Points/distribution

[Cyberyeti]

We had an auction which started 1♣(polish)-X-1♥ which was explained as 6-9 5+♥.

 

At the crucial stage I have a decision to make in defence and it appears that the heart hand has an extra heart or two in a jack high suit, and either partner or declarer has the missing ace so naturally I assume declarer has it. This is the difference between +100 and +200, it turns out declarer has J1098xxx and out and the ace goes west, and says that the extra 2 cards are well worth the missing points. It appears from his partner's reaction that their agreement is to be fairly free with compensating distribution for missing points and this hand was not a surprise to her.

 

Is this reasonable or a mis-statement of their agreements.

[Vampyr]

I would say the latter for sure.

[NickRW]

I'd say that the shape is, arguably, worth the points. However the description should allude to this possibility

[barmar]

So basically, every explanation of a bid that specifies point count would have to end with "or compensating distribution"? Because all good players make such adjustments, regardless of whether they're part of partnership agreements.

 

I consider this "general bridge knowledge".

[Cyberyeti]

So basically, every explanation of a bid that specifies point count would have to end with "or compensating distribution"? Because all good players make such adjustments, regardless of whether they're part of partnership agreements.

 

I consider this "general bridge knowledge".

 

yes, but different people have different interpretations of "or compensating distribution", not everybody considers a hand that is only OFFENSIVELY a 6 count and has zero defence counts.

[johnu]

I consider this 100% misinformation.

 

Presumably 1♦ response would show 0-5/6 HCP with any distribution. Why not 1♦? Because that is not their agreement, so they gave misinformation.

[barmar]

yes, but different people have different interpretations of "or compensating distribution", not everybody considers a hand that is only OFFENSIVELY a 6 count and has zero defence counts.

Yeah, I didn't read the original post carefully. His valuation (2 extra cards in the suit being worth 5 HCP) seems to be way out of mainstream. His hand is likely to be a sub-minimum for most players who play weak jump shifts.

 

The general idea of adding a point or two for distribution is GBK. But not such an extreme upgrade.

[FelicityR]

It is misinformation but using an artificial club bid, and a complex system, there may be no way of relating a hand that has trick-taking potential (by way of length) except by tweaking the system. And how many of us have done that in the past?

 

And if they had posted a poor result by tweaking the system, would you still have thought about calling the director?

 

The only way to get a sensible overview probably is to ask other partnerships who play Polish Club what they would have bid with the same cards. Then, and only then, will you know whether there is something untoward going on.

[akwoo]

It is misinformation but using an artificial club bid, and a complex system, there may be no way of relating a hand that has trick-taking potential (by way of length) except by tweaking the system. And how many of us have done that in the past?

 

And if they had posted a poor result by tweaking the system, would you still have thought about calling the director?

 

The only way to get a sensible overview probably is to ask other partnerships who play Polish Club what they would have bid with the same cards. Then, and only then, will you know whether there is something untoward going on.

 

I don't think there is some allegation of illegal communication or illegal system here.

 

The question is whether the explanation of the bid as showing 6-9 hcp was misinformation to the opponents, not whether it is actually a valid agreement.

 

In a North American context, where the opponents could have been playing tournament bridge for 10 years and be seeing a Polish 1♣ opening for literally the first time, people playing Polish club really do have a special duty to make sure that the inferences available to them from their bidding system are also given to their opponents. I would expect that the possibility that the 1♥ bid be on JTxxxxx and nothing else be disclosed in some way. (However, as defender, I probably would ask dummy at the point I had to make the decision, assuming that it's unlikely to cause partner UI problems by that point.)

 

Even when I was playing something as tame(*) as a weak NT, I have felt obliged to alert opponents to inferences they are not used to. For example, if partner opens 1m and opponents buy the contract, I usually say after the face down opening lead "Alert: I'm not supposed to do this, but I have unusual inferences about partner's hand you might want to know about," and if opponents ask, I say "We play a 12-14 1N opening, so partner can have 15-17 balanced but cannot have 12-14 balanced. Two doubletons might be balanced in some situations." For another example, if our auction goes 1♣-1♥-2♥, I usually say before the opening lead "Our 12-14 1N opening has some systemic implications, and one of them is that 1♥ could be on as little as the trump king, while 2♥ could be as strong as 16 if balanced."

 

(*) Or not so tame; our roughly 20 table sectional usually sees 2-3 pairs playing 10-12 1N, 1 pair with 12-15 1N (the last in a Precision context), and maybe 1 with 14-16, the rest playing 15/16-17/18. I haven't played against a 12-14 1N pair in person in years, though I don't exactly play a lot.

[sfi]

We had an auction which started 1♣(polish)-X-1♥ which was explained as 6-9 5+♥.

 

When using the word 'points', some people talk about total points which others talk about high card points, as I found out after a reasonable amount of miscommunication early in one partnership. This might account for the differing understandings and why the opposition did not find this surprising.

