No Appeal!

[PeterAlan]

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. I don't propose to address the question of the director's actions, but I have little sympathy with the rest of Nigel's complaints (or with his claim of naivete).

 

How is West supposed to respond to East's opening 1♥? The choices are between 1♠, 1NT and 2♦, and with an 8-count with both a singleton and a doubleton J and such a thin ♦ suit it's hardly surprising that W rejected the latter, and preferred 1♠ to 1NT. As it happens, I play regularly but infrequently (1st and 5th Wednesdays) with S, playing an Acol-ish system, and, although we haven't discussed specifically this kind of position, 1♠ is both the response I would make on the W hand and also the response I would expect from her, and I see it as about as GBKish as one is ever going to get. It is also the response my (regular) partner on the evening made, whereupon we comfortably reached 3NT after a checkback sequence (we were allowed to make +3, the one highlight in an otherwise bad evening, as it happens). I see that Nigel's score is recorded as 2NT+3 (not +2), but nevertheless it was worth 56%, and I'd be pretty happy that my opponents didn't bid game.

 

This was the summer meeting Mixed Pairs, where there are many scratch partnerships. Indeed, I understand that N/S themselves were only paired through the partner-wanted list, and, whilst I don't know whether or not E/W are regular partners, it would hardly be surprising if they too were scratch. Many of the pairs in the field will not have begun to address such sequences, let alone have any established partnership agreement. Some adjustment of expectations is necessary.

[barmar]

In tournaments I generally ask opps if they play majors before minors.

Does this really apply if bidding the minor first would require making a 2/1 bid, which requires more strength?

 

That's the whole problem I have with this incident. Why would anyone assume that the bidding sequence implies longer spades than diamonds when it simply wasn't possible to bid them in the natural order because of his strength?

[helene_t]

Does this really apply if bidding the minor first would require making a 2/1 bid, which requires more strength?

No, the question I ask is about opening style. Whether they open 1M or 1m with 4432-hands.

[barmar]

No, the question I ask is about opening style. Whether they open 1M or 1m with 4432-hands.

I've never played 4-card majors myself, and haven't played against it very much, either, but I always assumed that it meant you preferred major openings. Is there really much variation on that side of the pond?

[gnasher]

I said "I would be surprised..." I have investigated and find it to be the case that the director said this. I shall investigate further.

In your position I would be not merely surprised but horrified.

[Zelandakh]

I've never played 4-card majors myself, and haven't played against it very much, either, but I always assumed that it meant you preferred major openings. Is there really much variation on that side of the pond?

Absolutely. One of the first things I asked was the local style of opening these hands and sadly I still do not really understand the various styles. In general UK Acol prefers opening 1M with a 4M4m(32) whereas Swiss Acol is 1m. Inbetween are various alternatives such as Culbertson and (apparently) the Acol of Bavaria. Canapé 4 card majors adds another twist where again various openings are possible. It really is just something you have to ask about if it matters to you and you also often have to accept not getting a usable response when playing at club level.

[pran]

I've never played 4-card majors myself, and haven't played against it very much, either, but I always assumed that it meant you preferred major openings. Is there really much variation on that side of the pond?

A rather common style in Norway is to bid 4-card suits bottom up, so with more than one 4-card suit we open with the lowest ranking.

An alternate common style within the "natural" system classes is 5-card major and either "best minor" or at least 4 diamonds (implying that an opening bid in Clubs show at lest two cards in that suit).

[helene_t]

General bridge knowledge is that Acol is very poorly defined

Maybe you are being sarcastic but .... is it really general bridge knowledge that if a pair call their system "Acol" it implies that there are lots of basic sequences they haven't discussed?

[nige1]

I feel that Nigel is really railing against the lack of precision in Acol and the fact that his opponents have not souped it up with gadgets that most tournament players use to improve it. This auction is typical of a club auction, where the players just bid what is in front of them. They don't have specific agreements and probably bid the same way with 5-5, 5-4, 4-5, 4-6 but have just never discussed it. In such an imprecise world, everything is natural and general bridge knowledge. It's not an offence to have fewer agreements than you would have in this situation and, overall, this looks to be just the rub of the green.

i suspect the opps had no idea what you're talking about and would have no idea which suit was supposed to be longer if you asked. your bad result was down to your partner's awful lead. that's all.

I agree with Paul that there's no obligation to play complex methods. I disagree with Paul and Wank about disclosure.

 

My controversial contention is that, In a National Competition, when asked, you have an obligation to disclose understandings; whether they are explicit or implicit; no matter how crude they are; even when playing Acol.

 

Until directors rule that way, players, who divulge their agreements, will continue to suffer a disadvantage.

[nige1]

I said "I would be surprised..." I have investigated and find it to be the case that the director said this. I shall investigate further.

