Information requests

[Al_U_Card]

Active ethics and the desire to play a fair, equitable contest are my ultimate guide.

 

In a recent club game, pard failed to alert my 1NT rebid which bypassed but could contain a 4-card S suit. He then bid 2C which I alerted and explained on request as CBS at which moment my pard remembered our agreement and started to explain the possibility of a Spade suit in my hand. I interrupted him with " wait until the auction is over" and proceeded under questions at the end of the hand to explain about my spades precluding the presence of 3 H cards in my hand, as we show them first. I thought that I had done my job, until LHO started asking questions about my UNALERTED club opening bid. At this point I told him that this request was unethical and a heated exchange took place.

 

Since the 1C bid was not alerted and the sequence was as described, was he entitled to direct his partner's attention to the club suit????

[mike777]

Active ethics and the desire to play a fair, equitable contest are my ultimate guide.

 

In a recent club game, pard failed to alert my 1NT rebid which bypassed but could contain a 4-card S suit. He then bid 2C which I alerted and explained on request as CBS at which moment my pard remembered our agreement and started to explain the possibility of a Spade suit in my hand. I interrupted him with " wait until the auction is over" and proceeded under questions at the end of the hand to explain about my spades precluding the presence of 3 H cards in my hand, as we show them first. I thought that I had done my job, until LHO started asking questions about my UNALERTED club opening bid. At this point I told him that this request was unethical and a heated exchange took place.

 

Since the 1C bid was not alerted and the sequence was as described, was he entitled to direct his partner's attention to the club suit????

It is clear your partnership has failed to alert at least one bid.

It is clear your partnership may or may not have failed to alert other bids, so I ask about your other bids. This is clear.

[1eyedjack]

I am not convinced that there was a failure to alert. Perhaps it depends on the jurisdiction. You may think that the 1N rebid is alertable, and it may be in your jurisdiction. I do not know whether it is on BBO, so guess I would alert it to be safe, but in my local f2f area it is definitely not alertable. I have no evidence to support it but I would guess that a significant proportion of the population plays it either way, and I would make no assumptions in the absence of an alert.

 

Strictly, as mentioned in another thread, the correct procedure is to ask about the entire auction, not a specific bid. If the answer to that request does not provide sufficient information then you can ask a followup question about a specific bid if you would normally expect that to have been covered by the response to the general query. In that way you have only yourself to blame if your original response was insufficiently detailed so as to prompt the followup, and the defending side is protected.

 

It gets a bit murky if there has already been a half-hearted attempt at explaining a variety of bids before you want to ask about the clubs. It seems a bit redundant then to ask for an explanation of the entire auction, but I suppose that is what I should start out by doing for "belt and braces" protection if I want to know about the Club suit.

[luke warm]

1nt isn't legally alertable, but i know of noone who does *not* alert it (if it can bypass a major)

[1eyedjack]

1nt isn't legally alertable

Don't know how you can say that. Depends on the jurisdiction/SO.

[jillybean]

1nt isn't legally alertable, but i know of noone who does *not* alert it (if it can bypass a major)

WBF Alerting Policy says it must be alerted

 

2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization).

[1eyedjack]

1nt isn't legally alertable, but i know of noone who does *not* alert it (if it can bypass a major)

WBF Alerting Policy says it must be alerted

 

2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization).

The WBF regulation does not say "You must alert a 1NT rebid if it may conceal a bypassed 4 card major". Indeed you have quoted the regulation that speaks in generalities and it is then a matter of interpretation whether the specific instance is covered by that generality. And there is certainly scope for an alternative interpretation. Taken to extremes that quote could be used to justify a requirement that every bid by a regular partnership should be alerted, and I doubt that was the intent.

 

It could well be argued that a 1NT rebid that shows a balanced hand does NOT have a "special" meaning, and it could well be argued that an opposing pair may reasonably by expected to anticipate the possibility of a bypassed 4 card major.

 

As to whether it is an understanding, well yes. As to whether it is a special understanding? Again debatable.

