[pbleighton]

Quote

How much harm can it do to pre-alert this on face-to-face, even in a pairs game?

In my (extensive) experience of pre-alerting, it irritates most players to be pre-alerted. In fact, the majority refuse to read a written pre-alert, telling us to alert all of our unusual stuff.

The opps almost never agree on any defenses.

This is real world experience, at the club, sectional, and regional levels.

It may well be different at top level bridge.

Peter

[jtfanclub]

pbleighton, on May 29 2007, 01:05 PM, said:

In my (extensive) experience of pre-alerting, it irritates most players to be pre-alerted. In fact, the majority refuse to read a written pre-alert, telling us to alert all of our unusual stuff.

Really? I've never had anybody object to us pre-alerting that we play Precision. I can't say how many were annoyed but didn't say anything.

On the other hand, if we pre-alerted our modified Flannery 2♦ opening, or our Precision 2♣ opening, or so forth, I'm sure they would be very annoyed.

I would say that when we don't pre-alert, half of our opponents won't be aware we're playing Precision until it actually comes up.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Really? I've never had anybody object to us pre-alerting that we play Precision. I can't say how many were annoyed but didn't say anything.

I've had some nasty comments, and a LOT of glares.

Peter

[awm]

My understanding was that negative inferences were defined a little differently than Helene was suggesting. You can look at any call as showing "one of some set of hands" by partnership agreement. A negative inference is a hand or type of hand which is excluded from the set of possible hands.

So in other words, if my hand might look different (by agreement) from what opponents would expect for a call, then partner should alert. If my hand will always be one of the "expected" hands but there are a few "expected" hands which in fact are not possibilities, then no alert.

Some examples:

(1) Suppose my partnership agrees never to open a weak two bid with a four-card major on the side or with any void. Then my 2♥ opening potentially has a different meaning than other people's 2♥ opening. But this is only a negative inference -- all my 2♥ openings (except for psychs of course) will look like possible 2♥ openings that anyone else could have. The fact that my 2♥ opening denies a void or a four-card spade suit does not make it alertable, although this inference should be explained to opponents who ask.

(2) Suppose my partnership agrees that opening bids including a five-card major should always open in the major. This means my 1♣ opening will never have a five-card major, and my 1nt opening will never have a five-card major. However, these are again negative inferences -- when I open 1♣ my hand always looks like a hand that anyone else would open 1♣, it's just that there are a few hands other people open 1♣ where I would not. This does not make my 1♣ or 1nt openings alertable, although again this inference should be explained to opponents who ask.

(3) Suppose my partnership agrees to play mandatory support doubles. This means that in an auction like 1♣-Pass-1♥-1♠, if I pass over 1♠ I cannot hold three hearts. However, all the hands where I would pass are also hands where people not playing support doubles would pass. Again this is a negative inference -- a few hands where other people would pass have been removed from my passes. This does not make my pass alertable.

(4) Suppose my partnership agrees to open all eight counts. This makes my 1♠ opening alertable, because it includes many hands that are not standard 1♠ openings (i.e. balanced eight counts). However, if I pass in first seat, there is also an inference that I do not have a balanced eight-count, which would certainly be a possible hand for most people. This is a negative inference -- the hands that I pass are still hands that "standard" bidders would pass. So my initial pass remains not alertable although again if opponents ask partner should explain that this denies 8+ points.

[inquiry]

Adam

I am going to have to disagree here. I will take just two of your examples. Let's start with the last one.. Your partner passes. Now you and he are on defense. You know that he has at most 7 hcp. This can easily affect your line of play, especially when you see dummy. It might also affect your bidding. You might "underbid" by standard methods knowing the most your passed partner hand can have is 7 hcp. Here your bidding and your defense can be directly affect by info you have on your partners hand. I can not imagine NOT sharing that same info with your opponents.

Let's take the first example next. Say your partner passes.. and then later, bids hearts, maybe twice. You can start drawing some inferences. Did he have a 4 card spade suit? Maybe your hand and the auction can rule that out. Then you know, or at least strongly suspect he has a void. Maybe you can even guess which one it is, and make a lebenhshol lead in that suit for him to ruff and find an entry to your hand. If you can start imagining a void in his hand due to the auction where he only bid (delayed) hearts, the opponents have the same rights to this information without having to question it.

So while in principal I agree wtih negative inferences are not "alertable", I would alert each of these out of the spirit of full disclosure.

[awm]

I'm not arguing about what the rules should be here -- just explaining what the current rules are. Helene indicated that a negative inference means: "Partner knows something about my hand because I didn't make some other bid" whereas my claim is that a negative inference means: "Partner knows that I cannot have some certain hand that other people might have for my bidding, but the set of hands I can have is included in what other people could have."

