and later the TD give me a better score because of your failure to alert.

 

But hey this is BBF, we should have strong opinions without looking at the facts.

Does anyone ever read what is written any more?

 

That won't happen AGAINST ME because I would alert MY 2♣ call.

 

That also won't happen TO ME because I would never call the TD if RHO turned out to have 2443 pattern.

[gnasher]

Did you miss something?

 

I said that my 2♣ is clearly unusual, as I mikght have a doubleton with an unbid 5-card major suit (other major), so that I would alert MY 2♣ bid.

No, I didn't miss anything. You have said two things regarding alerting. One is that if 2♣ is sometimes a doubleton it should be alerted; the other is that if 2♣ is never a doubleton but sometimes a 2443 shape "I cannot imagine that this alert is needed." My question related to the latter situation.

 

But, I would laugh my ass off if someone alerted me to their 2♣ call to explain their percentilic nuances.

So you would ridicule someone for doing their best to avoid your being misled about what their bids mean? That's nice.

[kenrexford]

OK, so let's play this out. Maximize disclosure. An auction I might have:

 

"Pre-alert. All of our bids and all of our explanations that follow are what is expected. However, we have a generalized understanding that any HCP range could be adjusted from stated up or down by as much as a factor of two because of body, shape, control count, and the like. We also could be +/-1 as to any described suit length for tactical reasons."

 

1♣ "Alert...he occasionally opens 1♣ with lighter values than would be expected, with just about any 11-count being good enough. He sometimes for tactical reasons opens 1♣ rather than 1♦, and I can explain his reasoning if you would like a follow-up explanation."

Pass

1♥ "Alert...he occasionally bids 1♥ with a three-card suit if really light. We also play a Walsh style where a reverse into a major is GF if he had started with 1♦. We also play that 2♣ is GF, and possibly artificial, so that will have a whole range of possible nuances with which you are unfamiliar already, based on hypothetical follow-up auctions. I can further explain all of those limitations if you would like."

Pass

1♠ "Alert...he occasionally bids 1♠ with a three-card suit if his hand is concentrated in spades and clubs, to focus the feel of the hand properly. He also might have five spades. He won't have a semi-strong hand with long decent clubs, a spade fragment, and a heart fragment or he could have done something else, so that's also a nuance you don't have."

Pass

2♦ "Alert...this is forcing to game. Because partner did not bid 2♣ earlier, his hand pattern possibilities are different. For one, this tends to promise a fifth heart more than it would otherwise, for those who play 4SFG but not 2♣ immediately as an artificial GF. Also, because he did not jump to 3♦, I know more about his diamond-heart possible lengths than I would otherwise."

Pass

2♥ "Alert...this presumably shows three hearts. But, as mentioned earlier, there iks a nuance from the failure to take other action earlier. Also, there are nuances from his failure to take alternative leaping action at this point, nuances with which you may be unfamiliar. I can explain if you want."

Pass

4♥

 

Now, all of this sounds good. Opener had a 4315 13-count. Responder had a 2533 13-count. All was normal. However, there was about a smidge possibility each call might have been slightly different gthan expected, and there were nuances out the ass as to what could exist or what could not exist, and those nuances were slightly different.

 

So, for years I had alerted sort of like this. Until, that is, I was taken to the woodshed by partners and by tournament directors, who told me that I was insane. So, I eventually agreed.

 

Now I'm hearing that the old school Max Hardy folks who decide to bid 2♣ with 2443 because they have an 18-count, a specific holding where it feels right, and a tactical basis, must alert this one oddity because others, who would have to be about ignorant to not realize that 1M-P-2♣ in 2/1 GF is a bid that has many different forms, want this call alerted if they think that the person making the bid did so in a situation where they might also make the bid but probably less often, based on one hand that seems to not qualify for their particular definition of a good time to violate system technicalities.

 

Yes. I would laugh.

[MarkDean]

[sNIP]

 

Now I'm hearing that the old school Max Hardy folks who decide to bid 2♣ with 2443 because they have an 18-count, a specific holding where it feels right, and a tactical basis, must alert this one oddity because others, who would have to be about ignorant to not realize that 1M-P-2♣ in 2/1 GF is a bid that has many different forms, want this call alerted if they think that the person making the bid did so in a situation where they might also make the bid but probably less often, based on one hand that seems to not qualify for their particular definition of a good time to violate system technicalities.

 

Yes. I would laugh.

Ken, is this really an fair interpretation of what has been going on in this thread? You posted 2♣ without comment, jdonn said he would bid it 10000% of the time, and mikeh said he thought it was "truly a wtp 2♣." That does not smell like one person deciding this one time it would be a good tactical bid. That sounds like people who have done this before and will do it again. You three were arguing it is clear, and now you are claiming it is just a once in a while, special circumstances thing: that is not the impression I had earlier.

[Cascade]

Now I'm hearing that the old school Max Hardy folks who decide to bid 2♣ with 2443 because they have an 18-count, a specific holding where it feels right, and a tactical basis, must alert this one oddity because others, who would have to be about ignorant to not realize that 1M-P-2♣ in 2/1 GF is a bid that has many different forms, want this call alerted if they think that the person making the bid did so in a situation where they might also make the bid but probably less often, based on one hand that seems to not qualify for their particular definition of a good time to violate system technicalities.

 

Yes. I would laugh.

When the specific holding is outside the normal stated range and is more frequent than almost all specific distributions within the stated range then I want to here about it in advance if all or most hands of that pattern are treated in the same way.

