No Appeal!

[barmar]

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

But how much detail do you have to offer spontaneously?

 

When asked a general question about a bid or auction, I'll disclose everything I think is pertinent, but I might not realilze that some details are not obvious or implicit. In the given auction, it seems obvious that diamonds could be longer than spades, because there's no other way to bid such hands. If they ask "Could diamonds be longer than spades" I'll answer, but should I really be penalized for not realizing that I needed to mention this specifically when I explain that the bid was natural? When someone asks about the 2♦ bid, it just seems like they're trying to find out whether it was natural versus some kind of checkback (perhaps I forgot to alert), and it wouldn't occur to me that what they really need to know is what its maximum length is.

[nige1]

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.
• "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.

We asked for an explanation of the auction, bid by bid but neither of us asked about any specific call.. Barmar and Peter Alan think that it's standard Acol to rebid 2♦ with 5+ ♦s and 4♠s. Many other contributors agree with them. It's news to me and (presumably) to my partner. IMO we're entitled to this information, when we ask.

 

But if opponents have no agreement, explicit or implicit, then they can say so.

 

I don't think I'm overdoing this but I agree that I might be flogging a dead horse. IMO, the standard of disclosure is poor but we've learnt to condone it, Earlier this year, I made a lead against 3N, predicated on declarer's explanation of a bid by dummy. When dummy came down it appeared that dummy had misbid and the contract made. On my alternative lead, we would have taken the first five tricks. After the match, I was passing opponent's table and overheard a loud argument. Dummy alleged that he bid correctly but declarer misexplained his bid. It seemed opponents had no agreement or there had been a misexplanation. Both opponents are honest players who take pride in their ethics but neither had felt obliged to tell the director. NO Paul, there's no question of cheating -- opponents were just conforming with prevailing disclosure standards.

 

Over the years, there have been many occasions, when I've accidentally discovered blatant misexplanation (usually "No agreement") I guess these incidents are the tip of a iceberg. If my experience is atypical, I'm delighted.

[PeterAlan]

Barmar and Peter Alan think that it's standard Acol to rebid 2♦ with 5+ ♦s and 4♠s. Many other contributors agree with them. It's news to me and (presumably) to my partner.

You are misrepresenting me - I have said that with a hand too weak for a 2/1 response then it's normal to respond 1♠ to 1♥ with (as here) ♠KQxx despite having a longer weak ♦ suit. I'm not speaking for her, but I'd be surprised if this is news to your partner. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that this much appears to be news to you. I have said nothing about whether it's then normal to bid the ♦ suit after partner's 1NT rebid.

 

However, if, with a hand that's not prepared to accept a game invitation, one then chooses to do so instead of passing partner's 15-17 1NT rebid then it's suggestive that the ♦s could be longer than the ♠s: why is one considering the minor suit contract when 7 tricks in NT scores the same as 8 in 2♦, and 8 tricks beats 2♦+1? This seems to me to be true of any natural bidding system, not just Acol, which anyway is more a bidding approach than a single "system".

[nige1]

You are misrepresenting me - I have said that with a hand too weak for a 2/1 response then it's normal to respond 1♠ to 1♥ with (as here) ♠KQxx despite having a longer weak ♦ suit. I'm not speaking for her, but I'd be surprised if this is news to your partner. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that this much appears to be news to you. I have said nothing about whether it's then normal to bid the ♦ suit after partner's 1NT rebid.

However, if, with a hand that's not prepared to accept a game invitation, one then chooses to do so instead of passing partner's 15-17 1NT rebid then it's suggestive that the ♦s could be longer than the ♠s: why is one considering the minor suit contract when 7 tricks in NT scores the same as 8 in 2♦, and 8 tricks beats 2♦+1? This seems to me to be true of any natural bidding system, not just Acol, which anyway is more a bidding approach than a single "system".

We agree that with a weak hand, 4[ SP]s and a longer minor, the normal Acol reply to 1♥ is 1♠. I (and others) said this earlier in this thread.

[wank]

imo it's not the most relevant issue to the thread, but 2D in basic methods does indeed show diamonds at least as long as spades. so yes, your general bridge knowledge is lacking.

 

'most basic methods' in this case means english rubber bridge where the only conventions are blackwood and stayman.

[nige1]

imo it's not the most relevant issue to the thread, but 2D in basic methods does indeed show diamonds at least as long as spades. so yes, your general bridge knowledge is lacking.

That's why we ask about some unalerted auctions.

[PeterAlan]

Nigel, what I was objecting to was your assertion that I "think that it's standard Acol to rebid 2♦ with 5+ ♦s and 4♠s": I don't, and I have never said anything like it.

