How do you rule?

[cherdano]

Playing without agreements, would you really not compete to 5♣ with the North hand after partner's 2♦-4♣ bids?

 

Arend

[jillybean]

My take is that, just because North's length tells him partner's lead directing call is based on shortness rather than strength, it is lead directing nevertheless and the opponents have no recourse.

 

Ah, I am beginning to understand !

or atleast I thought I was

Edited May 9, 2005 by jillybean2

[luis]

Playing without agreements, would you really not compete to 5♣ with the North hand after partner's 2♦-4♣ bids?

 

Arend

No, it would be quite crazy...

[jillybean]

1♦-2♦

2♠*

 

I understand and agree with this, it is showing strength.

 

The explanation I was given and have been using to define conventional bids, is very simply:

 

It is NOT conventional if:

1. You are willing to play there

2. You have length there (3+)

3. You have strength

 

:)

 

And then it goes back to this big grey area of 'partnership agreements'   :huh:

 

jillybean2

1,2 and 3 are wrong.

A bid is conventional if there's an explicit or implicit partnership agreement about the meaning of the bid. Explicit is when it has been discussed or it is in the CC. Implicit is when it has appeared in similar situations before and the pair has agreed about the meaning of the bid.

 

Law 40-A:

A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

Are 1,2,3 correct if also "4. There is an agreement" exists ?

Otherwise the bid is natural or a psyche.

[pigpenz]

if there is no firm partnership understanding it is not a convention and does not need to be alerted. A tactical bid is not necessarily a psyche! if the oppoenents had passed 4♣'s then his partner would have been on the spot by having to bid 5♣ or 4♦'s

[luke warm]

if the oppoenents had passed 4♣'s then his partner would have been on the spot by having to bid 5♣ or 4♦'s

i sure don't see the "spot"... diamonds are agreed, eh? one thing partner must not do is pass, so 4D or even 5C is fine... if, as in the actual hand there is a ♣ void, partner will correct 5♣ to 5♦... i'd bid 4♦ over 4♣, to see what pard had in mind

 

the whole purpose of 4♣ is to give partner a good lead if the opps steal the hand

[uday]

So at least some of the people in this thread automatically assume that overcallers second call is purely lead directional, and it would be crazy to raise it.

 

I don't think this is playable, but even if it is, is this group also saying that this is a normal, standard, not unexpected meaning of overcallers second suit after his first suit has been raised in a competitive auction?

 

So that playing against this group, overcallers second call in competition can be a void, and partner will never, ever, raise ? And for this group, this is normal, standard, routine, because they never ever need to find a second suit fit ?

 

Maybe it makes some sort of sense to do this. I have a really hard time believing that any TD in ACBL land would let this second call slide by without an alert. I strongly suspect it would be treated as an alertable partnership agreement.

[DrTodd13]

It doesn't matter if partner raises because you will correct to 5♦. In a competitive auction like this, 4♣ with a void IS a normal, standard, and not unexpected meaning. I'm working on a number of serious partnerships. I can tell you that in neither of them have I had a discussion about a sequence like this. Nevertheless, if it came up I would still expect partner to understand what is going on. We haven't discussed it so we have no partnership agreement other than to follow general bridge principles. This is "just bridge" and is not alertable and I believe that no TD would say that this requires an alert. I'll post the hand on David Stevenson's website and see what he says but I can almost quarantee you that is completely normal and not alertable.

[luke warm]

todd, can i make a suggestion? post 2 hands, one with the void and one with a real, live, club suit (say headed by A,K or A,Q)... ask which of these, if either, is alertable...

 

as i said earlier, i've seen similar bids many times and i've never seen an alert... i'm sure fred, and many others, have made many lead-directional bids 'on the way' to the final contract...

 

note that this occurred in a competitive auction... if my partner bid like that in r/l and i was asked, i'd say 'we've never discussed this, but i take it as lead directing' ... if asked whether or not it shows a real suit, i'd say "i honestly don't know" (assuming i honestly didn't know)... in a non-competitive auction i'd fully expect it to be a 2nd suit, and would say so if asked

 

oh, i've only seen it happen once when the 2nd suit was higher ranking than the first... that was a slam look...