Thank you Gordon but it's not worth pursuing. The director investigated my concerns assiduously, was impeccably polite, and, judging from comments here, was kindly preventing me from losing my deposit.

 

I always enjoy the EBU Summer Congress (including the excellent direction). I think Eastbourne is even better than Brighton

[nige1]

That's the whole problem I have with this incident. Why would anyone assume that the bidding sequence implies longer spades than diamonds when it simply wasn't possible to bid them in the natural order because of his strength?

I played Acol for a long time. After the 1♥ opener, the 1♠ reply is standard, with a weak hand. Then after opener's 1N rebid:

• AFIK, in standard Acol, with 4♠s and longer ♦s, you would pass 1N, rather than rebid 2♦.
• We are told that Canapé is an alternative non-alertable treatment.
• Apparently, for some players, either suit could be longer.

Whichever your understanding, I think that you should divulge it, when asked.

No, the question I ask is about opening style. Whether they open 1M or 1m with 4432-hands.

I've never played 4-card majors myself, and haven't played against it very much, either, but I always assumed that it meant you preferred major openings. Is there really much variation on that side of the pond?

Some modern Acol players prefer to open minors first.; but when playing Acol with a weak no-trump, I open

• A 4-card major ahead of a 4-card minor;
• 1♥; with 44 in majors,
• Some exceptions with (1444)

When asked, I admit to all this :)

[barmar]

A rather common style in Norway is to bid 4-card suits bottom up, so with more than one 4-card suit we open with the lowest ranking.

So they only open a 4-card major when they're 4=4=3-2 and outside their NT range?

An alternate common style within the "natural" system classes is 5-card major and either "best minor" or at least 4 diamonds (implying that an opening bid in Clubs show at lest two cards in that suit).

That's not 4-card majors, so not really pertinent to my question.

[pran]

So they only open a 4-card major when they're 4=4=3-2 and outside their NT range?

Yes.

A rebid in a lower ranked suit (M or m) always promises 5+ cards in the opened suit.

 

(And with 5 cards in a major suit that suit is usually preferred for the opening bid even with a longer minor suit. Such situations can be clarified if needed by re-bidding the minor suit.)

[gordontd]

Thank you Gordon but it's not worth pursuing. The director investigated my concerns assiduously, was impeccably polite, and, judging from comments here, was kindly preventing me from losing my deposit.

 

I always enjoy the EBU Summer Congress (including the excellent direction). I think Eastbourne is even better than Brighton

Thanks for the kind comments. Let's say this case has been a "learning experience" for us too.

[Zelandakh]

So they only open a 4-card major when they're 4=4=3-2 and outside their NT range?

Or presumably 3=4=3=3 and outside of NT range. In Swiss Acol you open 4=3=3=3 (outside of range) 1♣ but it sounds like pran's system will open that 1♠. Otherwise the two appear to be the same. Swiss Acol makes more sense to me here as the advantage of a 5 card major spade opening seems to me to be superior to mentioning your 4 card spade suit on the 4=3=3=3 hand.

[paulg]

I agree with Paul that there's no obligation to play complex methods. I disagree with Paul and Wank about disclosure.

 

My controversial contention is that, In a National Competition, when asked, you have an obligation to disclose understandings; whether they are explicit or implicit; no matter how crude they are; even when playing Acol.

I doubt that you disagree with either of us on disclosure, especially as both of us are overly generous when disclosing our own methods at the table.

 

Our contention is that there is almost certainly nothing to disclose here as they do not have an agreement and, as much as you bully the opponents metaphorically, this is not going to make them have one.

 

Until directors rule that way, players, who divulge their agreements, will continue to suffer a disadvantage.

Players who deliberately fail to divulge their agreements are cheating. This is quite simple and I think you need to be careful before, basically, accusing people of doing this especially when we can easily discover who you were playing.

[paulg]

General bridge knowledge is that Acol is very poorly defined and that this is a typical sequence that many will not have explicitly discussed, especially when they are not system geeks like Nigel.

 

Maybe you are being sarcastic but .... is it really general bridge knowledge that if a pair call their system "Acol" it implies that there are lots of basic sequences they haven't discussed?

 

Of course serious players will have discussed a lot of sequences, but there has never been a good and popular reference book for Acol (except for Crowhurst's two excellent tomes in the 1970s and I never saw Eric awash with royalties from these).

 

When you play club bridge around the UK you'll see that most areas have their own version of the system, with far greater variety than you'd see in (say) the USA with Standard American or 2/1. And I think there are a lot of sequences that people will be unsure on their precise meaning. One reason for this is that traditionally, when Nigel started playing, a lot of bids were non-forcing - even 1S-2C-2H. Nowadays this would be considered laughable but I can't tell you when it changed. Acol likes limit bids, less keen on defining bids as forcing :) So as the system has been updated, randomly around the country, to different modern versions.