---------------------------------

As for whether negative inferences should be alertable, it's a pretty complicated situation. Suppose I open 2♥ "weak" in a regular partnership. Partner probably knows a lot of things about my hand, including:

(1) What are my approximate suit quality requirements? Do I need two of the top three honors? One of the top three? None?

(2) Can I have a five-card heart suit? If so, are the suit quality requirements more stringent? Could I have a 3-5-3-2 type pattern?

(3) Could I have four spades?

(4) How much can I have outside my suit? Is an outside ace allowed? Two outside cards? None?

(5) Could I have a seven card heart suit?

(6) Can I have an outside void? A 6-5 hand with a five-card minor?

All of this is information partner probably has, if only implicitly by having played a few thousand hands with me. Opponents probably don't have this information. Our convention card probably says something about our "overall style" (like if we frequently open five card suits it might say something) but will not address all of these points.

However, while it's certainly the case that partner has more information than the opponents, that doesn't necessarily mean that my weak two bid should be alertable. If it did, then all bids in a regular partnership would be alertable. If opponents are likely to care about this stuff they should know to ask. We have to draw the line somewhere, and negative inferences are probably a reasonable (if not best possible) place.

To take another example, say I pass in first seat. Partner probably knows:

(1) Do I open all 12s? All 11s? What is my maximum possible strength in a balanced passed hand?

(2) Do I open more aggressively with shape than with a balanced hand? If I'm 5-5 in two suits, what's my maximum for a pass? Do we have conventional openings to show shapely weak hands?

(3) Is my opening count different with a five-card major than without?

Again, to some degree opponents need to know to ask. If my pass actually guarantees values, then something weird is going on (forcing pass? semi-forcing pass?) and we need an alert. But just varying my maximum strength pass probably shouldn't be an alert. Certainly there are situations (mostly in the play) where opponents would like to have this information, but that doesn't mean it becomes alertable. Of course, this is part of why very light openings are a pre-alert in ACBL-land, even though almost no one changes their defensive bidding methods to react to it.

[rbforster]

awm, on May 29 2007, 03:51 PM, said:

You can look at any call as showing "one of some set of hands" by partnership agreement. A negative inference is a hand or type of hand which is excluded from the set of possible hands.

So in other words, if my hand might look different (by agreement) from what opponents would expect for a call, then partner should alert. If my hand will always be one of the "expected" hands but there are a few "expected" hands which in fact are not possibilities, then no alert.

I like your effort to define this sort of negative information in a precise way, but I fear it's more complicated than that.

awm, on May 29 2007, 03:51 PM, said:

If my pass actually guarantees values, then something weird is going on (forcing pass? semi-forcing pass?) and we need an alert.

This doesn't fit quite as nicely into your classification however. If you play Lorenzo Two's (where all 0-7 hands make a weak 2 bid), your pass promises 8-11. Most people pass with these hands too. So the fact that a pass in this system promises values is only a negative inference and hence shouldn't be alerted (since afterall you are still passing with a strict subset of the "expected" passing hands).

I'm not saying I have a strong opinion about whether or not a constructive pass should be alerted or not, but your comment about needing an alert in this case is at odds with your earlier suggestion not to alert in cases of negative inferences.

[mgoetze]

mink, on May 29 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

If a bid is not covered by the above rules, do not alert if
- a suit bid shows at least 4 cards in this major or 3 cards in this minor or
- an nt bid shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand or is non-forcing

Alert all other bids.

So you want alerts in auctions such as:

1♥-p-2♥*-p-p-dbl-p-2♠**-p-p-p

*Alert because it might show as few as 3 hearts, or in some rare cases even a doubleton honor!

**Alert because it might rarely have only 3 spades, e.g. KQ9.

awm, on May 29 2007, 07:57 PM, said:

My understanding was that negative inferences were defined a little differently than Helene was suggesting. You can look at any call as showing "one of some set of hands" by partnership agreement. A negative inference is a hand or type of hand which is excluded from the set of possible hands.

Sets are really quite agnostic about what operations were performed to generate them. Especially since we are dealing with finite sets. So the following sets of hands which might pass:

A. Any 13+ hand.

B. Any hand whatsoever, except those which happened to be covered by another opening bid (which in turn cover all 0-12 hands).

are one and the same, no matter how much legalese-speak you use to try and seperate them.

[david_c]

I don't think it's necessary to define "negative inference" precisely. Alerting regulations are usually subjective anyway, for example in the EBU we alert bids which have a "potentially unexpected meaning" and this is not clarified except by way of examples. (We have lots of examples.) So it seems OK to say "negative inferences are not generally alertable" without having to define exactly what we mean. People will understand.