[coyot]

1nt isn't legally alertable, but i know of noone who does *not* alert it (if it can bypass a major)

Oh yes it is. It conveys a special agreement in this case (as 1♠ would be the "natural" bid in most systems and quite likely in the system used in this case.)

 

(Al_U_Card @ Aug 1 2005, 12:55 PM)

 

Since the 1C bid was not alerted and the sequence was as described, was he entitled to direct his partner's attention to the club suit????

 

 

First, his questioning of your other bid is reasonable given your p did not alert something else.

 

Second, the bridge rules explicitly state that you are allowed to ask opponents AFTER the auction - and you can have the auction explained to you. As far as I know, the rules strictly prohibit asking about a specific bid in a way that could give your partner UI.

(This is especially true when the one asking is NOT the one making opening lead. I think the rules require that the leader puts his lead face down on the table and only then can his partner have questions that he himself didn't have.)

 

There is, of course, a thin line between getting full disclosure and passing UI to partner. In the case above, if the LHO simply asked what minimum length does the opening bid promise, I would not object, if he was to make opening lead. If his questioning about the opening lead becomes unusually in-depth, you may call the director and let him decide whether the behaviour was indeed passing UI to partner or just getting full disclosure.

[1eyedjack]

1♠ would be the "natural" bid in most systems

Where I play F2F, 1N rebid would be the norm.

[helene_t]

Taking this to the extreme, you must alert all partner's calls. A "pass" in first seat might be based on a holding on which some opponents might expect a preempt or light opening etc.

 

This is not the case. Opponents will realize, for example, that different partnerships have different preempt style. They can ask if they want. Often, such partnership understanding is difficult to put in words so full disclosure is impossible.

 

It could be argued that opps should know that some partnerships bypass with all ballanced hands, some bypass with some ballanced hands, and some partnerships never bypass with ballanced hands. So it's the opps responsibility to ask.

 

According to my British beginner's book, you must bypass, according to my Dutch beginner's book you must not. This may suggest that bypassing must be alerted in the Netherlands while not-bypassing must be alerted in Britain, but I have no idea if that s the case. I prefer not to alert such things f2f. In the Netherlands, you must alert Walsh and 2+ club openings, which means that auctions starting with 1♣ very often involve at least one alert. The disadvantage of this is that if you play Polish Club (or whatever), opps may not ask, assuming that your alerted calls are natural. I prefer not to cry woolf

[Fluffy]

The fact a bid is not alerted doesn't mean it cannot be asked about, for example a non alerted ♣ bid can promise 3-5 cards. At could even have a range of 8-11 I think.

[Al_U_Card]

My point was if asked about hand shape or other general questions I have no problem but a specific ask about the club suit length seems awfully leading to me. I had previous reasons to suspect this opp and the C suit turned out to be an important part of the hand play......

[Rebound]

Whether or not the opening club bid was alerted is irrelevant. Opps may ask about any call or play.

 

If your side's failure to alert or explain or whatever has caused the opponent to rethink your 1♣ bid in the context of the rest of the auction, I see nothing wrong with the question. I agree it is perhaps better to ask about the entire auction but I don't see it as an effort to convey ui in this instance in light of the new information provided.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[1eyedjack]

Opps may ask about any call or play.

As mentioned elsewhere, this is not strictly in accordance with law 20F1.

In the online environment there is no incentive to object (the only valid objection being the transmission of UI, a redundant fear in the online game). However as is shown in the OP this case is in f2f bridge, and indeed UI is the particular concern.

I agree it is perhaps better to ask about the entire auction

It is not just better. It is mandated by law 20F1.

 

Law 20F1 does refer to the examination of specific calls or calls that might have been made, but I think it is clear from the grammatical structure that this power is subservient to the enquiry into the entire auction.

[mycroft]

I've read this same paragraph twice, so in case you haven't seen my reply, here's the link:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...indpost&p=81311

[jillybean]

1nt isn't legally alertable, but i know of noone who does *not* alert it (if it can bypass a major)

WBF Alerting Policy says it must be alerted

 

2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization).