 

That is the principle of full disclosure.

 

If you don't disclose then the assumption is that it is a deviation from your methods. Although the director has the power under Law 40 to rule that you have a concealed partnership understanding.

[kenrexford]

Well, how about this answer. The one that I think to be the ultimate problem with this entire discussion.

 

Bids do not need to be alerted, but can be explained, unless the are specifically described as alertable bids or they are somehow non-standard enough to not be expected.

 

Considering the large number of 2♣ calls on this actual hand, and considering the number of people who these days bid 2♣ as a catch-all GF on a vast array of hands, it seems that this 2♣ need not be alerted in any reasonable field because it is highly suspected by anyone with a brain that 2♣ here is suspect and may be suspect in a number of forms.

 

If the call is basically natural, meaning this type of "exception," then anyone with any history with 2/1 GF would easily be able to ascertain a need to ask a question here if it mattered. If the 2♣ truly is unusual, like a start of a relay, completely artificial, possibly suppressing a five-card major not opened because of support, or something like that, then sure, alert makes sense.

 

But, the alert procedure is a waste of time if every single nuance that is possible should be alerted even when any normal bridge player of caliber enough to play in any reasonable event would know that there are nuance differences between partnerships.

 

Would make for an interesting poll. How many people would hear 1M-P-2♣ as GF and never think without an alert that 2♣ might be semi-catchall (allowed with three is baalanced)?

 

This type of "you should alert that" is less about disclosure and more about trying to catch a non-alert penalty. You hear the call and hope for no alert so you can call the TD.

[irdoz]

This is not the best thread that's ever graced the forums here.

 

As I understand it

 

1♣ when played as 2+ requires an alert. No argument and good reason as opponents may choose to play a 2♣ overcall not as showing 2 suits.

 

1M-2♣ when 2♣ is just an artificial game force commencing some conventional sequences requires an alert. No argument as double of 2♣ will take on a different meaning.

 

1M-2♣ when 2♣ is natural game force required no alert. No dispute.

 

1M-2♣ when holding a 2443 hand, say, where you've simply exercised judgment because of suit quality and your usual bid with this shape would be 2♦ then no alert is required. Very little or no argument (although some seem to think there is but I don't think they are understanding the different positions being put).

 

1M-2♣ when 2♣ is GF with clubs or any balanced hand denying an unbid 5-card suit then there is dispute. In my opinion it should be alerted as clubs or balanced. For example, if the auction went 1M-2c-3nt all pass and the opening leader held KJ9xx clubs then the alert might make a difference to their lead decision.

 

I think theres is a fair bit of posturing in this thread - usual internet messageboard stuff. There's also a lot of legal type obfuscation and sometimes it's not clear (to me) precisely what people mean.

 

For example JDonn said 'he would make this bid 17000% of the time'. You can take this 2 ways though - either he bids all hands with this shape 2cl OR he sometimes exercises judgement and in this case the judgement is totally clear and 17000% is just an expression of how clear he thinks that judgement is. (There is no criticism here - just from reading the thread it's clear people took this statement as quite important in forming a judgement.)

 

Why did I bother to post? I usually just read the forums without ever logging on - I find them useful and mostly entertaining. One partner and I are playing 1M-2c as 'clubs or balanced' online and we alert it - but my partner argues that it is not necessary. I referred her to this thread. Her comment was 'lawyers who play bridge are the same the world over - males who are clear as mud and always 34000% right. It's like watching parliament.'.

[cherdanno]

I cannot imagine that this alert is needed.

Having read this thread, you now know that a significant proportion of players wouldn't expect an unalerted 2♣ response to be made on a 2443 shape. Therefore you know that if you don't alert it, a significant proportion of your opponents will be misled. You appear to be both intelligent enough to understand the purpose of alerting, and honest enough to want to meet that purpose. Why would you now not alert 2♣?

You cannot expect an alert, though. If you had sat down in a pairs event against Josh and Mike, and they just formed a pickup partnership (before this discussion), then either of them would have bid 2♣ with some game-forcing 2443 hands.

But since they didn't have an agreement about that, there is no way they would have alerted that.

Btw, would you also expect an alert with 3343 shape?

[gnasher]

You cannot expect an alert, though. If you had sat down in a pairs event against Josh and Mike, and they just formed a pickup partnership (before this discussion), then either of them would have bid 2♣ with some game-forcing 2443 hands.

But since they didn't have an agreement about that, there is no way they would have alerted that.

No, I wouldn't expect an alert about an agreement that didn't exist.

 

I wasn't, in any case, talking about what I'd expect an opponent to do, so much as what I think an ordinarily honest player ought to do by way of trying to disclose their agreements. If (plucking a figure from the air) 20% of your opponents would never consider the possibility that a particular unalerted call means what it actually means, you should make sure that they do know what it means, by alerting it (unless, I suppose, the regulations explicitly forbid such an alert).

 

This is quite different from the other examples that Ken gave a day or so ago - nobody needs an alert to make them consider the possibility that opener has an 11-count, and we're not talking about a once-in-a-blue-moon 1♥ rebid on a 3-card suit either.

 

Btw, would you also expect an alert with 3343 shape?

I would in England, where it would be a fairly unusual agreement. Perhaps in the ACBL it's so common to respond 2♣ on 3343 or 2443 shapes that an alert isn't needed. However, the evidence of the posts in this thread suggests otherwise.