"I wouldn't have passed"

[paulg]

The EBU policy is that a completed system card provides the information that a pair needs and pre-alerts are done using the "other aspects of system which opponents should note" section. The EBU has always had a fairly liberal system policy and almost everyone is aware that they might meet unusual and exotic systems and conventions.

 

Often it is the case that not everything fits in that section, and considerate pairs often do pre-alert, saying something like "We play strange two-bids" or the like.

The approach of the EBU does lead to inconsiderate pairs being labelled as such just because they are following the regulations. And even the considerate pre-alerting pairs can be labelled unethical if they do not pre-alert something rare and unusual that actually comes up.

 

As someone who does pre-alert in the EBU (transfers to a short club and look at our leads), I feel much more comfortable in the ACBL or SBU where my pre-alerting requirements are well defined (albeit, occasionally, tiresome).

[Vampyr]

The approach of the EBU does lead to inconsiderate pairs being labelled as such just because they are following the regulations. And even the considerate pre-alerting pairs can be labelled unethical if they do not pre-alert something rare and unusual that actually comes up.

 

I suppose it is true.

 

As someone who does pre-alert in the EBU (transfers to a short club and look at our leads), I feel much more comfortable in the ACBL or SBU where my pre-alerting requirements are well defined (albeit, occasionally, tiresome).

 

Yes, transfer responses to a club is another thing -- pairs who don't pre-alert this annoy me, because if you ask or even are seen to be looking at their convention card, you transmit tons of UI.

 

I mentioned in a thread a long time ago about sitting down against a pair for a 2-board round. We had been following a very slow pair and often felt too rushed to examine the opponents' convention cards. On one of the boards they opened 2♣, 5-10 (or 0-5 or 0-10, I don't remember) points and at least one 4-card suit, but not a single-suiter in clubs. A first-time partnership, we didn't have any default agreements or anything like that. And the convention was not in the section about things the opponents should know, which would maybe have given us a chance of seeing it in advance. Fine, they didn't do anything illegal, but I was pretty annoyed. (You know who you are.)

[VixTD]

The relevant regulation would appear to be:

[bB4C1] The following are considered ‘natural’ for the purposes of alerting and regulation of partnership understandings....:

(c) A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

I expect someone is going to raise the question whether "unexpectedly" modifies "specify suit holdings" as well as "convey values", and of course one person's expectation will differ from another's.

 

I don't alert partner's pass in the sequence 2♦(multi) - (X) - P if it shows willingness to play in diamonds opposite however many I may have for a weak two in a major. I do alert their pass in (1NT) - 2♣(Asptro) - (X) - P if it says this could be our best spot if this is my second suit, or if they might redouble with a particularly good club holding, as these are things they might want to know.

 

I'm not entirely sure of my ground here, but I also do not think North is required to alert South's pass of the double here.

[blackshoe]

From the looks of East's hand, the double means nothing other than it was his turn.

That's why I asked the question. :)

[CamHenry]

Did EW have any agreement as to the meaning of East's double?

 

When asked, they said "you don't expect us to have a defense to this stupid system, do you? It's just bridge." When pressed for meanings of doubles in similar situations, they said it "probably shows some values".

[blackshoe]

"Just bridge". Right. Sounds like Agua is on target.

[gnasher]

Yes, transfer responses to a club is another thing -- pairs who don't pre-alert this annoy me, because if you ask or even are seen to be looking at their convention card, you transmit tons of UI.

Speak for yourself. When I ask about the sequence

1

♣

pass 1

♥

(A)

it conveys no UI at all.

[mycroft]

...and they expect Alerts when "Just bridge" minimum with some diamonds passes the double and sees what partner can do? Including minimum with lots of diamonds?

[Vampyr]

Speak for yourself. When I ask about the sequence

1

♣

pass 1

♥

(A)

it conveys no UI at all.

 

Do you not feel that asking and then passing carries a suggestion that you were about to bid spades?

[blackshoe]

To me, asking about an alerted call conveys little, if any, UI. Of course, the ACBL alert regulation tells me to ASK! DO NOT ASSUME! (the caps are in the reg).

 

It seems to me that it's difficult, if not impossible, to play bridge if every time you ask a question partner's choices are constrained. Is this really what the lawmakers intended? Is it what we players want?

