Dealing with Announcements and non-Announcements

[Coelacanth]

Leaving that issue aside, the ACBL could have achieved their intention in some other way than by calling an opening in one's shortest suit "natural"; there seems no good reason to distort the meaning of that word. The fact that a method is popular does not mean that it is natural.

It is non-forcing and is, in fact, an offer to play the contract of 1♣. I don't think this is a massive distortion of the word natural.

 

Someone did a frequency analysis and figured out that only some small percentage (I don't remember the exact figures, but it was on the order of 10% or less) of 1♣ bids will be a doubleton using this method. The "may be short" 1♣ opener is much more likely to be a 4-card or longer suit.

 

I'll grant you that 1♣-All Pass is a very infrequent auction. (In fact, it's so rare that I always ask for a review of the bidding when I am on lead against it. :lol: ) Infrequent is not the same as impossible, however, and a 1♣ bid which shows the willingness to declare 1♣ seems "natural" enough to me.

[blackshoe]

I have always been told that a non-forcing, ostensibly natural 1♣ or 1♦ call that may be a singleton (or void!) is an alert, not an announcement. On checking the Alert Chart this is not made explicit, so perhaps I am mistaken. I will ask Mr. Flader for a clarification when I see him tomorrow.

 

Or you could read the alert procedure. B-) IAC, it'll be interesting to hear what he says.

 

Someone did a frequency analysis and figured out that only some small percentage (I don't remember the exact figures, but it was on the order of 10% or less) of 1♣ bids will be a doubleton using this method. The "may be short" 1♣ opener is much more likely to be a 4-card or longer suit.

 

IIRC, the someone, or one someone, was George Rosenkranz, and he reported the result in one or two of his "Romex" books. I don't have them handy, though, and I don't remember the exact figures either.

[barmar]

Or you could read the alert procedure. B-) IAC, it'll be interesting to hear what he says.

And while it's not definitive, you could also notice that the blue checkbox on the ACBL CC is labeled "0-2". Blue means announceable.

[blackshoe]

And while it's not definitive, you could also notice that the blue checkbox on the ACBL CC is labeled "0-2". Blue means announceable.

Yep.

[mgoetze]

Someone did a frequency analysis and figured out that only some small percentage (I don't remember the exact figures, but it was on the order of 10% or less) of 1♣ bids will be a doubleton using this method. The "may be short" 1♣ opener is much more likely to be a 4-card or longer suit.

 

Of course, there are other methods where 1♣ shows 2+. For instance, my Transfer Walsh 1♣ shows (a) 11-13 balanced (excl. 5c majors, incl. 3352), (b) 17-19 balanced (dito), © 4414/4144/1444, (d) unbalanced with clubs as longest suit. This opening shows, on average, 3.75 clubs. (By contrast, the 1♦ opening shows 5.53 diamonds, the 1♥ opening 5.41 hearts and the 1♠ opening 5.02 spades.)

[blackshoe]

Was me, I'd find those fractional cards too difficult to hold on to. I'd be continually dropping them on the floor. :P

[mycroft]

Ah, but that's different, mgoetze. According to the ACBL, 1♣ "clubs or balanced", non-forcing, is *not* natural. It's only the 1♣ "3+ or 4=4=3=2" that is natural.

 

And, of course, there's no way to determine the difference from the "could be short" announcement.

 

Enjoy.

[Coelacanth]

OK, I did check with Mike Flader, and I stand corrected.

 

As long as it is non-forcing, an opening of 1m which can be shorter than 3 cards is an Announcement, not an Alert. Obviously if it is forcing or carries other unexpected distributional information it's an Alert.

 

He also clarified that the (new) prohibition of artificial defenses applies only to the 4432 case. If, by agreement, your 1m opening can be a singleton or void, the opponents may play anything they like against it.

[bluejak]

Actually the regulation ---the scope of which is accurately stated by Coelacanth --- is just fine. It simply eliminates the excuse some pairs had for using a Mid Chart defense against what has always been considered by players to be a fairly natural opening bid....the choice to open 1♣ with a balanced hand which contains no five-card major and only 3 diamonds.