The WBF regulation does not say "You must alert a 1NT rebid if it may conceal a bypassed 4 card major". Indeed you have quoted the regulation that speaks in generalities and it is then a matter of interpretation whether the specific instance is covered by that generality. And there is certainly scope for an alternative interpretation. Taken to extremes that quote could be used to justify a requirement that every bid by a regular partnership should be alerted, and I doubt that was the intent.

 

It could well be argued that a 1NT rebid that shows a balanced hand does NOT have a "special" meaning, and it could well be argued that an opposing pair may reasonably by expected to anticipate the possibility of a bypassed 4 card major.

 

As to whether it is an understanding, well yes. As to whether it is a special understanding? Again debatable.

A bypassed 4 card major is a "special understanding between partners", standard 1nt denies a 4 card major. wtp?

[pbleighton]

"A bypassed 4 card major is a "special understanding between partners", standard 1nt denies a 4 card major. wtp?"

 

The problem? To quote Jack:

 

"I am not convinced that there was a failure to alert. Perhaps it depends on the jurisdiction. You may think that the 1N rebid is alertable, and it may be in your jurisdiction. I do not know whether it is on BBO, so guess I would alert it to be safe, but in my local f2f area it is definitely not alertable. I have no evidence to support it but I would guess that a significant proportion of the population plays it either way, and I would make no assumptions in the absence of an alert."

 

Peter

[the hog]

1nt isn't legally alertable, but i know of noone who does *not* alert it (if it can bypass a major)

 

Oh yes it is. It conveys a special agreement in this case (as 1♠ would be the "natural" bid in most systems and quite likely in the system used in this case.)

 

 

The 1NT rebid which may have a 4 card Major is certainly NOT alertable.

 

Jimmy, I don't alert it and wouldn't dream of doing so. It is a natural bid. The 1NT bid is a suggestion of a contract opposite a partner's limited response. It is totally natural and therefore not alertable. I don't know of any player in serious competitions here who alerts this.

 

Jilly and others, would you rebid 1S holding this shape: xxxx xxx xxx xxx for example?

I don't think so!

[jillybean]

If I bid 1nt response my partner will NOT expect me to have a 4 card major, I use checkback to find 5/3 fits.

 

If I my partner expects I will bid 1nt with xxx,xxx,xxx,xxxx OR

4♠, xxx,xxx,xxx I would think this needs to be alerted (wbf).

[1eyedjack]

In my view the difference between an "agreement" and a "special agreement" is that an agreement that is held by a substantial proportion of the population (and it need not be a majority) is not a "special" agreement.

 

I would have thought that in order for the bid to be alertable by wbf regs (note, not BBO regs, so of dubious relevance to BBO site as Inquiry has pointed out), the bid would either have to be a "special" agreement or a non-natural one.

 

I do no believe that a 1NT rebid that may conceal a 4 card major passes those tests. So far I am satisfied that it is not alertable under wbf regs, and I know full well that it is not alertable under local f2f regs. I will continue to alert it under BBO regs because it clearly may come as a surprise to some BBO players, and that is the BBO test.

[mike777]

In my view the difference between an "agreement" and a "special agreement" is that an agreement that is held by a substantial proportion of the population (and it need not be a majority) is not a "special" agreement.

 

I would have thought that in order for the bid to be alertable by wbf regs (note, not BBO regs, so of dubious relevance to BBO site as Inquiry has pointed out), the bid would either have to be a "special" agreement or a non-natural one.

 

I do no believe that a 1NT rebid that may conceal a 4 card major passes those tests.  So far I am satisfied that it is not alertable under wbf regs, and I know full well that it is not alertable under local f2f regs.  I will continue to alert it under BBO regs because it clearly may come as a surprise to some BBO players, and that is the BBO test.

Good grief!

1) Let us assume there are 25 million players who have some sense of bridge.

