EBU Announcement of Short Club

[SimonFa]

The EBU says we should announce when a 1 club opener may be short. In our system it also denies a 5-cards + in the other suits. Should we announce or alert as it carries specific information outside the general announcement.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Simon

[broze]

EDIT: misread your post. I would announce personally.

 

I alert in my own systems where 1C is clubs or balanced (or in one pship clubs or balanced without 5S)

[helene_t]

That it denies a 5-card in another suit is pretty much expected. Maybe opps would expect it also to include 6♣5M hands but those are so rare anyway that it doesn't matter.

[barmar]

What do you open with a 5=0=0=8 (or 6=0=0=7) hand and strength for a 1-level opening? 1♠ or 1♣?

[SimonFa]

That it denies a 5-card in another suit is pretty much expected. Maybe opps would expect it also to include 6♣5M hands but those are so rare anyway that it doesn't matter.

That makes sense, thanks.

[fromageGB]

Silly to announce anything than "could be a singleton" or whatever, and indeed I believe the EBU regs expressly deny you the freedom to say anything different. If you alert and announce at the same time, people will think you are nuts - well, they wouldn't if you said it denied 3 spades as well, but certainly explaining a denial of 5 cards in a different suit goes against the principle of EBU alerts, which is to alert anything which a basic acol player would not do.

 

If you are in the awkward situation of not knowing how an acol player would bid, then you sometimes get it wrong, but probably your typical hand for 1♣ would be opened the same in acol, dependent on NT strength.

[helene_t]

If you are in the awkward situation of not knowing how an acol player would bid.

The announcement itself marks it as a non-Acol bid so it doesn't matter what Acol players would do.

[nige1]

The EBU says we should announce when a 1 club opener may be short. In our system it also denies a 5-cards + in the other suits. Should we announce or alert as it carries specific information outside the general announcement.

IMO, you shouldn't announce but instead just alert because your 1♣ opener has restrictions which opponents won't expect.

[paulg]

The EBU says we should announce when a 1 club opener may be short. In our system it also denies a 5-cards + in the other suits. Should we announce or alert as it carries specific information outside the general announcement.

 

IMO, you shouldn't announce but instead just alert because your 1♣ opener has restrictions which opponents won't expect.

The EBU has consistently said that your system card is the primary method of disclosing your methods and, in the case of a short club, says that additional information should be provided on the system card. So, IMO, an announcement is appropriate and sufficient when you are playing in a decent field. I am more likely to alert at a club where short club methods are less familiar.

 

The real answer is a short email to the EBU L&EC. They tend to reply quickly to such questions.

[RMB1]

If 1C/1D is forcing it is alerted.

If 1C/1D is non-forcing and does not show 3+ cards, then it is announced "could be two", "could be one", "could be none".

 

The announcement implies an alert, opponents have to ask if they want to know if "could be two" may have 4 diamonds, 5 diamonds, 5 card major. (Or they could find out at the start of the round.)

[helene_t]

If we play a strong club canape system where 1♦ is balanced OR diamonds with a canape suit (which is possibly a 5 card major), I think we have to alert the 1♦ opening, no?

[RMB1]

If we play a strong club canape system where 1♦ is balanced OR diamonds with a canape suit (which is possibly a 5 card major), I think we have to alert the 1♦ opening, no?

I think EBU Blue Book 4D1 implies that all non-forcing 1♦ should be announced.

 

It is possible that EBU Blue Book 4H2(b) should be qualified to refer to canape 1M opening, or should say "alert or announce"

[WellSpyder]

I think EBU Blue Book 4D1 implies that all non-forcing 1♦ should be announced.

I play a 1♦ opening that could be canape with longer clubs (Precision style). But the 1♦ bid also shows 3+ diamonds. So how would I announce it? "Could be 3"??

 

(Maybe announcing will be extended in due course to cover canape: "could have a longer major" or "could have longer clubs" or whatever. "Could have longer diamonds" in a Walshe position.)

[gordontd]

I play a 1♦ opening that could be canape with longer clubs (Precision style). But the 1♦ bid also shows 3+ diamonds. So how would I announce it? "Could be 3"??

 

(Maybe announcing will be extended in due course to cover canape: "could have a longer major" or "could have longer clubs" or whatever. "Could have longer diamonds" in a Walshe position.)

 

BB4 B 1 Passes and bids

Unless it is announceable (see 4D, 4E, 4F and 4G), a pass or bid must be alerted if it:

(a) is not natural; or

(b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.

 

BB4 H 2 Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:

(a) An opening bid of one of a suit which is forcing

(b) The first bid in a potential canapé sequence

 

Since it shows a minimum of three cards it is not announceable and therefore should be alerted for its potential canape content.

 

If it had potentially shown a shorter suit it would have been announceable, so I think it would need to be announced with mention both to the length of suit and the canape potential. I seem to remember there being some discussion at an L&E meeting about this interpretation, so you might find others with a different view (which mine was originally), but the important thing is that your opponents are informed of both aspects of the call.