[StevenG]

One reason for this is that traditionally, when Nigel started playing, a lot of bids were non-forcing - even 1S-2C-2H. Nowadays this would be considered laughable

Still non-forcing in club bridge around here.

[paulg]

Still non-forcing in club bridge around here.

To be honest, there are many at my club who'd pass it too,especially if the 2H bid was made without visible distress. But few of them are tournament players.

[pran]

Or presumably 3=4=3=3 and outside of NT range. In Swiss Acol you open 4=3=3=3 (outside of range) 1♣ but it sounds like pran's system will open that 1♠. Otherwise the two appear to be the same. Swiss Acol makes more sense to me here as the advantage of a 5 card major spade opening seems to me to be superior to mentioning your 4 card spade suit on the 4=3=3=3 hand.

Well, I didn't go into many details but according to agreements 4=3=3=3 with the proper strength should be opened 1♠

However, the player is allowed to treat a lousy 4-cards spade suit as equivalent to a 3-card suit and then open his (4)3=3=3=3 hand in the lowest 3-card suit i.e. in 1♣ .

[benlessard]

This sequence doesnt fit my definition of canape.

 

AFAIK canape is you open your 2nd best suit rather than your longest, you reply a 4 card suit before replying a longest suit at the same level.

You bid the 2nd suit rather than the longest when your replying and your GF.

 

Idk Acol enough for the ruling.

[nige1]

Players who deliberately fail to divulge their agreements are cheating. This is quite simple and I think you need to be careful before, basically, accusing people of doing this especially when we can easily discover who you were playing.

Nobody implied anybody cheated. After the hand, the 2♦ bidder explained that he had no choice. He would always bid that way, whichever suit were longer. Opponents' interpretation of Acol and the law is closer to Paulg's than to mine. Their card didn't mention this auction. (Few do). They might have no discussed agreement They believed that they had nothing to disclose. Many here share that view. When an opponent asks about an auction. I still maintain that general "bridge knowledge" is no excuse for failure to disclose.

[paulg]

When an opponent asks about an auction, I still maintain that "general bridge knowledge" is no excuse for failure to disclose.

We are in agreement on this, although laws and regulations may not always support us.

 

Our disagreement is our expectation of a pair necessarily having an agreement in this situation.

[helene_t]

Our disagreement is our expectation of a pair necessarily having an agreement in this situation.

Nigel acknowledged that they might not have an agreement. I think we all agree on this. Maybe there's disagreement about whether the expression " just natural" suggests that they don't have agreements about it.

[PeterAlan]

Before leading, defenders asked for an explanation of the auction and were told "Acol, Natural". When asked to explain the auction, bid by bid, the 1N rebid was explained as "15-17", all other bids "Natural". South led a diamond. North called the director. North claimed E-W should disclose that diamonds can be longer than spades.

No bid was alerted. We asked out the auction. Opponents said "Natural". We asked opponents to explain each bid. Opponents explained them as natural. I was interested in 2♦. e.g. whether it shows 4 or more cards? whether it's forcing? But I didn't because we're not meant to badger opponents about individual calls. What more would you do, Helene? That's what I feel!

They might have no discussed agreement ... When an opponent asks about an auction. I still maintain that general "bridge knowledge" is no excuser. for failure to disclose.

Nigel, I've already said I think you're overdoing this. Let's suppose, as seems highly likely for the reasons already given, that your opponents do not have any specific agreements or understandings about the 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦ sequence, and look at exactly what you're complaining about.

 

• "North claimed E-W should disclose that diamonds can be longer than spades": If they have no specific understanding, on what basis is E supposed to disclose this about W's bid? Only on the basis of general bridge knowledge, the same as is available to you. W clearly hasn't got a hand he regarded as strong enough to push on to game even after the 1NT [15-17]/ 2NT rebid sequence from his partner, so won't have the values for a 2-over-1 initial response. A player of your experience - far greater than mine - is surely aware, if they think about it, that the ♦s might be longer than the ♠s in a weak hand on that sequence, especially as W had the opportunity to pass 1NT instead of introducing the ♦s on the next round. You have to have reasonable expectations. You're entitled to the opponents' agreements and understandings, but you can't expect to be given at the table every possible ramification of their sequence that they've never previously considered, and, as Paul has already pointed out, it would take forever if they tried to do this. There is a line do be drawn between disclosure (there's a hint in the meaning of the word) and being spoonfed analysis that you should be doing for yourself.
   
  
• "I was interested in 2♦...": Maybe you were, but according to your narrative S hasn't made that specific enquiry before selecting her opening lead. You don't get to ask until she has done so and dummy is about to be faced, so what difference does it make?
  

Finally, whilst the opening ♦ lead made declarer's task a little easier, it did not directly cost a trick and the defence still had time to establish and take all the tricks available to them.