[gwnn]

Once our opponent got upset because we alerted 1C as "2+" because we did not explain specifically that it could have 4 diamonds (some pairs also open 1C on 3352). I wasn't really moved by his argument then but now I think he was basically right. It is all a question of what is and is not unusual in your neck of the woods and in many places opponents would naturally think that "1D could be 3" means "1D could be 3 if I am exactly 4-4-3-2" and "1C could be 3" means "1C could be 3 if I have 4M333 or 4-4-2-3." I am not sure how it is in your case but I don't see how adding a few words like "1m could be 3; the other minor could be 4 or significantly stronger" wastes too much breath while avoiding misunderstandings. I am not sure about the legality of all this but this is how I'd try to alert it at least on a trial basis.

On random openings in general, I think it's cleanest if there is a clear key (for example: we open with the weaker minor whenever we have an odd number of 7's in our hand), but again not sure about the legality. I just wanted to bring up the issue of verifiable keys because no one seems to have yet and it's something that has been mentioned on and off here. In practice, however, I assume most opps would just accept "we decide randomly" more happily than "we decide based on the number of 7's in or hand" so maybe all of this is just theoretizing.

[blackshoe]

The sticking point seems to be that some want to be told, if it's three, what distributions are possible. Frankly, I'm not sure why that's a big deal. Maybe they can explain it.

[campboy]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-25, 21:11, said:

The sticking point seems to be that some want to be told, if it's three, what distributions are possible. Frankly, I'm not sure why that's a big deal. Maybe they can explain it.

I don't think that's the issue. The problem is that 99+% of people who play 1m as "at least three" open the longer minor, and so if no more information is given that is what opponents will assume.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-25, 21:11, said:

The sticking point seems to be that some want to be told, if it's three, what distributions are possible. Frankly, I'm not sure why that's a big deal. Maybe they can explain it.

No Ed, the point is that you should explain your agreements in full on request without the opposing pair needing to find the correct supplementary question to obtain full disclosure. Would you be satisfied if I described a canapé 1♥ opening as "could be 4" in an area where the majority system is 5 card majors and a few play Acol or Culbertson? I would hope not; the same applies here.

[gwnn]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-25, 21:11, said:

The sticking point seems to be that some want to be told, if it's three, what distributions are possible. Frankly, I'm not sure why that's a big deal. Maybe they can explain it.

Because they sometimes like to count out hands? Of course nobody expects you to say
"1C can, if balanced, be 5♣332, 4♣333, 4M333, or 4-4-2-3" but if you have reason to believe that "could be 3" will be interpreted in a certain way by opponents, you should try to explain some special exceptions in which 1C has 3 cards but is unexpected to opponents. For example, 3♣4♦ or 3♣5♦.

[Vampyr]

 gwnn, on 2016-April-25, 20:34, said:

I am not sure how it is in your case but I don't see how adding a few words like "1m could be 3; the other minor could be 4 or significantly stronger" wastes too much breath while avoiding misunderstandings. I am not sure about the legality of all this but this is how I'd try to alert it at least on a trial basis.

I think that your suggestion is sensible, but uses more words than the the entire system summary normally given at the beginning of a round. Unless you are saying that minor-suit openings should be alerted, but that seems wrong.

There is an analogous situation. Some Americans open 1♦ with 4=5 in the minors. I don't know if they alert their 1♦ openings. In this case it truly is canapé, since their intended rebid is the longer suit. Natural logic would dictate that if a side 5-card major on the side is more significant than a 4-card. (In a wholly natural system, ie not one in which a diamond promises an unbalanced hand or otherwise where a 2-card suit can be opened).

In any case, I am of course more interested in our regulations here.

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2016-April-26, 04:50, said:

I think that your suggestion is sensible, but uses more words than the the entire system summary normally given at the beginning of a round. Unless you are saying that minor-suit openings should be alerted, but that seems wrong.

There is an analogous situation. Some Americans open 1♦ with 4=5 in the minors. I don't know if they alert their 1♦ openings. In this case it truly is canapé, since their intended rebid is the longer suit. Natural logic would dictate that if a side 5-card major on the side is more significant than a 4-card. (In a wholly natural system, ie not one in which a diamond promises an unbalanced hand or otherwise where a 2-card suit can be opened).

In any case, I am of course more interested in our regulations here.

On those occasions when I've played such systems, I announce "could be two, could have longer diamonds". If they want more detail they've been given a prompt.

[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2016-April-26, 05:07, said:

On those occasions when I've played such systems, I announce "could be two, could have longer diamonds". If they want more detail they've been given a prompt.

Would it be acceptable to announce, "could be three, could have longer diamonds"? (Or maybe could have four diamonds, since I would never have five"?

[sanst]

 Vampyr, on 2016-April-25, 19:41, said:

Explain all shapes now? I think that "could be three" is enough.

You should point out that the other minor could be 4. I would think that the opps might be surprised to discover that during the play if not forwarned. Anyway, alerting is no trouble and far less tiring than getting into a discussion with the opps and TD.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2016-April-26, 04:50, said:

Some Americans open 1♦ with 4=5 in the minors. I don't know if they alert their 1♦ openings.