 

However, we all have an obligation to be clear when describing a bid, and this situation seems to fall short of that obligation. First I would find out if this bid is within their expectations or whether it was a deviation. From the description it sounds like it fell in their range for the bid, so I would view it as a misleading explanation and have a word with them about describing it more accurately. I would also consider adjusting the score due to misinformation.

[barmar]

When using the word 'points', some people talk about total points which others talk about high card points, as I found out after a reasonable amount of miscommunication early in one partnership. This might account for the differing understandings and why the opposition did not find this surprising.

You seem to be making the same mistake as I did -- that's a reasonable general principle, but it doesn't apply in this case. Almost no one would call a hand with a Jack-sixth suit and nothing else 6 total points. Probably 3 or 4 would be the max. An exception might be made for a 6-5 hand.

[sfi]

You seem to be making the same mistake as I did -- that's a reasonable general principle, but it doesn't apply in this case. Almost no one would call a hand with a Jack-sixth suit and nothing else 6 total points. Probably 3 or 4 would be the max. An exception might be made for a 6-5 hand.

 

It was a seven card suit with good intermediates. I can see people being liberal about the way they count the hand.

 

It's the lack of disclosure I have an issue with though. Opponents really should be informed that distribution can make up for lack of points.

[blackshoe]

Doesn't that fall under "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players"?

[sfi]

Only to a point, IMO. When someone describes a bid as 6-9, my experience is they are expecting some high-card strength and some defence. It's not so much a matter of evaluation as that the nature of the hand is being misdescribed. I would not expect a totally preemptive hand when I receive that explanation.

[barmar]

Only to a point, IMO. When someone describes a bid as 6-9, my experience is they are expecting some high-card strength and some defence. It's not so much a matter of evaluation as that the nature of the hand is being misdescribed. I would not expect a totally preemptive hand when I receive that explanation.

Isn't that the typical description of an opening preempt, and would you be surprised that the hand has no defense in that case?

 

The problem in this case is simply that the pair's evaluation of preemptive hands is so non-mainstream that they need to disclose it -- it's not GBK.

[nige1]

IMO Bridge rules should stipulate that, in a legal context, HCP means Milton Work High Card Points (A=4 K=3 Q=2 J=1) or the nearest equivalent. When evaluating hands, it is sensible to take other considerations into account such as shape, texture, honour-placement, and so on. To measure such adjustments, players use a variety of yardsticks. Hence no particular one is General Bridge Knowledge. The rules should stipulate that these be disclosed but mentioned separately, to avoid confusion.

[barmar]

The rules should stipulate that these be disclosed but mentioned separately, to avoid confusion.

I think your assertion that "no particular one is GBK" is not quite right. While players won't agree on the exact counts, I think there's rough concensus over how to adjust for shape. Honors in long suits are worth more than honors in short suits, touching honors are more valuable than broken honors, which are more valuable than unsupported honors. Shortness in an opponent's suit is worth more than shortness in partner's suit, and shortness increases in value once a fit has been found. These are hand evaluation techniques that are taught to all intermediate players on the way to becoming advanced.

 

But given all those possibilities for adjustments, how would you suggest that they be disclosed when describing your agreements?

[nige1]

But given all those possibilities for adjustments, how would you suggest that they be disclosed when describing your agreements?

Before discussing requirements for bids with partner, you can discuss how to value shape and so on (Perhaps void = 8, singleton = 5, doubleton = 2). For each bid, as well as raw HCP, you specify other measures (e.g. you might divide the total by 3 and call the result winners).

 

You should also make sure you comply with measures specified by local legislation. e.g. rule of 18.

 

IMO, when you disclose the meaning of partner's bid to opponents, you should tell them raw HCP requirements. You should explain other relevant requirements, separately, in simple terms.

 

Players often justify prevarication by claiming that opponents will struggle with too much information. IMO, opponents are a better judge of how much they can assimilate. They can say when they've had enough.

[olegru]

If they play Polish club, 6-9 points is a correct explanation for 1♥ bid in a free position.

1 ♥ bid with 1 point is bluff or just bad bridge. I would say it is especially bad in the Polish club context. How good players are they?

I am curious to see openers hand and the rest of bidding.

Do they play WJS?

[johnu]

Isn't that the typical description of an opening preempt

 

To be honest, I've never heard of a 3/4/5 level opening preempt described like that. IMO, hearing that a hand showed a 7 card suit with 6-9 points would mean 6-9 HCP to me. At the 2 level, suppose somebody opens a weak 2 and when asked, says 5-10 points. I would expect 5-10 HCP (certainly not 2 HCP plus 3 distribution points).

 

and would you be surprised that the hand has no defense in that case?

 

I would be surprised if the only honor card in the hand was a jack.

[barmar]

To be honest, I've never heard of a 3/4/5 level opening preempt described like that. IMO, hearing that a hand showed a 7 card suit with 6-9 points would mean 6-9 HCP to me. At the 2 level, suppose somebody opens a weak 2 and when asked, says 5-10 points. I would expect 5-10 HCP (certainly not 2 HCP plus 3 distribution points).