 

You now (and in an earlier post) agree that "with a weak hand, 4♠ and a longer minor, the normal Acol reply to 1♥ is 1♠", so you presumably were aware (despite the impression given by your OP) that there could be a longer minor when the initial response of 1♠ was given (and also accept that it's GBK). However, the whole thrust of your OP is that after the second-round bid of 2♦ this possibility completely left your head - it was then a "revelation to [you]" - and all I have been saying is that it shouldn't have done so.

[nige1]

so you presumably were aware (despite the impression given by your OP) that there could be a longer minor when the initial response of 1♠ was given (and also accept that it's GBK). However, the whole thrust of your OP is that after the second-round bid of 2♦ this possibility completely left your head - it was then a "revelation to [you]" - and all I have been saying is that it shouldn't have done so.

I've consistently said my concern is the 2♦ bid. For me, the Acol auction 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♦ shows 5+ ♠s. I didn't realize there are other interpretations in standard Acol. If I could phrase that more simply, I would.

[gordontd]

I've consistently said my concern is the 2♦ bid. For me, the Acol auction 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♦ shows 5+ ♠s. I didn't realize there are other interpretations in standard Acol. If I could phrase that more simply, I would.

So how would you have bid the given hand if we took away two jacks from it? Presumably you too would have responded 1S? And would you have passed 1NT?

[helene_t]

With 4162 there is a case for responding 1nt to anticipate a 2c rebid.

[sanst]

I've consistently said my concern is the 2♦ bid. For me, the Acol auction 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♦ shows 5+ ♠s. I didn't realize there are other interpretations in standard Acol. If I could phrase that more simply, I would.

What exactly is "Standard Acol"? The term Acol is used to describe all kinds of natural systems. In the system we used to teach in Holland, which also was called Acol, you need 10+ HCP to response at the 2-level and a reverse response is GF. To me, the auction looks completely in accordance with the hand and I wouldn't dream of alerting. It's quite different if it went 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦. That would show a hand with 5♠ and 4+♦. It's also different if Walsh or Montreal relays are part of your system, but then alerting is necessary.

[nige1]

I am surprised by the answer, but we seem to have arrived at a useful conclusion.. We now have general consensus, backed by national directors, on what a player of "standard" Acol is obliged to disclose when a puzzled opponent asks about a common natural auction in national competition.

[nige1]

So how would you have bid the given hand if we took away two jacks from it? Presumably you too would have responded 1S? And would you have passed 1NT?

Yes (unless we had agreed an appropriate convention e.g. 2-way check-back).

[helene_t]

I wouldn't dream of alerting.

No but if asked about the meaning of 2d would you just say "natural" or would you be more specific?

 

Fwiw this exact auction once cames up in a speelkennistest which suggests that it is officially considered gbk in the Netherlands.

[Zelandakh]

If 2♦ is expected to be weak with 5+ diamonds then I would think "to play" would be a better description than "natural". If it has not been discussed then "natural" seems perfectly reasonable under the usual "all undiscussed bids are natural" rule. After all a pick-up pair would have the same chance of misunderstanding what "natural" means here as an opponent. The difficult case is a regular pair that have that same "natural" agreement but know precisely what that means to them and do not disclose it. I am not sure we have enough evidence to know if that was the case here but I think such pairs should disclose the specific agreement rather than use a term that is easy to misinterpret. In essence this is no different from using a convention name and having that lead to a misunderstanding.

[blackshoe]

Generally speaking, a single word is not an adequate description of partnership understanding. If the understanding is "weak with 5+ diamonds" say so, don't obfuscate with "natural".

[Cyberyeti]

Firstly - do we alert the 1♠ response as "possible canape, may have a longer minor if too weak for 2m" - no, so it's GBK that this hand type is a possibility.

 

I think for most people this is what 2♦ shows, but often because 2♣ is one way checkback and 2♦ denies invitational values, it has never occurred to me to alert this.

[steve2005]

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.

Most leads result in +2, there are some leads +3 but nothing better, so wasn't partner's bad lead.

There is no "damage"

 

 

[Jinksy]

Is there a case for just eliminating the description 'natural' from acceptable responses to queries about specific bids? I've lost count of the amount of times it's haunted me, usually when LOLs describe something (even carding!) in just that one word, and then become immediately defensive when you press for what it means.

[blackshoe]

I suspect, when people become defensive in these situations, that it's because they don't know what it means either. Too bad; they still have to explain it.

[StevenG]

"It's a card he/she doesn't want"

[Jinksy]

Not necessarily - often I've had people who describe carding as 'natural' mean 'standard attitude' (or occasionally other!).