[Vampyr]

As to my reasoning, imagine N/S had the contrary agreement that a pass denied diamond tolerance. I suppose that would have to be alerted as well. At which point every possible meaning of pass has to be alerted...

 

Right, in that case the alert carries no information, but it might prompt the opponents to ask.

[paulg]

Yes, transfer responses to a club is another thing -- pairs who don't pre-alert this annoy me, because if you ask or even are seen to be looking at their convention card, you transmit tons of UI.

It should not be the pairs that annoy you, they are just following EBU regulations and guidelines. It is the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee that should be the focus of your ire.

[mycroft]

Well, on their basic system and calls to be noticed, there's nothing about what 1♣-1♥ is. It could be spades (although that's a pre-Alert), it could be 5+hearts, it could be an artificial game force, it could be a "if you have a balanced hand, relay your range", it could be a lot of things.

 

Yes, asking passes UI, but an Alerted call on the first round of the auction, that isn't obvious from context and not on the "need to note" part of their cards, seems to pass "hmm, that's odd. I wonder what it is", even in the EBU, at least to me.

[Zelandakh]

West's pass of 1dx is remarkable to me, and is the direct cause of e/w's bad score.

Surely the cause is that East's diamonds are not good for the ask and double sequence. They really should have either doubled without asking or asked and passed.

 

I would certainly be interested to hear if South would pass with, for example, a (14)35 hand and perhaps even a (43)33. Or to put it another way, does the pass merely show tolerance or does it also deny other features? That has a direct bearing on the likelihood of South holding 4 diamonds and may go a long way to explaining North's pass (but so might West's actions if North got a "read").

[gnasher]

Do you not feel that asking and then passing carries a suggestion that you were about to bid spades?

No, I know that it doesn't. When I ask, it merely conveys that I don't already know the meaning of the bid.

 

It may be that when you ask in this position it does convey UI, but the solution to that problem is in your own hands.

[barmar]

No, I know that it doesn't. When I ask, it merely conveys that I don't already know the meaning of the bid.

So you always ask about alerts unless you're sure of the meaning (either you've reviewed their CC or it has come up previously)?

It may be that when you ask in this position it does convey UI, but the solution to that problem is in your own hands.

Directors need consistent rules. We can't have one rule for you (your questions about alerted bids convey no UI), and another rule for the majority of players (questions do suggest UI).

[gnasher]

So you always ask about alerts unless you're sure of the meaning (either you've reviewed their CC or it has come up previously)?

Not quite. In an auction like 2NT-3♣(A) or 1♠-2♦;2♥-3♣(A) I don't always ask, because the decision about whether to double is so unlikely to depend on the exact meaning. For the same reason I don't always ask about alerts late in an uncontested auction. And if I thought the opponents were having a misunderstanding I might not ask, because I wouldn't want to inflict a UI problem on them unnecessarily.

 

But yes, if it goes

1

♣

pass 1

♥

(A)

I always ask or look at the convention card, unless I already know what it means. I know that there are experienced players who wouldn't always ask here, but I think their approach is unwise.

 

Directors need consistent rules. We can't have one rule for you (your questions about alerted bids convey no UI), and another rule for the majority of players (questions do suggest UI).

I thought we were talking about whether UI was conveyed, not about a director's perception of whether UI was conveyed? There is one rule for everyone about what constitutes UI.

 

I agree that there is a theoretical problem that I would say "I always ask in this situation" and be telling the truth, whereas another player would say the same thing and be lying. However, I don't see this as a real problem: very few people will lie outright to a director, and directors are supposed to be good at evaluating the truth of what they're told.

 

In any case, if the director was unsure whether to believe me he could easily obtain evidence, in the form of other boards where I had asked questions without any immediate reason to know.

[barmar]

I agree that there is a theoretical problem that I would say "I always ask in this situation" and be telling the truth, whereas another player would say the same thing and be lying. However, I don't see this as a real problem: very few people will lie outright to a director, and directors are supposed to be good at evaluating the truth of what they're told.

 

In any case, if the director was unsure whether to believe me he could easily obtain evidence, in the form of other boards where I had asked questions without any immediate reason to know.