2) Do you think 90% or 95% or 99% of partnerships play 1nt may often conceal 4 card major?

3) Making the alert rules of bridge that apply to 1,000 or 5,000 partnerships spells doom to bridge as a game.

 

If you want to create a game for only the top 100 players worldwide ok. Do you want a game that has 170,000 members in USA and many more worldwide OK.

4) To be frank this thinking seems to apply to newer players of less than 20 or 30 years, who choose to ignore the vast majority of the dues paying membership.

5) They seem to think if only we can change the rules millions of 18 year old bridge players will join for life.

 

 

Take a look at chess. They do not have 100,000-200,000 thousand chess players going to world wide tourneys as bridge does.

 

Do you want to create a game for the top 100 players in the world or for the 170,000 money paying, book buying, bbo paying players in the USA and millions worldwide?

[coyot]

1nt isn't legally alertable, but i know of noone who does *not* alert it (if it can bypass a major)

 

Oh yes it is. It conveys a special agreement in this case (as 1♠ would be the "natural" bid in most systems and quite likely in the system used in this case.)

 

 

The 1NT rebid which may have a 4 card Major is certainly NOT alertable.

 

Jimmy, I don't alert it and wouldn't dream of doing so. It is a natural bid. The 1NT bid is a suggestion of a contract opposite a partner's limited response. It is totally natural and therefore not alertable. I don't know of any player in serious competitions here who alerts this.

 

Jilly and others, would you rebid 1S holding this shape: xxxx xxx xxx xxx for example?

I don't think so!

Sorry, Hog, not true.

 

There simply are two possible meanings for the 1NT bid (and 1♠)

1NT either it denies 4card major or not

1♠ either denies balanced hand or not.

 

(Of course, I admit that you might play a system where the above is not true and you can bid 1♠ or 1NT as you see fit - but I think that this approach is not widely used as it robs you of possibilities of better describing your hands).

 

We might argue which of the two possibilities is natural, but as far as I know, majority of bidding systems PREFER finding a major fit to specifying shape and point range by default. (Hence 1M openers 5332).

From this, I draw the conclusion that "hiding" your major and showing the shape and point range first is the less natural thing than bidding 4card major.

 

Since you and your partner most likely HAVE an agreement about the above, your opponents are entitled by the bridge rules to be made aware that a special agreement exists.

 

(Hiding your 4 spades with 4333 shape might be either another partnership agreement or your decision not to bid according to the system - if partner expects this type hand to be bid as 1NT, he should alert, if he expects you not to have 4 spades, he should not.)

[1eyedjack]

In my view the difference between an "agreement" and a "special agreement" is that an agreement that is held by a substantial proportion of the population (and it need not be a majority) is not a "special" agreement.

 

I would have thought that in order for the bid to be alertable by wbf regs (note, not BBO regs, so of dubious relevance to BBO site as Inquiry has pointed out), the bid would either have to be a "special" agreement or a non-natural one.

 

I do no believe that a 1NT rebid that may conceal a 4 card major passes those tests.  So far I am satisfied that it is not alertable under wbf regs, and I know full well that it is not alertable under local f2f regs.  I will continue to alert it under BBO regs because it clearly may come as a surprise to some BBO players, and that is the BBO test.

Good grief!

1) Let us assume there are 25 million players who have some sense of bridge.

2) Do you think 90% or 95% or 99% of partnerships play 1nt may often concel 4 card major?

3) Making the alert rules of bridge that apply to 1,000 or 5,000 partnerships spells doom to bridge as a game.

 

If you want to create a game for only the top 100 players worldwide ok. Do you want a game that has 170,000 members in USA and many more worldwide OK.

4) To be frank this thinking seems to apply to newer players of less than 20 or 30 years, who choose to ignore the vast majority of the dues paying membership.

5) They seem to think if only we can change the rules millions of 18 year old bridge players will join for life.

 

 

Take a look at chess. They do not have 100,000-200,000 thousand chess players going to world wide tourneys as bridge does.

