50% Convention

[Chris3875]

What do you think of this strange query I received from one of our local clubs ?

 

"We have an inexperienced pair who have decided that when they ask 4NT for aces then they bid 5NT they are signing off not asking for Ks. They did this against Jack and he wasn't impressed. When she told me what they have decided to do with 5nt I said they needed to alert it when they sat at the table and on their system card. I told Jack and he said they can't do that - when they start on blackwood they have to continue etc cos you can't only use a part of a convention."

[hrothgar]

What do you think of this strange query I received from one of our local clubs ?

 

"We have an inexperienced pair who have decided that when they ask 4NT for aces then they bid 5NT they are signing off not asking for Ks. They did this against Jack and he wasn't impressed. When she told me what they have decided to do with 5nt I said they needed to alert it when they sat at the table and on their system card. I told Jack and he said they can't do that - when they start on blackwood they have to continue etc cos you can't only use a part of a convention."

 

Sounds like "Jack" is clueless

 

The ACBL GCC specifically authorizes "CALLS THAT ASK for aces, kings queens, singletons, voids or trump

quality and responses thereto".

 

It is debatable whether the 4NT bid that you describe should be called Blackwood, but that doesn't impact the legality of the convention. Moreover, the point is largely moot since you aren't supposed to provide a one word descriptor as an explanation.

 

(And I am equally clueless for quoting ACBL regs to a player from Oz)

[Cyberyeti]

Do you still alert bids above 3N in the ABF ? Or do you mean pre-alert ?

 

It's hardly something opps need to know about in advance so I wouldn't consider pre-alerting. I would put it on the convention card as a note to Blackwood.

[blackshoe]

I don't know Jack <_< but I agree with Hrothgar, Jack is clueless. AFAICS, there's nothing in ABF regulations that would preclude this agreement, so long as it's properly disclosed. I suppose that means "don't call it Blackwood", but as Hrothgar says, you probably shouldn't "explain" by naming anyway, even in the ABF.

[Siegmund]

Regardless of how the 4NT bid is described and explained... a 5NT bid which means "I want to play 5NT" is ALWAYS legal. (It's just remotely possible that somebody somewhere, would forbid the use of a 4NT asking bid which was not followed by a 5NT asking bid, but even the ACBL isn't that crazy.)

[P_Marlowe]

Just wanted to add, that it is quite common to play, to play 5NT after a 4NT asking bid inquiry

as "to play", at least, if 4NT was RKCB, the agreed trump suit being a minor.

 

A standard system would be the French standard system.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[barmar]

It is debatable whether the 4NT bid that you describe should be called Blackwood,

There's nothing unusual about the 4NT bid. The bid in question is the 5NT followup.

 

There's no rule anywhere that says you have to play "all of a convention". You can tweak conventions if you like, so long as the results are still within the allowed convention restrictions. For instance, you can play 1M-2NT as a game-forcing raise, just like Jacoby 2NT, but you don't have to play the same followons.

 

How do you think Roman Keycard Blackwood came about? A pair that was playing Blackwood decided to use slightly different responses.

 

Even among players that use 5NT as a King-ask, there isn't total agreement: some respond with the count of kings, some bid specific kings up the line.

[kenrexford]

FWIW, other than the force of tradition, I can see 5NT as "to play" being perhaps better than "standard Blackwood."

 

I mean, beyod the obvious minor-suit issue, There are tons of occasions at MP where 5NT and 5MAJ both make, especially if we have everything except two Aces. Why not, then, play 5NT as to play?

 

Moreover, when the answer is bad, this usually means that a more efficient way to ask for Kings exists. Playing normal Blackwood, for instance, after a 5♦ answer, five of the other major as King-asking makes a lot more sense than 5NT.

[Jeremy69A]

If 4NT ask for Aces then saying it is Blackwood seems to me something that will commonly be understood correctly.

If 5NT expresses a desire to play there then it is natural. How can anyone be damaged by this? Presumably if this was the final contract one might ask before leading anyway.

Clueless is a polite word for Jack's state. Another example of someone making up a rule as they go along in order to seek to substantiate the drivel they talk.

I think I would ask him to point to the book where it says this. No more playing Grand Slam Force unless you end in a Grand Slam perhaps!

[kenrexford]

Y'all are being too hard on Jack. Without the alert, he would never know that he could bid. (BTW -- isn't this a post-auction alert anyway?)

[WellSpyder]

Y'all are being too hard on Jack. Without the alert, he would never know that he could bid.

I think you have misunderstood Jack's problem. It is not so much that knowing 5N was natural would make it safe (!?) to bid. Rather, the problem is that unless he knows it is natural, he doesn't know that this could be his last chance to bid....

[blackshoe]

Well, in some jurisdictions at least, the ACBL being one, and if I'm not mistaken the EBU another, he won't get warned by an alert that this may be his last chance to bid in any case. What do you want to do, change the alerting rules?

[barmar]

What do you want to do, change the alerting rules?

Apparently that's what the director in the OP wants. She thought that this requires a pre-alert!

[WellSpyder]

I think you have misunderstood Jack's problem. It is not so much that knowing 5N was natural would make it safe (!?) to bid. Rather, the problem is that unless he knows it is natural, he doesn't know that this could be his last chance to bid....

 

Well, in some jurisdictions at least, the ACBL being one, and if I'm not mistaken the EBU another, he won't get warned by an alert that this may be his last chance to bid in any case. What do you want to do, change the alerting rules?

 

I don't want to do anything! It seemed clear to me that Ken was trying to wind us up (not for the first time, if memory serves), so I thought I would take it a stage further....

