[Elianna]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2006, 01:31 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 26 2006, 03:42 PM, said:

Actually, the ACBL alert chart indicates that very light openings (less than 10 hcp) or overcalls (less than 6 hcp) are both a pre-alert and an alert during the auction.

Most directors don't know this, and the official ACBL convention card (which is not an authority on what is/is not alertable) does't have it marked in red.

Responses to a one-level opener that "could be very light" are not alertable or pre-alertable in the official regulations, although they might (or might not, depending who you ask) fall under the category of "highly unexpected strength or range" and therefore be an alert.

Maybe this is the problem then... how can there be a rule that opening light is alertable, but then its not enforced because its normal (in third)? How is anyone expected to know what theyre supposed to alert or not if this is how things are run?

Some officials need to take a course in logic (and this doesn't apply to just bridge officials).

Adam got an email that basically said:

a ) The rules for first and third seat openings are the same.

b ) You must alert if you have an agreement to open light, and you may not have an agreement to open with less than 8HCP.

c ) You may have an agreement to open in third chair with less than 8HCP ("because they all would open those hands")

[mikeh]

It is not merely a question of changing methods... I agree that there would not usually be any basis for adopting different methods. But that is less than half of the story.

Consider the following auction: 1x P 1y p 3y p p.... or imagine dealer raised to 4y.

You are on defence. Is any self-respecting expert seriously going to argue that they have no interest, in the defence of the hand, in knowing whether, by sysemic agreement, declarer could hold 0 hcp? Will it make a difference on every hand...no, of course not. Will it be always irrelevant....no, of course not.

When one is defending at imps, one strives to beat the contract and we all know that we are supposed to picture and play for layouts that permit this. We can picture different layouts, and different degrees of risk-benefit depending on the assumptions we make about the hidden hands. If we assume that declarer has at least a decent 4 count, for example, we are apt to come up with a different line than when we can expand the possibilities to include a zero count.

For example, we may conclude that we cannot beat the hand at all if declarer holds as many as 3 hcp and that trying to beat the hand will usually cost an overtrick. If we can assume that the opps bid as in 'standard', we cash out and avoid the needless loss of an imp. However, had we been alerted to the possibility of a zero count (or a 1 or 2 count) we will defend differently.

At mps, our considerations in the play will be somewhat different, but we will stil lbe interested in assessing whether to play for a set at the risk of an overtrick. We will sometimes be trying to evaluate how good a score we are getting by cashing out (maybe we see that we might have been able to get in the auction and go +110, and we need therefore to be +200). All of these situations, and others, can be affected by the assumptions we make about declarer's hand.

And what about when we compete and declare. Are we not entitled to know the opps agreements now? We will often be drawing inferences about the location of missing hcp, and knowing that rho promises or does not promise certain values, by systemic agreement will influence the thinking of any competent player.

And what about the decision to balance? While most times, being aware that rho may hold zero wil make little difference, there will be times when our decision to balance is very close. An appreciation of the minimum strength promised by either opponent will assist us in assessing the likelihood of partner having the holdings we need to make a balance a good gamble. Sure, this situation will be rare, and the influence of knowledge subtle, but it is real.

Any good, experienced player has drawn inferences from the opps' actions...but the reliability of the inference is dependent upon an understanding of the opps's style. When they use a non-standard method without pre-alerts or actual alerts, their opps are at a disadvantage and I fail to understand how anyone could disagree with that.

Now, is the 'I respond on zero' becoming so standard that one should expect it or specifically ask about it? I don't think so, and so I think this approach ought to be explicitly disclosed. I repeat: win on the merits of the methods, not by concealment of non-standard agreements...is there really any poster here who feels otherwise????

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Oct 26 2006, 05:07 PM, said:

That is a very nice long post with a nice ending, but what is your point? Do you suggest that those who respond lightly are trying to win by concealing their methods? Do you think those who play certain methods have the ability to decide the alert procedures? I'm not really sure what your point is here.

I am not in the least suggesting an improper motive for light openers or light responders. I completely accept that Justin and other users of the method use it because they perceive that the benefits outweigh the costs.

As for 'not understanding': why would you pre-alert this method in a Spingold but feel that alerting it otherwise is wrong???

If the ACBL says no need to alert (and I don't know whether it does), why pre-alert presumably expert opps in long matches but not non-experts in short rounds?????

You presumably pre-alert in the Spingold out of a sense of fair play... is that only applicable to expert opps? Surely the typical non-expert Open Pair opp needs the pre-alert or alert far more than a world champion in a Spingold match?

As for my high level inferences, suggesting that a player should be grilling an opp about bidding style in mid-play is silly. Any such questioning by a defender cannot help but convey information to his partner. Any such questioning by a declarer cannot help but convey information about his hand (what problem is he trying to solve?) to both defenders? And what about during the bidding?

If I am in the tank over a balancing decision and bid only after asking if rho might be bidding on a zero count, is it truly a 'high level inference' to conclude that I balanced light?

Finally, and I am astounded that you 'don't understand', surely the spirit of the game requires disclosure of non-standard agreements. Now, if you believe that your agreement doesn't require disclosure...why do you pre-alert some opps?

[pclayton]

A long long time ago, my bridge mentor from Montana was playing someone in a match (someone of you old timers probably remember who it is (name escapes me)) that had no strong forcing opening.

During this match, responder would always bid on a zero count. He complained to the director, not because of the response itself, but because an opening bid essentially became a strong forcing opening. The director did nothing - the issue is complex in 2006 - you can imagine the director's befuddlement in 1980.

OK, strike the word "strong" from my last paragraph, but you can see how a 1 bid for a pair that responds very light essentially becomes a forcing opening.

You have very free liberties to open a 1 bid on any type of flawed 2♣ opening, say something like: AKxx, void, AKQx, KQJxx, or something like AQ, x, AKQx, AQJxxx where you'd really like to open a 1 bid but fear pard would pass your response. Solution? Respond on all but total garbage and a misfit at the 1 level.

Many vanilla 2/1 systems becomes more like F/N, since pard is passing a 1 bid happens perhaps 1 in 300 times.

This certainly isn't illegal, but I think pre-disclosure is appropriate, and I'd alert it in a pair event with 2 boards a round.

Would I change my treatments knowing about these methods? You bet. I'd be more inclined to balance (since I know responder is a total bust), and I'd throw out a sandwich NT, since I want to be able to show pard a balanced 15-18 in the sandwich position since my opponents could have 13 opposite 2 very frequently.

[the hog]

A few observations. Yes, I have read Kokish's views on responding with very few points and a long Major and as much as I respect him as an analyst, I don't really agree with this philosophy.

It is interesting that Bocchi and Duboin who experiment a lot with system, used to play these zero responses to 1m, albeit they played transfer responses and in the context of a forcing C system. They have decided that to respond on a 0- poor 4 count was not paying dividends in top competition and have changed to their responses showing at least some values. This proves nothing of course, it is just an observation. I

Fwiw I would prefer to play weak jump shifts rather than respond on a 6 card suit and a zero count and risk getting too high when opener holds a good hand and the opponents have nothing.

[mikestar]

The_Hog, on Oct 27 2006, 05:26 AM, said:

...Fwiw I would prefer to play weak jump shifts rather than respond on a 6 card suit and a zero count and risk getting too high when opener holds a good hand and the opponents have nothing.

Couldn't agree more. I have no problem passing a balanced 5 or a quacky 6 like Qxx xx QJxx Jxxx over 1♥. With a shapely weak hand like QJxxxx x xxx xxx I wonn't pass but much prefer 2♠ if weak jump shifts are available. If not, I like 1♠ better than pass, but not by a huige margin.