 

Do you want to create a game for the top 100 players in the world or for the 170,000 money paying, book buying, bbo paying players in the USA and millions worldwide?

I don't understand much of this post, but will attempt to respond.

 

I agree with my partner that in an uncontested auction the 1D-1H-1S rebid does not deny a 4 card club suit. That is an agreement. Even if I did not expressly agree it with my partner it is an implied agreement, which comes to the same thing both in terms of alert and disclosure.

 

So, it is an agreement. Is it alertable? Perhaps in some jurisdictions, but I doubt it. Let us at least agree that that is not alertable, even on BBO. If it is an agreement, why is it not alertable under wbf regulations (the point that my original post was addressing)? It is not alertable because it is not a "special" agreement. Why is it not a "special" agreement? It is not a special agreement because it is an agreement shared by a substantial proportion of the population of players. It is a natural interpretation that you might reasonably expect a substantial proportion of your opponents to be playing.

 

I have no statistics to hand. I do not know where you get 90%, 95%, 99%, 1000 or 5000 come from. My personal experience of bridge in my country is that the vast majority will habitually rebid 1NT on a balanced hand and bid 2 suits on a 2 (or 3) suited hand. I would not want to put a percentage on it. It will be far in excess of 5000 partnerships at all levels of ability, and that is just in my country. Worldwide the practice may be a minority, but it will be sizeable one.

 

That you seem to think that no more than 5000 partnerships play it this way or that it suits only the top 100 players is a comment that frankly casts doubt on your objectivity.

 

If you read my post properly you will see that I was making no attempt at changing any alerting rules. I am happy to agree that it is alertable on BBO, and frankly I do not want to win from opponents' confusion, so I will alert if there is a shadow of doubt. I was simply questioning whether as a matter of law as it stands the practice is alertable under wbf regulations. I do not know what competitions the wbf has jurisdiction over. Bermuda Bowl, presumably. World Bridge Olympiad presumably. Possibly the European championships (actually sponsored by EBL but they may have coopted some of the wbf regs en bloc), and a few others. I doubt I will ever play in them.

[hrothgar]

Do you want to create a game for the top 100 players in the world or for the 170,000 money paying, book buying, bbo paying players in the USA and millions worldwide?

My "dream" is that Bridge will still be played in 20 years time. From my perspective, this requires some VERY significant changes in focus:

 

1. Accept the fact that bridge is going to transition from a mass market form of entertainment to a niche game. The current number of bridge players is a holdover from 30 years ago. This is part of the reason why AVERAGE age of ACBL memebers is has hit 68. (Love to see the mode, BTW) When these players are gone, they aren't getting replaced. There are far too many better options available for "social" recreation.

 

2. Recognize that there is a target audience for the niche game. Every wonder almost all the "young" players (and by young I mean anyone under 50) seem to come from technical professions such as Comp Sci or Finance. There are players out there who are interested in a challenging technical game.

 

The administrators have two significant challenges...

 

First, these two audiences don't get along. While this "problem" is a temporary one, I really worry that "audience 1" will drive out "audience 2" before it wanders off into the Sunset.

 

Second, there is a real need to adjust spending patterns. The existing "infrastructure" can't be supported by a much smaller user base. I suspect that this is driving decision making more than anything else.

[the hog]

Quote Coyot:

 

"We might argue which of the two possibilities is natural, but as far as I know, majority of bidding systems PREFER finding a major fit to specifying shape and point range by default. (Hence 1M openers 5332).

From this, I draw the conclusion that "hiding" your major and showing the shape and point range first is the less natural thing than bidding 4 card major."

 

I disagree. Coyot, I don't know where you play but I will postulate that the majority of players here follow the principle that a balanced hand is a balanced hand and should be treated as such. This includes opening 1NT with possible 5332 (Major) hands.

Imo to rebid 1S on a 4333 shape is unnatural in that it guarantees an unbalanced hand with C&S. If anything, the latter auction, (4333), is alertable and no, I am not joking even though I would not alert that either.