[hrothgar]

The explanation I was given and have been using to define conventional bids, is very simply:

 

It is NOT conventional if:

1. You are willing to play there

2. You have length there (3+)

3. You have strength

Rebound has already provided the formal definition of "Convention".

 

Its quite easy to demonstrate significant differences between the two definitions:

 

Suppose that I am playing a Muiderberg type 2♠ opening in which a 2♠ opening promises 5+ Spades and either (4+ clubs or 4+ Diamonds).

 

The definition that you are using suggests that the 2♠ opening is not conventional since the opening meets all the criteria for a natural bid. However, the bid is clearly conventional using the formal definition since the 2♠ opening explictly provides information about holds in a side suit...

 

Its important to remember that bids can simultaneously be both conventional and natural...

[DrTodd13]

todd, can i make a suggestion? post 2 hands, one with the void and one with a real, live, club suit (say headed by A,K or A,Q)... ask which of these, if either, is alertable...

 

as i said earlier, i've seen similar bids many times and i've never seen an alert... i'm sure fred, and many others, have made many lead-directional bids 'on the way' to the final contract...

 

note that this occurred in a competitive auction... if my partner bid like that in r/l and i was asked, i'd say 'we've never discussed this, but i take it as lead directing' ... if asked whether or not it shows a real suit, i'd say "i honestly don't know" (assuming i honestly didn't know)... in a non-competitive auction i'd fully expect it to be a 2nd suit, and would say so if asked

 

oh, i've only seen it happen once when the 2nd suit was higher ranking than the first... that was a slam look...

What? I'm saying that neither are alertable. Guess I wasn't making myself clear.

[luis]

So at least some of the people in this thread automatically assume that overcallers second call is purely lead directional, and it would be crazy to raise it.

 

I don't think this is playable, but even if it is, is this group also saying that this is a normal, standard, not unexpected meaning of overcallers second suit after his first suit has been raised in a competitive auction?

 

So that playing against this group, overcallers second call in competition can be a void, and partner will never, ever, raise ? And for this group, this is normal, standard, routine, because they never ever need to find a second suit fit ?

 

Maybe it makes some sort of sense to do this. I have a really hard time believing that any TD in ACBL land would let this second call slide by without an alert. I strongly suspect it would be treated as an alertable partnership agreement.

Are you serious? I think there's a huge missconception about what is alertable and what is not. For some reason I think that there's a tendency to force good players to alert good bids even if they don't have any agreement with pd.

 

This is a clear example, a good player made a good bid without any specific agreement and here we are with a 3 page thread were people is still thinking that there should have been an alert.

 

I strongly hope no ACBL director would even care about this case, any normal TD should dismiss the case inmediately.

[Walddk]

I must agree with luis and Dr. Todd. You are only supposed to alert bids (if conventional) you have an agreement about. Opps are not entitled to know what you actually hold.

 

Having said that, it's also important that partner does not try guess as to what the 4♣ call shows, unless they have an agreement. If they don't have any, the answer, if asked, must be.

 

"No agreement".

 

Many inexperienced players also seem to have the misconception that you must alert a pre-empt for example if you have 15 hcp instead of the usual 5-10(11). That is not the case. You can do anything you please as long as it's not a partnership understanding.

 

Then your partner is left as much in the dark as the opponents are. No one is entitled to know what you actually have in your hand - only what your agreements are.

 

Roland

[uday]

You don't think the failure to raise the second suit with six card support and a singleton and a double fit was evidence of an agreement, or at least an understanding?

 

Or is this in the "lucky guess category", where it sometimes shows a void and sometimes AQxx , and partner must guess right?

[Walddk]

You don't think the failure to raise the second suit with six card support and a singleton and a double fit was evidence of an agreement, or at least an understanding?

 

Or is this in the "lucky guess category", where it sometimes shows a void and sometimes AQxx , and partner must guess right?