Not required. One might argue that a club rebid should be alerted. I don't think it's required, but I haven't checked the regulation.

 sanst, on 2016-April-26, 06:27, said:

You should point out that the other minor could be 4. I would think that the opps might be surprised to discover that during the play if not forwarned. Anyway, alerting is no trouble and far less tiring than getting into a discussion with the opps and TD.

This.

[szgyula]

Thanks all. I think it was beaten to death. Local regulation says(*) that it makes the system Red, thus, banned in many cases. This seems not to be the case in other countries. Alerting is sensible and done consistently it is not UI as you always alert. Explanation is arguable. The point is that the system does not contain anything to help the pair to discover the fit in the other minor. This is an accepted shortcoming of the system. The benefit is that opponents can not figure out the minors, either, which can be a huge advantage in 1NT...

Thanks for the input...

(*): Literally "says" as this regulation is not written down anywhere but the TDs know it. The players may learn about it eventually if they happen to play it against a TD...

[mycroft]

My standard question after "could be short" calls - unless it's obvious, unless I know - is "when can it be short?"

If you get a blank look, then they play Majors 5, diamonds 4 (or they play Precision the "boring" way if it was 1♦ "could be short"). Otherwise I usually get *something* (of course I remember the person whose partner opened 1♣ "could be short", couldn't tell me when it could be short, but was happy to Alert the 1NT rebid and explain it as "13-14 balanced" (playing a 10-12 and minors "nat or BAL specific range".)

Yes, I want to know how many diamonds they could have. Yes, I want to know if it could be anything other than 4=4=3=2 (for choice of defence reasons). Yes, I want to know if 1♦ Precision could be 1 or zero.

So, similarly, if they're playing "we open whichever minor we feel like if we're going to show a balanced hand" I want to know that too.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-26, 08:08, said:

Not required. One might argue that a club rebid should be alerted. I don't think it's required, but I haven't checked the regulation.


This.

So... you believe that one should alert if there is a potential four-card minor on the side, but not a five-card minor? LOL something is wrong here!

[blackshoe]

Neither sanst nor I addressed the question of a side five card minor.

[sanst]

 Vampyr, on 2016-April-26, 18:19, said:

So... you believe that one should alert if there is a potential four-card minor on the side, but not a five-card minor? LOL something is wrong here!

From the OP: "For 53 it is the longer." I don't waste time on answering questions not asked.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-26, 19:33, said:

Neither sanst nor I addressed the question of a side five card minor.

In post #30 you wrote that you didn't believe it should be alertable to open the shorter major with 5-4, but that it is somehow different with 4-3.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2016-April-27, 04:36, said:

In post #30 you wrote that you didn't believe it should be alertable to open the shorter major with 5-4, but that it is somehow different with 4-3.

The difference is that opening 1♦ with a minimum hand with 4♦ 5♣ is a common solution to a well known problem in standard bidding. But opening the shorter minor with 4-3 is an unusual agreement.

[szgyula]

 barmar, on 2016-April-27, 08:49, said:

But opening the shorter minor with 4-3 is an unusual agreement.

Just to be pedantic here: sometimes opening the shorter minor, i.e. not always...

And no, this is not a Canape system, either. E.g. a 1♣-p-1♦-p-2♦ sequence promises 4 diamonds in both hands. The ♣ can be 3, 4 or 5. There is no method to find the length of the ♣. And there is no method to always find a 4-4 fit in a minor. E.g. after 1♣ opening, responder will not bid ♣ with 4 cards. The opener will not repeat ♣ with 4. Thus, the 4-4 fit is never found.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2016-April-27, 04:36, said:

In post #30 you wrote that you didn't believe it should be alertable to open the shorter major with 5-4, but that it is somehow different with 4-3.

No, I didn't. I said that ACBL regulations do not require an alert of a 1♦ opening when opener might hold five ♣.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2016-April-26, 09:22, said:

So, similarly, if they're playing "we open whichever minor we feel like if we're going to show a balanced hand" I want to know that too.

That's a bit of a mouthful though, and doesn't even tell them that we do promise three cards.

 szgyula, on 2016-April-27, 10:03, said:

Just to be pedantic here: sometimes opening the shorter minor, i.e. not always...

And no, this is not a Canape system, either. E.g. a 1♣-p-1♦-p-2♦ sequence promises 4 diamonds in both hands. The ♣ can be 3, 4 or 5. There is no method to find the length of the ♣. And there is no method to always find a 4-4 fit in a minor. E.g. after 1♣ opening, responder will not bid ♣ with 4 cards. The opener will not repeat ♣ with 4. Thus, the 4-4 fit is never found.

I think I have reached the tentative decision that I will announce my system, in part, as "5 card majors, usually better minor".

 blackshoe, on 2016-April-27, 15:10, said:

No, I didn't. I said that ACBL regulations do not require an alert of a 1♦ opening when opener might hold five ♣.

I know, but I had the impression that you felt that this was right.