[FrancesHinden]

32 boards, IMPs, KO teams-of-four. Our opponents for the first half are playing canape 4-card majors, 13-17 1NT, strong club, 2D multi and 2M upwards various weak 2-suiters.
[RANT ON]
Early board, they have an uncontested auction.
P 1H*
2S* P

Conversation then ensues:
US: Please explain the auction
THEM: 1H natural, possible canape
THEM: 2S non-forcing
US: non-forcing? is that weak or invitational?
THEM: 10-12
US: 12?
THEM: We don't open most 12-counts
US: how many spades?
THEM: 6
(their card says a 1S opening = 10-16 but we decide not to go there)

At the end of the hand, dummy says
"I knew you had a 4-card minor as soon as you bid 2S, I thought of bidding 3C"
US: huh?
THEM: We only open a multi with no 4-card side suit, so as a passed hand he had to have a side suit not to have opened 2D
US (thinks): And did it occur to you to tell us at the time that 2S implied a 4-card side suit?

Anyway, it's a boring 140 to them and an obvious flat board.

A couple of hands later, another uncontested auction
P 1D*
1H 1NT
P

1D = possible canape
1H = not alerted, 4+ hearts F1
OK

a couple of hands later, another uncontested auction

P 1D*
1NT* 3NT

1D = possible canape
US: "what's 1NT"
THEM: "10-11" (silence)
US: "what do you respond with less than 10"
THEM: "1M (or raise diamonds)"
US: "What if you don't have a major"
THEM: "Oh, we might have to bid a 3-card heart suit"
USTHINKS (thanks for telling us that 1D - 1H might be a 3-card suit earlier)
US: "So can responder have a 4-card major?"
THEM: "Yes, might have two 4-card majors, just showing me how many points he has"

...play hand...
I then let the contract through because I don't realise that responder is 4=5 in the majors, with FIVE hearts.

I say at the end of thand
"Why didn't you say 1NT might have 5 hearts?"
THEM: "You didn't ask, we said it was just showing points"

[RANT OFF]

(Luckily they are so absurd that we win by 90 odd imps and don't need to ask for a ruling on the 3NT hand)

[glen]

When playing against this type of partnership, and if the match will be close, or if winning by 100 even imps has value compared to winning just by 90 odd imps, then one needs to use the expression: "Tell us everything you know about ___?". If you then get a short answer, you use relay methods to find out further information: "So that is really everything you know about ___?"

However there is another method I have used. Partnerships playing unusual methods often bring their system notes with them, if this is f2f. Since I speed read, and I find reading system notes interesting, I ask to borrow them. So then my questions are more like "so 1NT is 10-11 points, using a modified ZAR point count with short suit deductions and long suit upgrades, and can be any shape without a diamond fit, and is not 1-7-2-3, since the 3♥ response shows exactly that?"

[hotShot]

The disclosure style of your opponents is ....... very poor and that in unacceptable.
But this demonstrates some important points.
While you can make one bid each each turn, but there are a lot of bids you don't make. These unmade bids carry much more information than the bid made. This is the case in any partnership.

When using a new system, convention or even treatment, getting good results may be caused by incomplete disclosure, unprepared opps or because it was a good idea. I bet he first 2 reasons are more frequent.

[hrothgar]

Hi Frances

Sorry that this happened. In an ideal world, this type of problem wouldn't happen. However, it crops up all too often in ours. There are a number of ways to reduce the incident of issues like this one. For example, hypothetically, both teams could exchange system notes a couple weeks before a match. This would permit folks to spend some time studying the opponents basic style. In practice, we all know that this wouldn't work too well. Most people wouldn't bother to look over the other sides notes. Equally significant, I'd be willing to be that the worst offender's with respect to disclosure would also have the worst notes.

Personally, I think that you might have made a mistake not asking for a ruling on the 3NT hand. Its a sad fact of life, but some people don't learn unless they get their hands smacked. Your opponents need to understand that if they practice poor disclosure it is going to cost them. Obviously, it doesn't matter this match, but they need to be aware that if they mathc had been close they would have lost it because of what they did. Unfortunately, this also places a burden on the directing staff and on your own team.

Out of curiousity, did you bother to try to sit down after the match and explain the proprieties to your opponents? I know it can be difficult to hector folks, however, this might be the best choice.