True, distributional values are already implied from the fact that you have a long suit. While 7321 shape is obviously preferable over 7222 for a 3-level preempt, players don't typically upgrade this by several points.

[olegru]

Something in that thread made me uncomfortable. I’ll try to explain.

1♥ reply was a 100% natural bid, required no alert. Was it alerted? My guess it was not. Why somebody decided to ask for meaning of non-alerted bid?

Answer is obvious. 1 ♣ was alerted and explain as a Polish club, so opponents decided to ask about meanings of other bids just in case. It is OK, they clearly entitled.

But they certainly would not ask about meaning of un-alerted 1♥ bid in the 1♣ (no alert) – double – 1♥ bidding.

As it happened at this particular case, player who bid 1♥ decided to deviate from their system. You can classify his bid as bluff or as a bad bid … doesn’t matter. It presents his opponent the opportunity to build “misinformation case.” They probably even sincerely believe they were misinformed and entitle to redress. Obviously bad explanation of 1♥ bidder (was he pressed to explain his bid?) and absence of protests from his partner made a case looks stronger.

 

Now imagine bidding of the same board on another table. It went exactly the same with exception that 1 ♣ opening was natural. "Sayc", "2/1", "can be short" … whatever. Would anybody ask about meaning of non-alerted 1♥? Would anybody complain about it being too weak? We are clearly in the “just bridge” land. By the way, in a standard bidding it is well known "standard bluff situation". It is a much better chance for “standard bidders” to have undisclosed understanding that 1♥ bid could be psych. As I wrote earlier, it is much more dangerous to bluff after partner’s 1♣ opening in the Polish club.

[barmar]

I think what's different here is this part:

It appears from his partner's reaction that their agreement is to be fairly free with compensating distribution for missing points and this hand was not a surprise to her.

 

Had the partner been surprised, we would recognize this as a typical bluff or psych, and it apparently worked. The actual reaction suggests that there may be an implicit agreement to bid with hands like this.

 

I'd like to think that the opponents would have a similar complaint with or without the explanation.

[olegru]

I think what's different here is this part:

 

"It appears from his partner's reaction that their agreement is to be fairly free with compensating distribution for missing points and this hand was not a surprise to her."

 

Had the partner been surprised, we would recognize this as a typical bluff or psych, and it apparently worked. The actual reaction suggests that there may be an implicit agreement to bid with hands like this.

 

I'd like to think that the opponents would have a similar complaint with or without the explanation.

 

1. Demonstrated by opponents emotions (and especially absence of emotions) is not reliable source to judge about their agreements. She could be not an emotional person; or she could try to keep peace in partnership and do not question decision and explanations of partner in presents of opponents; or she could temporary accept that partners idea about bidding they never discussed before because she needs some time to digest it.

In each of that cases there were no prior agreement or discussions, our assumptions is wrong.

 

Also do not forget that idiotic efforts to criminalize bluffs made many not very experienced people not willing to accept that bid was bluff. They are avoiding to say they psyched by any cost. In order to hide they did something perfectly legal (psyched), they happy to pretend they did something illegal (bid was a part of the system ... not disclosed and sometimes not even legal in ACBL land). Funny, ah..

 

2. Never heard about complains that bid in that position (in natural bidding) was too weak.

[mycroft]

There are always two, a master and a student Misinformation and Unauthorized Information. Or, as here, Misinformation and Undisclosed Agreement.

 

Yes, many people don't ask about boring bids like this in common auctions, where they do against unusual openings (strong club, Polish Club, FanTunes 1♣, canape openers, ...) It's just one of those things that the weird system players have to put up with - because they play a weird system, and the opponents can't "count on" understanding auctions the way they can if we play their system. Does that mean the the odd-system players have more opportunity to get into system description UI/MI locks? Sure - but "you are required to know your system, especially in common auctions", so it should never happen anyway, right?

 

I know there's an argument (for a revision of the Alert Procedure, but arguably it's on the current one as well) that those that play 1♣ "clubs or balanced" (esp. with transfer responses) as "non-forcing but almost never passed, even with 0-3" should Pre-Alert this tendency. That's "natural", but still disclosable as being Highly Unusual.

 

On the case itself. Either their agreement is as described, in which case this is a deviation, or their agreement is "6-9, but we'll frequently bid weak long majors" (or "6-9, but if we have the "immediate run" hand where we'd bid 2M drop-dead to a weak 1NT opener, we'll do that here, too") through discussion or experience, in which case we have a concealed (potentially implicit) partnership understanding, and misinformation triggers.

 

"But everybody does this!" Sure, but no, not "everybody" does, and certainly, not "everybody" knows that this is a common deviation. And the "omitted" bit of the explanation, <sarcasm>somewhat conveniently</sarcasm>, makes it more effective, especially against the pairs who it is likely to work against anyway. I have a history of being less-than-thrilled with this.