England - alertable?

[TMorris]

I am told that a poor pair play that a 1NT response to a 1 level bid is 6-9 but can include 1 or 2 4-card majors. It is purely a point count so they will always respond 1NT when in range (I haven't asked about them having a 5-card major). Is this alertable under the unexpected meaning rules? In addition it has been suggested that this does not need to be stated on their (rather limited) convention card. This seems wrong to me.

 

I would welcome comments.

[gordontd]

It seems highly unexpected to me.

[StevenG]

If I knew them to be a poor pair, I wouldn't be in any way surprised.

[helene_t]

it is hard to require poor pairs to alert things that are unexpected to good pairs, especially when their methods are arguably equally natural.

 

But yes, in principle this is alertable.

[Zelandakh]

Presumably the 1M responses similarly deny a (precisely) 4 card major and less than invitational values. Is everyone ok with this not being alerted assuming the 6-9 hands with a 4+ card major are included?

[TMorris]

Presumably the 1M responses similarly deny a (precisely) 4 card major and less than invitational values. Is everyone ok with this not being alerted assuming the 6-9 hands with a 4+ card major are included?

 

I would want them to alert this as well as the 1NT response for the sam sort of reason.

[fromageGB]

If (some) people are happy to open a natural 1NT and have this include a 5 card major, without alerting, I don't see how anyone can object to a responder bidding a natural 1NT including a 4 card major.

[gordontd]

If (some) people are happy to open a natural 1NT and have this include a 5 card major, without alerting, I don't see how anyone can object to a responder bidding a natural 1NT including a 4 card major.

One is unexpected, the other isn't. In any case it's not responder's NT response including a 4 card major that's the issue - it's the fact that a 4 card major is bypassed in order to bid 1NT.

[gordontd]

I would want them to alert this as well as the 1NT response for the sam sort of reason.

In general we don't require alerts from those whose agreements are to only make calls on subsets of those allowable. So no alerts for five-card majors, four-card minors, limited opening bids, Walsh 1D responses and nor would I expect them for five-card (or unbalanced) major suit responses.

[StevenG]

One is unexpected, the other isn't. In any case it's not responder's NT response including a 4 card major that's the issue - it's the fact that a 4 card major is bypassed in order to bid 1NT.

Why is that unexpected? It's the way the majority of players play. Of course, not in the world the L&EC members play in, but in the real world, where people bid 1NT to show a point count, reverses don't show extra strength, etc.. I don't know any pairs who have an explicit agreement to bid this way, but the number of implicit agreements where both partners play this way through ignorance (or one does over and over again, despite being told off every time) is immense.

 

Perhaps the legislators should have to play a certain number of (NGS) sub-50% sessions a year, just to see what really goes on (and listen to their opponents post mortems!)

[gordontd]

Why is that unexpected? It's the way the majority of players play. Of course, not in the world the L&EC members play in, but in the real world, where people bid 1NT to show a point count, reverses don't show extra strength, etc..

I know teachers and teaching programmes that teach that reverses don't show extra strength; I don't know of any that don't teach beginners to show major suits at the one-level in preference to responding 1NT.

[TMorris]

In general we don't require alerts from those whose agreements are to only make calls on subsets of those allowable. So no alerts for five-card majors, four-card minors, limited opening bids, Walsh 1D responses and nor would I expect them for five-card (or unbalanced) major suit responses.

 

My current limited understanding of their methods is that a major suit response could be balanced with a 4-card suit if it has 10+ points. They won't have thought through the implications but they can have an auction in theory like

 

1D 1S

3NT

 

where opener has a 1354 15 count as they know partner has a 10 count. Given one of them is a very serious hand hogger he could easily have a 3244 15 count and not care about finding a spade fit if it means he won't play the hand. Unless you know the 1S is 10+ you are going to take the 3NT bid as a very different hand to the one it actually might be.

[StevenG]

I know teachers and teaching programmes that teach that reverses don't show extra strength; I don't know of any that don't teach beginners to show major suits at the one-level in preference to responding 1NT.

I don't see the relevance of that. Most people are learning from friends in kitchen bridge, then non-affiliated clubs, not from accredited bridge teachers. My views are based on what I see week in, week out, not what I would like to see.

[gordontd]

they know partner has a 10 count.

How do they know that? Don't they respond in a major with unbalanced hands?

[barmar]

How do they know that? Don't they respond in a major with unbalanced hands?

Not according to the OP, which said that all hands in the range 6-9 HCP bid 1NT.

[TMorris]

How do they know that? Don't they respond in a major with unbalanced hands?