[kenberg]

Very frustrating. We have all been there. Mostly the folks who do this are not very good and take their few pleasures in putting something over on others by using their weird and far less than fully disclosed agreements. I imagine they got a real hoot out of your "mis-defense". Great system they have. And they did say "just points". Maybe he could have seven hearts. Who knows. Explaining to them what is expected does not, in my experience, do any good. I have seen directors explain fully and clearly what is needed but without this producing the slightest change in behavior at even the next hand. Usually though this is more of a problem at the club level. In higher level settings I would expect a director to kick some butt.

As with the driver who cuts you off in traffic, no one will ever really put a stop to this.

[jtfanclub]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 16 2007, 06:21 AM, said:

32 boards, IMPs, KO teams-of-four. Our opponents for the first half are playing canape 4-card majors, 13-17 1NT, strong club, 2D multi and 2M upwards various weak 2-suiters.
[RANT ON]
Early board, they have an uncontested auction.
P 1H*
2S* P

Conversation then ensues:
US: Please explain the auction
THEM: 1H natural, possible canape
THEM: 2S non-forcing
US: non-forcing? is that weak or invitational?
THEM: 10-12
US: 12?
THEM: We don't open most 12-counts
US: how many spades?
THEM: 6
(their card says a 1S opening = 10-16 but we decide not to go there)

I do have a lot of sympathy for you...however....

Say you're playing a standard system plus weak jump shifts even outside of competition.

You open 1♥ third seat, partner responds 2♠, alerted as weak.

Would you mention that, since partner didn't open 2♠, he must have a hand unsuitable for opening 2♠?

Now, suppose you open 1♥ third seat, and your partner responds 2♣ (natural). Would you alert the bid as six or fewer clubs, because with 7 or more and enough points to respond to 1♥, he would have said something in first position?

OK, so they use 2♦ to show a hand we would open 2♠. But everybody I know has a weak spade opener, and so you should have been aware that as a passed hand, he must be a two-suiter. I'm surprised it can be a 6-4, I would have guessed 6-5.

While I agree that these guys crossed the line in your later stories, there has to be a point where full disclosure stops and bridge logic starts, otherwise you'd be there all night. In the ACBL, that point is negative inference. That they didn't open a weak spade bid is a negative inference, you should have expected them to have a weak spade opener, and it should have been an easy matter for you to check their card to see what it is, although in this case since it's meaning (if not denomination) seemed to be close enough to standard that if you'd assumed they were using a SA 2♠ your inferences would have been correct.

[keylime]

90 imp win over 32 boards. I hope you enjoyed the delicious sweetness of a blitz.

[helene_t]

I clearly play in lower-level events than most posters here, but I must say I find the level of disclosure of your opps quite normal. This is not to say that it's good, of course.

Players of standard systems don't have to explain all negative interference and don't have to mention that certain calls can be "smallest lie" such as selling a 4441 as either balanced or two-suited. In theory, players of non-standard systems should explain such things but it would slow things down.

Example: we play Boring Club and anounce 1♣ as 12-19 balanced. As you might guess, we could give a whole lecture about the excact criteria for calling a hand "balanced" in this context. The same is true for players of natural 1NT openings, of course, it's just that if someone opens a natural 1NT it's well known that certain hand types might or might not qualify depending on partnership agreement, and the opponents will know when they need to ask. The same is not true for our 1♣ opening unless opps are familiar with Boring Club.

Sometimes we have voluntered to give near-full disclosure of the 1♣ criteria, but my experience is that opps often get confused and/or anoyed.

[csdenmark]

Frances I am not sure you have much to complain about here. You have been informed of your opps. plays Blue Club(NT=13-17) and canape'. Looks to me their features are fairly standard for that.

Now you have faced reality of some of the differences playing online in an international get together milieu instead of domestic.

[Tola18]

helene_t, on Jan 16 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

In theory, players of non-standard systems should explain such things but it would slow things down.

More. I have more then once been asked NOT not explain. Us playing a rather unusual system. "We didnt ask".

