Precision

[ddrankin]

Another case where there seems to be confusion about whether an alert is required is the Precision auction 1M-4M. For standard players, this is usually a weak raise with 5-card support. But Precision players will bid it with either a weak hand or a hand that's strong enough for game but not strong enough to explore for slam opposite the limited opener. Some Precision players alert this, because of the split range possibility. It's not clear whether this is required or not -- it could fall under the "strong bid that sounds weak" requirement, except that it's not necessarily strong, it just might be strong. Or it could fall under the "unexpected point range" requirement.

 

I agree that this is not clear from the alert chart but a careful reading of the alert procedures lists this example:

 

"EXAMPLE: 1H-P-4H when playing a forcing club where the 4H call may have, by agreement, values for game but not slam."

 

Nobody says the ACBL makes it easy to understand the regs.

[blackshoe]

Okay, so it is clear. :P

[chasetb]

Playing a lot of Precision, I always announce 1♦ "may be as short as 2" (I don't have any partners who play it as 0+ or 1+), and I alert 1M-4M. When asked, I explain "To play, no slam interest, could have up to 12-13 HCP". Personally, I don't think the limited nature of 1♦/1♥/1♠ should be alerted - it's a very similar case to opening 1M on 4+ (not canape of course, that is alertable).

[barmar]

it's a very similar case to opening 1M on 4+ (not canape of course, that is alertable).

4-card major players (non-canape) are extremely rare in the ACBL these days. I'm really surprised they haven't made it alertable, I guess old traditions are hard to eradicate.

[blackshoe]

Alert Procedure: "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

It is certainly true that 4 cards majors were common historically. B-)

[barmar]

It is certainly true that 4 cards majors were common historically. B-)

Does anyone actually understand that sentence in the ACBL Alert Procedure?

[blackshoe]

Probably not. :blink:

[mr1303]

On a matter of semantics, the precision 1D has an potential minor suit canape, which to my understanding makes it alertable under the new EBU laws rather than announceable.

 

(I know the OP mentioned ACBL).

 

Is this correct?

[blackshoe]

You seem to be. BB 4H2( b ).

[RMB1]

On a matter of semantics, the precision 1D has an potential minor suit canape, which to my understanding makes it alertable under the new EBU laws rather than announceable.

 

The intention is that non-forcing 1m opening is announced. EBU BB 4D1

 

Any "could be 2" opening will be potential canape: if it is 2 cards there will be a longer suit!

[blackshoe]

Any "could be 2" opening will be potential canape: if it is 2 cards there will be a longer suit!

A point that I missed in making my earlier post. Thanks, Robin.

[barmar]

And any 3-card minor is also a potential canape, but you're also not required to alert or announce them.

[WellSpyder]

And any 3-card minor is also a potential canape, but you're also not required to alert or announce them.

Good point! But now I am confused, having thought previously that I understood what I needed to do....

 

I play a Precision-style 1♦ in EBU-land, but it shows 3+ ♦. We have been alerting this bid (I'm pretty sure on the advice of an EBU TD) not because of the potentially short ♦, but specifically because it might have a longer ♣ suit. (We have also been advised that we should then alert a 2♣ rebid because it might NOT be longer than the ♦ suit.) My expectation was that we would continue to alert for the same reason. But as you point out any 3-card suit must have a longer suit somewhere in the hand, and we are not expected to alert all potentially 3-card "natural" bids.

[Zelandakh]

Today, my partner opened 2♥ (standard weak 2). RHO bid 2♠. LHO alerted. I asked. "Um, Fishbein?" The interrogative was pretty clearly "is that enough info?" rather than "I'm not sure". I said "and so?". She said "takeout". I passed, she passed, partner started asking questions (he never heard of Fishbein). She said "takeout" about three times. I finally leaned over to her and whispered "tell him it's like a takeout double of hearts". Nope. "It's takeout". Sheesh. B-)

Technically, is takeout not also a convention name? By rights, should they not have said something like "11+ points, 3+ spades, 3+ diamonds, 3+ clubs." Even CHO should understand that. And if someone kept saying "takeout" and refused to say "takeout of hearts", I might start wondering precisely which suit it was takeout of! After all, if I open 2♠ and partner describes this as "takeout", what would you take that to mean?

[barmar]

Technically, is takeout not also a convention name?

Not really. It just means "Asks partner to bid his long suit". A takeout bid doesn't show specific hand types, although common hand types can be inferred.

[blackshoe]

My dictionary has the following definitions for "takeout":

 

takeout |ˈtākˌout|

noun

1 food that is cooked and sold by a restaurant or store to be eaten elsewhere: let’s just order takeout | [ as modifier ] : takeout pizza.

2 Bridge a bid in a different suit made in response to a bid or double by one's partner.

 

:ph34r:

[barmar]

That dictionary entry was obviously not written by an experienced bridge player (although #1 may be an accurate description of our diets), or maybe it's just an archaic sense and hasn't been updated with modern usage. When was the last time you heard someone refer to the response to a takeout double as "takeout"? Sometimes we'll say that they're taking it out, as in "Takeout doubles are meant to be taken out." But we use the word "takeout" to mean that it asks partner to do that.

[TylerE]

I actually think that's correct, if slightly obscure usage.... consider how often the double (or the 1NT bid playing something like OS) is described as "for takeout", which would make advancer's bid the actual takeout.

[aguahombre]

I actually think that's correct, if slightly obscure usage.... consider how often the double (or the 1NT bid playing something like OS) is described as "for takeout", which would make advancer's bid the actual takeout.

This is a great start in sorting out what is what. That word "for" goes a long way in clearing up the answer for the opponents. It isn't the only way, however. At the table, I always believe that an opponent who asks about the nature of any call deserves something more than "takeout".