 

When asked I am told they said any 6-9 count. It may be that with a 5-card major they do something else but anything is possible (example. I have seen one of them overcall 2C on a three count & 5 clubs to the 9). I am likely to be the person who has to explain to them what they must alert so I want to be clear on any associated issues beforehand although I will of course check exactly what their agreement is first.

[gordontd]

Not according to the OP, which said that all hands in the range 6-9 HCP bid 1NT.

It also said:

(I haven't asked about them having a 5-card major)

[sanst]

In my experience poor players have no idea about the background of the bidding system. They mix things up, make completely ridiculous agreements or just do something. The pair in the OP is not alone in first showing HCP's and thereafter improvising to show their best suit. There's a reason why they are poor players, but they usually don't mind and fear the encounters with better players. Playing against them is not always easy, the results can be very surprising, but on average the better players have the best results.

Here there was a CC, but most of the time such a source of information is missing. That might not even be a problem, since they don't have a good idea about their agreements. Ask an explanation about a bid and they begin to stare to each other and then you get an answer like "I think my partners is showing spades" or even "I guess...". Most play 5 card major and a 1♣ opening bid shows 2+. That's about the only bid they alert and adding, though nobody asks, "can be two". Alerting anything else is not done. They don't like sequences by the opps with a lot of alerts and can even react angrily. That can also happen when you give them your CC, especially if it's a bit full.

I'm writing about players who will open ♠KQxx-♥xx-♦AKJxx-xx with 1♣ "because I've a 4 card spades". Partner then puts in "You should have opened 1♦", but next week they will do it again. They quite often hate to play NT and also hate to open 1NT, especially if they have no honours in a suit. So they end in 3♣ with 27 HCP and sometimes are successful because 3NT can't be made. To them that is proof that they're right.

 

If you're playing against these players, just let things happen, smile and move to the next table wishing them luck. Don't be angry, don't argue and, if possible, don't call the TD. There's not much he can do but lecture them. I've more than once tried to explain that the sequence (pass)-double is not allowed.

"But I have 14 HCP and no 5 card suit."

"Then bid your lowest 4 card suit."

"We don't do that. Besides we have learned it that way."

"I don't think so."

"Oh, yes. Certainly."

"But doubling a bid means that you think the last bid of your opponents can't be made. Primarily it's for penalties. So, how can you double a pass?"

"We never do that, for penalties."

"Anyway, I don't allow this double. You should pass or bid a suit. And no more discussion."

"Grumble, grumble, he doesn't understand bridge. How can he be a director?" That's the last you hear when leaving the table.

[blackshoe]

Why are you not reading Law 19A from the book to these people?

[Zelandakh]

I know teachers and teaching programmes that teach that reverses don't show extra strength; I don't know of any that don't teach beginners to show major suits at the one-level in preference to responding 1NT.

But I am sure you do know plenty of books and courses that teach beginners not to open 1NT with a 5 card major. Perhaps not so many these days as was once the case but all of those old books are still around and the majority of players do not keep up with the "latest" trends. And I am also absolutely positive that you are well aware that "highly unexpected" for London is rather different from many other parts of the country, something that the regulations obviously do not address at all.

[gordontd]

But I am sure you do know plenty of books and courses that teach beginners not to open 1NT with a 5 card major. Perhaps not so many these days as was once the case but all of those old books are still around and the majority of players do not keep up with the "latest" trends. And I am also absolutely positive that you are well aware that "highly unexpected" for London is rather different from many other parts of the country, something that the regulations obviously do not address at all.

I refer you to my post #9 above which I think covers your first point.

 

Of course if you are playing in an environment where responding 1NT while bypassing a four-card or longer major suit is expected, no-one will alert and no-one will be taken by surprise so there will be no question of a ruling.

[sanst]

Why are you not reading Law 19A from the book to these people?

Because you first have to explain the difference between a call and a bid. Besides, they're not interested in law text. The only reason they play is,t's a nice way to spend the afternoon or evening, chat a bit and play something they call bridge. The result is not very important, for some totally unimportant.

[helene_t]

I've more than once tried to explain that the sequence (pass)-double is not allowed.

Ha-ha, my favorite TD call was about a player who violated the rule that second seat has to play low.

[weejonnie]

Most play 5 card major and a 1♣ opening bid shows 2+. That's about the only bid they alert and adding, though nobody asks, "can be two".

In England prepared or short 1♣ openings (which are not forcing but may be made on two cards or fewer) are announced (not alerted) as "may be n" - so obviously 'correct' procedure depends on RA.

[sanst]

In England prepared or short 1♣ openings (which are not forcing but may be made on two cards or fewer) are announced (not alerted) as "may be n" - so obviously 'correct' procedure depends on RA.

In Holland anouncing is not part of the regulations and its not allowed to explain a bid without being asked. Not that it matters in this case.