[FrancesHinden]

csdenmark, on Jan 16 2007, 03:41 PM, said:

Now you have faced reality of some of the differences playing online in an international get together milieu instead of domestic.

errm...
i) This wasn't online, it was a local KO match against a regular partnership who have been playing together for years.
ii) I have played against Blue Club before. Playing 1D - 1NT as 11-12 HCP may be 4-5 in the majors (and 1D - 1H may be 7-9 with 3 hearts) is not standard.
iii) I have played a number of international events against significantly weirder systems than this. My experience is that people usually try and be helpful, not seem to do their level best to be unhelpful.

We had a few more like this...
1H* - 1S* - 1NT (uncontested)
US: can you explain the auction?
THEM: 1H/1S possible canape etc, 1NT 13-15
US: Can you explain why you didn't open 1NT
THEM: Oh no, a 1NT opener is either 16-17 balanced, or 13-15 exactly 3325/3334
USTHINKS: So why not say so on your convention card?
(USTHINKS: we vaguely remember that is part of blue club)

1C* (1D*) x* (P*)
1H (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P) 3NT

(early discussion about the meaning of the 1D overcall)
US: can you explain the auction
....x 6+ HCP < 3 controls
...1NT balanced...
US: Is it forcing?
THEM: Of course, the double was game forcing
USTHINKS: why didn't you say so, since when is 17 opposite 6 obviously a game force?
US: Does it have a range?
THEM: Yes, about 17-20

...play hand out....

1NT bidder transpired to be 1534 though no impact on final result

US: I thought you said 1NT was balanced?
THEM: That is balanced

(OK, now we just have a terminology issue....)

[mikeh]

Frances, you have my sympathy.

But I think Glen got it right when he observed that people who bid like this... people who think the way these people think... are almost always very bad bridge players.... and you will beat them handily (almost) every time... as you did.

Now, if you ran across some real players who displayed the same ignorance (for that is surely what was on display), I'd get really mad

But thanks for the rant... and I hope it served its purpose of allowing you to ventilate

[csdenmark]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 16 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jan 16 2007, 03:41 PM, said:

Now you have faced reality of some of the differences playing online in an international get together milieu instead of domestic.

errm...
i) This wasn't online, it was a local KO match against a regular partnership who have been playing together for years.
ii) I have played against Blue Club before. Playing 1D - 1NT as 11-12 HCP may be 4-5 in the majors (and 1D - 1H may be 7-9 with 3 hearts) is not standard.
iii) I have played a number of international events against significantly weirder systems than this. My experience is that people usually try and be helpful, not seem to do their level best to be unhelpful.

We had a few more like this...
1H* - 1S* - 1NT (uncontested)
US: can you explain the auction?
THEM: 1H/1S possible canape etc, 1NT 13-15
US: Can you explain why you didn't open 1NT
THEM: Oh no, a 1NT opener is either 16-17 balanced, or 13-15 exactly 3325/3334
USTHINKS: So why not say so on your convention card?
(USTHINKS: we vaguely remember that is part of blue club)

1C* (1D*) x* (P*)
1H (P) 1S (P)
1NT (P) 3NT

(early discussion about the meaning of the 1D overcall)
US: can you explain the auction
....x 6+ HCP < 3 controls
...1NT balanced...
US: Is it forcing?
THEM: Of course, the double was game forcing
USTHINKS: why didn't you say so, since when is 17 opposite 6 obviously a game force?
US: Does it have a range?
THEM: Yes, about 17-20

...play hand out....

1NT bidder transpired to be 1534 though no impact on final result

US: I thought you said 1NT was balanced?
THEM: That is balanced

(OK, now we just have a terminology issue....)

I have played against Blue Club before. Playing 1D - 1NT as 11-12 HCP may be 4-5 in the majors (and 1D - 1H may be 7-9 with 3 hearts) is not standard
Well you play a modified version I see - then you have nobody but yourself to blame for need for precise explanations. This may explain why you didnt understood the MAJOR-jump and 1♦-1NT.

We had a few more like this...
1H* - 1S* - 1NT (uncontested)
US: can you explain the auction?
THEM: 1H/1S possible canape etc, 1NT 13-15
US: Can you explain why you didn't open 1NT
THEM: Oh no, a 1NT opener is either 16-17 balanced, or 13-15 exactly 3325/3334
USTHINKS: So why not say so on your convention card?
(USTHINKS: we vaguely remember that is part of blue club)
According to book - YES

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Jan 16 2007, 08:09 PM, said:

Well you play a modified version I see - then you have nobody but yourself to blame for need for precise explanations. This may explain why you didnt understood the MAJOR-jump and 1♦-1NT.