[WellSpyder]

Since it shows a minimum of three cards it is not announceable and therefore should be alerted for its potential canape content.

Thanks, Gordon. That is what I do, but Robin's post seemed to suggest something different.

If it had potentially shown a shorter suit it would have been announceable, so I think it would need to be announced with mention both to the length of suit and the canape potential.

If I had to do this, I wonder how many opponents would resist pointing out that it wouldn't be entirely unexpected for a hand on which I bid a 2-card suit to include a longer suit somewhere else. :)

[gordontd]

If I had to do this, I wonder how many opponents would resist pointing out that it wouldn't be entirely unexpected for a hand on which I bid a 2-card suit to include a longer suit somewhere else. :)

Indeed, though of course in most usages that is not sufficient for something to be defined as canape. I must say though that I haven't been able to find a satisfactory definition of it, in the Blue Book or elsewhere.

[fromageGB]

One of the troubles is that the blue book does not seem to say what canape means. Anyone who plays 5 card majors will presumably be alerting a possible 3 card 1♣ opening if partner could be possibly following with a natural 4 card major on his rebid.

[barmar]

One of the troubles is that the blue book does not seem to say what canape means. Anyone who plays 5 card majors will presumably be alerting a possible 3 card 1♣ opening if partner could be possibly following with a natural 4 card major on his rebid.

The Bridge World definition of canapé is "bidding a shorter suit before a longer one". But I think everyone understands that this doesn't apply when the first bid has length restrictions like 5-card majors, so you're forced to bid a shorter minor.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Not all that familiar with canapé systems, but it seems to me that one feature is that you will bid the longer suit at some point. In a five card major system, when you start with one of a minor because your longer major suit(s) is/are only four cards, you might never bid the suit.

[mycroft]

I think the difference here is the same one as between a relay and a relay system. Stayman is a relay - the cheapest bid, saying "nothing", and asking partner to describe their hand. A relay system is one (handwaving here, and I am *not* talking the definition on the ACBL GCC here) where in common situations, bidding will proceed by one person making descriptive bids and the other one (almost always) relaying, until the relayer makes a decision on where to play.

 

Similarly, in 5cM systems, 1♣ is frequently canape (although yes, there is no implication that the longer suit will be bid, and also no implication that if another suit is bid, it *will be* longer); but a canape system is one that, with a two suited hand, will bid the shorter suit first by preference, rather than by default.

[RMB1]

Thanks, Gordon. That is what I do, but Robin's post seemed to suggest something different.

 

I had written:

I think EBU Blue Book 4D1 implies that all non-forcing 1♦ should be announced.

 

I was wrong, try:

I think EBU Blue Book 4D1 implies that all not natural non-forcing 1♦ should be announced.

 

1♦ which shows 3+ ♦ can not be announced because there is no prescribed announcement.

[Zelandakh]

I think the difference here is the same one as between a relay and a relay system. Stayman is a relay - the cheapest bid, saying "nothing", and asking partner to describe their hand. A relay system is one (handwaving here, and I am *not* talking the definition on the ACBL GCC here) where in common situations, bidding will proceed by one person making descriptive bids and the other one (almost always) relaying, until the relayer makes a decision on where to play.

I have been known to play 2♠ after 1NT - 2♣; 2♦/♥ and 3♦ after 1NT - 2♣; 2♠ as Baron-like (with linked major-minor in the latter case), which functions identically to the relay systems you describe. Similarly if you play 2♦ waiting over 2♣ and follow with 2NT as a further waiting call over a 2M rebid, this also has a similar function. Are these also relay systems or just conventional treatments?

[fromageGB]

I think "system" implies "frequency", so if the majority of your constructive auctions involved relays you could describe it as a relay system. The occasional relay bid everyone makes (some more than others) is not that frequent, so this does not describe the system.

[Zelandakh]

I think "system" implies "frequency", so if the majority of your constructive auctions involved relays you could describe it as a relay system. The occasional relay bid everyone makes (some more than others) is not that frequent, so this does not describe the system.

What is frequency here though? The auction 2♣ - 2♦; 2M - 2NT is certainly not common but, if you play 2NT that way, it is probably one of the more common 2♣ auctions, particularly if you exclude Opener's balanced hands (which have their own relay continuation with 3♣!). So on that measure, this would absolutely qualify on frequency grounds.

[mycroft]

Zel, if you consider those auctions as common as "The expected path after a game force is established is for one player to relay out the other's hand shape, exceptions happen for exceptional reasons", then yes, I do. Is there a problem?

 

Note, obviously I don't think that one or two specific sequences that are relay sequences to make a relay system. But (again, handwaving), where the line is isn't clear, and (apart from regulatory purposes) doesn't need to be. People know what people mean.