Does it matter whether you always ask or not? What matters is whether partner knows that you always ask. If he doesn't know that you're so consistent, then UI is conveyed, even if you didn't intend it.

[gnasher]

Does it matter whether you always ask or not? What matters is whether partner knows that you always ask. If he doesn't know that you're so consistent, then UI is conveyed, even if you didn't intend it.

If I ask becuase I always ask, but partner thinks I'm asking because I have a good hand, what information is actually conveyed? It appears that I'm actually misinforming my partner, by making him think that he has a UI problem when he doesn't.

 

It's certainly a good idea to make my partner aware of my habits, but if I don't there is still no meaningful UI.

Edited October 8, 2013 by gnasher

[CSGibson]

Does it matter whether you always ask or not? What matters is whether partner knows that you always ask. If he doesn't know that you're so consistent, then UI is conveyed, even if you didn't intend it.

 

 

Sorry, this is blatantly wrong - if you always ask no matter what your hand type, then partner is not constrained, because the question does not suggest one action would be more successful than another. Partner may think that an action is suggested, but partners get weird thoughts in their head all the time, none of which matter one whit when it comes to what the UI actually suggests in context.

[Trinidad]

I am 100% with Andy here. If it is unexpected that you ask about 1♣-Pass-1♥(A) then you have created a problem for yourself.

 

Furthermore, I don't get it at all. Even if you really can't envision that you want to get in the bidding right now there will be a point during the hand where you must want to know whether responder showed spades, whether they were alerting a Walsh sequence, or whether you missed an alert on the strong 1♣ opening and 1♥ is an entirely artificial GF bid (e.g. showing a balanced hand).

 

If you will need to ask anyway, why not ask rightaway?

 

The non askers think that asking about these things takes a lot of time. It doesn't. But I will tell you what does take a lot of time:

 

1♣-Pass-1♥(A)- Should I ask or not? I don't want to bid anyway... Pass

2♥-Pass-2♠(A)- What are they doing now? ... Pass

3♥-Pass-4♥- ?!? No Idea ?!? ... Pass

Pass-Pass

 

... My lead?!?

 

"Could you please explain?"

 

   - "Well, 1♥ was Walsh. He could -in principle- have longer diamonds."

"2♥ showed a minimum."

   - "2♠ was an artificial game try. It doesn't say anything about spades -or any other suit- it just asks, but it could, of course, be made with a slammish hand, but then he denies a splinter.

"3♥ was a sign off."

   - "4♥ places the contract. It looks like he was thinking of slam."

 

Hmmm, RHO has a strong balanced hand. Leftie has a minimum opening. What should I lead?

 

Imagine that you would have asked about 1♥ and 2♠ immediately after the alerts. You would have understood the auction rightaway -without a need of an explanation of all the bids that weren't alerted- you would have analysed the deal during the auction and you would have had your opening lead ready as soon as the last pass card hits the table.

 

Rik

[broze]

"Well, 1♥ was Walsh. He could -in principle- have longer diamonds."

 

Is standard Walsh commonly alertable?

[aguahombre]

Is standard Walsh commonly alertable?

Not the major suit opening bid; but some responses and rebids are commonly alerted. The source of your question is the opening 1M which might be on 5-6 with a longer minor. It is not a canape opening because the minor will not be revealed as longer via methods; so it is not alerted or alertable.

[broze]

Not the major suit opening bid; but some responses and rebids are commonly alerted. The source of your question is the opening 1M which might be on 5-6 with a longer minor. It is not a canape opening because the minor will not be revealed as longer via methods; so it is not alerted or alertable.

 

I am asking about the 1M response to 1C that Trinidad mentions, not the 1M opening (which I wasn't aware was referred to as 'Walsh').

[Trinidad]

Is standard Walsh commonly alertable?

I don't know how common it is in the world, but Walsh is alertable in my jurisdiction (the Netherlands). And Walsh is not really exotic in the Netherlands. Hard to say how many of the tournament players (who don't play T-Walsh) are playing it, but my very rough estimate is somewhere between 25 and 60%.

 

Of course, the idea that you should -in principle- just ask when opponents are alerting is independent of my example or whether Walsh is alertable. An alerted bid can mean anything.

 

Rik