[hirowla]

I know somebody hinted about it, but an answer was never given...

 

In the ABF, all bids above 3NT (except Namyats I think) are considered self-altering. So there would have been no alert on the 5NT bid. But given it is quite an unusual bid, it would have been obvious (but maybe too late to be rectified). Never seen that convention but to be honest, I rarely ask for Kings - apart from yesterday, don't remember the last time I considered going for a grand. But there are weird conventions everywhere (at my club, Gerber rules :unsure:)

[Chris3875]

I have sympathy with the Director suggesting it could have been pre-alerted. In the ABF alerting regulations it says under 3.1.2 Pre-Alerts "This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence". I think if an opponent used 4NT to ask for aces, then pulled out at 5NT with no response from partner, I might be surprised.

[gnasher]

I have sympathy with the Director suggesting it could have been pre-alerted. In the ABF alerting regulations it says under 3.1.2 Pre-Alerts "This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence". I think if an opponent used 4NT to ask for aces, then pulled out at 5NT with no response from partner, I might be surprised.

 

I think that "surprise" in this rule should be interpreted as "take unawares" rather than "astonish". It may be unusual to play 4NT then 5NT as a signoff, but nobody needs to prepare a defence to it. They only need to know about it when they're on lead.

 

I have dozens, probably hundreds, of unusual agreements which apply in constructive sequences but rarely occur. If I had to pre-alert them all, it would take about half an hour, and wouldn't benefit the opponents in the slightest.

[barmar]

I agree, I can't imagine the regulators intended players to pre-alert all the minor differences in their system that rarely come up. But where do we draw the line?

 

Notice that the regulation says "or". So it is apparently intended to include surprising agreements even if they don't require the opponents to prepare a defense.

[McBruce]

Pick a name at random from the telephone directory. The next time they pass 5NT against Jack and he calls the TD to complain, tell Jack that you have researched this and they are playing [insert random name here] Blackwood.

 

I don't think I have ever passed 5NT playing bridge with JACK (the computer program) as my partner. But on a few occasions I have passed a Blackwood 4NT, when JACK seems to have decided that I have shown three times as much as I hold. Whenever this happens, the bidding diagram on the screen shows my pass with an asterisk. Below the bidding, along with the other explanations of conventional calls, JACK inserts the annotation "Please wake up."

[bluejak]

This reminds me of a type of query I get in a magazine where I write about the Laws, the magazine being aimed at the less experienced or not so brilliant player. A question that comes every so often is about the opposition doing something they personally would not do and they don't like it. It does not mean they are damaged: it means they are unhappy. Many players have an instinctive idea that their way is the only way. Perhaps it lies in bad initial teaching.

 

Some examples:

 

• "My opponent opened 3♣ and he only had six clubs. Is this allowed?"
  
• "My opponent overcalled 1♠ and he only had four spades. Is this allowed?"
  
• "My opponent opened 2NT and he had a singleton ace. Is this allowed?"
  

 

People play all sorts of things, some reasonable, some barmy. Unless it is a convention disallowed by the TO [and, with very rare exceptions, that means first or second round action which is not slam-oriented] it is allowed. I have known a pair who bid 4♣ for aces: after the response the player rebid 4NT which was intended and understood as ordinary Blackwood to make sure her partner had made the correct response first time.

 

So I cannot believe anywhere does not allow Blackwood with a 5NT rebid as signoff. Actually, for many of the club players I play against, it seems reasonable. One of the most common slam tries in local clubs is, after a sequence ending in one player bidding 3NT, partner bids 4NT. This is always intended and understood as Blackwood. After the response, on 80% of occasions the asker thinks for a very long time then bids 6NT. Since 5NT would ask for kings, there are three possibilities:

 

1. It is a good grand, but they have no idea how to try for grand.
   
2. They are in the correct contract.
   
3. They are off two aces but have no idea how to stop.
   

What about the other 20%? Well, on 10% of occasions, they bid 5NT for kings, and then, whatever the response, think for some time and then bid 6NT [always 6NT].

 

On the other 10% of occasions, they signoff, usually because they are off one ace :), and they do this by bidding 5NT, folding their cards up, putting them face-down on the table, and writing the contract on their score-card. Partners never show kings now.

 

For such players a 5NT rebid as signoff would be a good idea.

[barmar]

This reminds me of a type of query I get in a magazine where I write about the Laws, the magazine being aimed at the less experienced or not so brilliant player. A question that comes every so often is about the opposition doing something they personally would not do and they don't like it. It does not mean they are damaged: it means they are unhappy. Many players have an instinctive idea that their way is the only way. Perhaps it lies in bad initial teaching.

Bridge is a fairly unusual game in this regard. When you're learning bridge, the bidding conventions seem like they're part of the rules of the game, just like the ways that chess pieces are allowed to move or what beats what in poker. Even if the teacher mentions at some point that these are partnership agreements, not hard and fast rules, I'll bet it doesn't sink in with many novices. They're not going to run into counterexamples until they graduate into the open games, so their impressions have been reinforced for a while -- experience is a much stronger influence than lectures.

 

So I'm not sure that the teaching should be considered "bad" -- it may simply be an impossible expectation. New players aren't going to learn how variable bidding can be unless we throw them into the deep water right away, but that may overwhelm them and turn them off the game before they've gotten hooked.

 

I still remember misplaying a hand years ago at an NABC, because I assumed that a weak 2 bidder had to have at least 6 cards in his suit, and I didn't duck enough times. I took it as an educational experience -- I've never forgotten that this is possible (although it's not always possible to cater to it), and eventually learned when to do it myself.