Right Uday, in this case partner could obviously see by looking at his hand that 4♣ was shortage rather than a suit, but that does not change the point. If they have no agreement as to what 4♣ is, it is not alertable, and partner with the 6 clubs must answer "No agreement" if asked.

 

I can't tell whether this was an experienced partnership or not, and therefore it's impossible to know whether there was an agreement, or much worse an understanding. I will have to be at the table in the capacity of a TD in order to sort that out.

 

Roland

[uday]

partner could obviously see by looking at his hand that 4♣ was shortage

 

I disagree strongly.

 

 

To flip it around, you think 4C should be alertable if it is natural, length ?

[Walddk]

partner could obviously see by looking at his hand that 4♣ was shortage

 

I disagree strongly.

 

 

To flip it around, you think 4C should be alertable if it is natural, length ?

No, nothing is alertable if it's natural, and 4♣ is not alertable in this case either. You don't stop playing bridge just because you have a certain alert procedure.

 

Everyone with a bit of experience can figure out what 4♣ is after diamonds have been set. You don't need an agreement at all.

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

No, nothing is alertable if it's natural

 

Need to remember that next time I open a precision 2♣ bid...

[cherdano]

partner could obviously see by looking at his hand that 4♣ was shortage

 

I disagree strongly.

 

 

To flip it around, you think 4C should be alertable if it is natural, length ?

No, nothing is alertable if it's natural, and 4♣ is not alertable in this case either. You don't stop playing bridge just because you have a certain alert procedure.

 

Everyone with a bit of experience can figure out what 4♣ is after diamonds have been set. You don't need an agreement at all.

 

Roland

Oh come on. Recently there was an RGB thread on bids like 4♣, and several national top players agreed that you need an agreement (either you play this kind of bid as purely lead directing (could be void or Kx), or you play it as good second suit, with suggestion to sacrifice in case of a double fit, and lead directional value implied) for this.

 

It still looks to me that the pair in question had an explicit or implicit agreement about this choice.

 

Arend

[Walddk]

It still looks to me that the pair in question had an explicit or implicit agreement about this choice.

 

Arend

But you are guessing Arend. I don't want to make an assumption, let alone a ruling, if I don't know the facts. That's elementary in the democratic part of the world.

 

Roland

[luis]

It still looks to me that the pair in question had an explicit or implicit agreement about this choice.

 

Arend

But you are guessing Arend. I don't want to make an assumption, let alone a ruling, if I don't know the facts. That's elementary in the democratic part of the world.

 

Roland

And is something that we can't do and shouldn't do from the forums...

[cherdano]

It still looks to me that the pair in question had an explicit or implicit agreement about this choice.

 

Arend

But you are guessing Arend. I don't want to make an assumption, let alone a ruling, if I don't know the facts. That's elementary in the democratic part of the world.

 

Roland

Of course we are all guessing, but we are discussing about the best guess. And btw, a real life TD doesn't have to prove there is misinformation either -- rather to the contrary, if in doubt, he has to assume misinformation.

 

I am sure we agree that "The Facts" in bridge rulings are an artificial construct, that has very little to nothing to do with facts in criminal cases, and their standards in the democratic world.

 

Arend

[luke warm]

what a great discussion... i have to agree with roland, if asked (assuming there is no agreement), one must say "no agreement"... my earlier post went too far, i said what i *expected* it to mean (albeit after saying, in effect, 'no agreement')

[epeeist]

Since, according to the initial post North when asked SAID the 4♣ bid was lead-directing and south merely ranted, is it not reasonable for the TD to have inferred there was a partnership understanding that 4♣ was lead-directing?!

 

North did not say "I guessed given my length South had a void" or the like, North said unequivocally it was lead-directing.

[Echognome]

I'm not making any claims about the ACBL as I don't know the laws well enough. In EBU land, 4♣ would have to have been alerted. It could be explained as "no agreement", but since North didn't raise clubs, I would bet that wouldn't have flown very far. If it has been alerted and explained as "lead-directing" that would have been fine. If unalerted, then an implicit partnership agreement would be ruled (IMO).

 

However, the EBU alert procedures are very different. If it's not natural, then it's alertable (even above game level).