Claus...

There is nothing wrong with being opinionated. LOTS of people are opinionated. But your combination of deadfast certainly and appalling ignorance is really infuriating. [edited by rain]

I played a LOT of Blue Club in my day.

Using 1♦ - (P) - 1N to show 11-12 HCP is decidedly NOT part of classic Blue Club

Responding 1♥ to a 1♦ opening with 3 Hearts and a balanced 7 count is decidedly not part of classic Blue Club

Admitted, I played BTC based on the original books. Things may have changed (Indeed, I understand that things have changed). However, as I understand matters, one of the first significant changes was dropping the classic 1NT opening. In short, if the pair really is playing Blue Club, they're playing their own highly customized variant.

What's really remarkable about this all is that you're selling system summaries. You don't even know the basics behind these systems and you have the nerve to charge people

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jan 16 2007, 04:25 PM, said:

But thanks for the rant... and I hope it served its purpose of allowing you to ventilate

It did. I feel much better now. Thank-you.
(We're playing them again in our local league in a few weeks time)

[csdenmark]

hrothgar, on Jan 16 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jan 16 2007, 08:09 PM, said:

Well you play a modified version I see - then you have nobody but yourself to blame for need for precise explanations. This may explain why you didnt understood the MAJOR-jump and 1♦-1NT.

Claus...

There is nothing wrong with being opinionated. LOTS of people are opinionated. But your combination of deadfast certainly and appalling ignorance is really infuriating. Idiots should not lecture their betters, especially not in such a condescending manner. The sooner you learn this, the happier your life will be.

I played a LOT of Blue Club in my day.

Using 1♦ - (P) - 1N to show 11-12 HCP is decidedly NOT part of classic Blue Club

Responding 1♥ to a 1♦ opening with 3 Hearts and a balanced 7 count is decidedly not part of classic Blue Club

Admitted, I played BTC based on the original books. Things may have changed (Indeed, I understand that things have changed). However, as I understand matters, one of the first significant changes was dropping the classic 1NT opening. In short, if the pair really is playing Blue Club, they're playing their own highly customized variant.

What's really remarkable about this all is that you're selling system summaries. You don't even know the basics behind these systems and you have the nerve to charge people

Your hostile attitude force me to stop further communication with you Richard.

[hrothgar]

csdenmark, on Jan 16 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jan 16 2007, 07:41 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Jan 16 2007, 08:09 PM, said:

Well you play a modified version I see - then you have nobody but yourself to blame for need for precise explanations. This may explain why you didnt understood the MAJOR-jump and 1♦-1NT.

Claus...

There is nothing wrong with being opinionated. LOTS of people are opinionated. But your combination of deadfast certainly and appalling ignorance is really infuriating. Idiots should not lecture their betters, especially not in such a condescending manner. The sooner you learn this, the happier your life will be.

I played a LOT of Blue Club in my day.

Using 1♦ - (P) - 1N to show 11-12 HCP is decidedly NOT part of classic Blue Club

Responding 1♥ to a 1♦ opening with 3 Hearts and a balanced 7 count is decidedly not part of classic Blue Club

Admitted, I played BTC based on the original books. Things may have changed (Indeed, I understand that things have changed). However, as I understand matters, one of the first significant changes was dropping the classic 1NT opening. In short, if the pair really is playing Blue Club, they're playing their own highly customized variant.

What's really remarkable about this all is that you're selling system summaries. You don't even know the basics behind these systems and you have the nerve to charge people

Your hostile attitude force me to stop further communication with you Richard.

You keep promising this, yet you continue to post...
I feel cheated

[kenberg]

This discussion is falling into a pattern. If someone thinks that a player who has not studied Blue Club and kept up to date with its presumably many variations has only herself to blame, then I guess that's a view. Me, if my opponents are playing that over 1D they bid 1H with three hearts and 1NT with five hearts, I think they owe me some clear disclosure of their methods. But I am happy letting a director handle this sort of crap. That's what they get the big bucks for.