Players who play artificial agreements should expect opponents to defend against them robustly. Opening a doubleton is an artificial agreement. The fact that many pairs do so does not affect this.

 

:ph34r:

 

I did write several other replies correcting Coelacanth's misapprehensions but he has sneakily corrected them himself in his last post! According to the ACBL Alert Procedures:

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

4. After a non-forcing opening 1♣ or 1♦ for which the opener could have fewer than three cards in the suit opened.

 

After the opening bid, the opening bidder's partner says, "May be short."

 

Whether the new rule that makes a 4=4=3=2 non-forcing doubleton opening, if that specific shape is the only shape where a doubleton is opened, a natural opening is sensible or not [i think not] is not really relevant for this sort of forum. But the difficulty is that if you play different defences to natural and artificial openings, and allowing for the lack of care of ACBL players in filling in SCs and explaining methods, how do you find out whether they play a natural "May be short" opening or an artificial "May be short" opening?

[Coelacanth]

But the difficulty is that if you play different defences to natural and artificial openings, and allowing for the lack of care of ACBL players in filling in SCs and explaining methods, how do you find out whether they play a natural "May be short" opening or an artificial "May be short" opening?

This is really the heart of the problem. Absent a pre-alert (which would not be required in any case), players who play such dual defensive methods are put into the position of having to ask a lot of questions and providing partner with UI.

 

I think the practical effect of the new regulation will be that nobody will play such methods anymore. Any artificial defense will be deployed only against a purely artificial 1♣ opener.

[nige1]

Players who play artificial agreements should expect opponents to defend against them robustly. Opening a doubleton is an artificial agreement. The fact that many pairs do so does not affect this.

Agree with Bluejak. Short club openers are the kind of convention adopted by sponsored American teams.The ACBL is uncharacteristically eager to facilitate such conventions. For the sake of the future of Bridge, let's hope the WBF starts to consider the interests of others. For example forcing pass seems equally natural. :).

[Vampyr]

This is really the heart of the problem. Absent a pre-alert (which would not be required in any case), players who play such dual defensive methods are put into the position of having to ask a lot of questions and providing partner with UI.

 

I think the practical effect of the new regulation will be that nobody will play such methods anymore. Any artificial defense will be deployed only against a purely artificial 1♣ opener.

 

Well played, ACBL!

[aguahombre]

I think the practical effect of the new regulation will be that nobody will play such methods anymore. Any artificial defense will be deployed only against a purely artificial 1♣ opener.

The practical effect for us will be to decide at the table whether to use mid-chart defenses to 1C when the opponents have the courtesy to pre-announce a method other than the simple 4-4-3-2 short club style to which the new regulations apply.

 

Against others who don't disclose this in advance, we will use GCC stuff. Until such time as they are REQUIRED to let us know in advance, we can live with that; meanwhile, we just appreciate the thoughtfullness of some pairs, namely Boyd/Robinson (e.g), EBU visitors, and Europeans participating in ACBL events.

[barmar]

What percentage of ACBL pairs use short club for other than 4=4=3=2 hands?

 

What percentage of ACBL pairs have artificial defenses against artificial short clubs?

 

How often do pairs in the two groups intersect? If any of them face each other on any regular basis, I'm sure they know who they are.

[bluejak]

I do not see it makes any difference how many pairs there are. My partner and I use different defences: how do we find out? I don't see that saying we are in a minority helps one iota.

 

Or do you think Full Disclosure is not a GOOD THING?

[barmar]

It makes a difference in how severe the problem is, and how urgently it needs to be fixed.

 

How do you find out? When they announce "could be short", you ask for clarification if it affects your defense.

 

Just like in the old days when you had to ask the NT range if you played different defenses over weak and strong. Since this was exceedingly common, they introduced announcements to simplify it. But different defenses to different types of short clubs probably aren't common enough to warrant the same solution for this.