For what it's worth, the EBU's rule about negative inferences is:

OB 5 G 3 said:

Players should not alert: ...

(l) Any bid where the partnership has an agreement over alternative possible calls that affect this one, unless it is in another alertable category. For example, see (c )(5), (e)(2) and (g) above. Also the 3♥ bid in the auction 1NT (pass) 2♦ (dbl) pass (3♦) 3♥ would not be alertable just because the partnership plays a 3♥ response to 1NT as pre-emptive.

[The examples are:]

(c )(5) A natural opening bid of 4♥ or 4♠ when the partnership also has a South African Texas 4♣ or 4♦ or similar artificial bid in its system.

(e)(2) A 1♦ response to 1♣ that will only include a major if strong: for example, as in 'Walsh' responses.

(g) A 1NT rebid that may include a 4-card major.

[barmar]

Rob F, on May 29 2007, 11:53 PM, said:

This doesn't fit quite as nicely into your classification however. If you play Lorenzo Two's (where all 0-7 hands make a weak 2 bid), your pass promises 8-11. Most people pass with these hands too. So the fact that a pass in this system promises values is only a negative inference and hence shouldn't be alerted (since afterall you are still passing with a strict subset of the "expected" passing hands).

I'm not saying I have a strong opinion about whether or not a constructive pass should be alerted or not, but your comment about needing an alert in this case is at odds with your earlier suggestion not to alert in cases of negative inferences.

I think this tends to be covered by the rule that highly unexpected meanings should be alerted, which supercedes the rule that negative inferences don't need to be alerted. Unless Lorenzo Two's are common in your area, the very narrow range of an opening pass is very unusual.

[paulg]

I have just received my SBU News and Scotland will be using the WBF Alerting Policy from September 1, 2007.

So no more alerting of doubles. Even the English visitors can understand that and, if they keep their mouths shut, they will get into no trouble

Paul

[foo]

Some IMHO excellent words on what the spirit of Active Ethics should be:

"When my opponent makes a bid, I feel entitled to full knowledge of exactly what the bid means and what developments may ensue, regardless of what I hold. Even in completely unobstructed auctions, I want to be in a position to assess what my opponents may be thinking about. I want to think ahead about what bids I might want to double for a lead or penalty., and I want to be thinking ahead to Our opening lead.
These things are all possible against players who use known methods,and mostly impossible against players using unfamiliar methods."
Roy Hughes, p108 of _Building a Bidding System_


I agree that we want to keep things as simple as possible. I strongly disagree with any set of procedures that results in players being able to improve their results due more to knowing things their opponents can't know from the auction than from having superior bridge skills.

I also strongly disagree with players being able to use methods that would result in opponents having to "re learn the game" or "play the opponent's system rather than their own". IOW, so called "dominant methods" are =definitely= a problem for most levels of the game, and other methods can be a problem depending on the field in which they are proposed to be used in.
For instance, Novices should not have to put up with the Kamikaze NTs, Frelling 2's, etc, etc.


...and before I hear the "Mad Scientists" predictably protest, let me remind one and all that =Bridge is a game= and that tournament bridge is a =entertainment business=. People supposedly pay to play Bridge for enjoyment. If customers do not like what they are getting for their money, they will stop spending it on whatever disappoints them.
There is far more than "intellectual purity" at stake when discussing these issues.

[jtfanclub]

foo, on May 31 2007, 10:35 AM, said:

I agree that we want to keep things as simple as possible. I strongly disagree with any set of procedures that results in players being able to improve their results due more to knowing things their opponents can't know from the auction than from having superior bridge skills.

So you're going to ban Standard American?

Take a simple uncontested auction...1♣-1♠-1NT-P

Have you ever actually described your Standard American 1 club opener? I mean, really, completely, and totally described it? Are there some hands you would open with some partners and pass with others? Are there some hands that you open 1 club with 4-4, or open 1 diamond with 3-3 or 4 diamonds and 5 clubs? How about with a 5 card major, when would you open 1 club with those?

Then take the 1 spade response. When would you bypass a 4 card diamond suit? How about a 4 card heart suit? How weak can you be? Will you respond with a shapely 0 count like my example on the general forums?

Now how about the 1NT. Can you have 6 clubs? Would you ever bid 2 clubs with 5? How much would you need exactly to bid 2 diamonds? How about 2 hearts?

And then there's that pass...

All of these things a long time partner should know. Not exactly, but a good feeling of it, how strong you tend to be to reverse, when you tend to pass the 1 club opener, etc. But even if you could somehow put it all into words, you'd be there all week for even a simple auction.

If I asked for an explanation of each bid, I'd get:

1♣: 12-22 hcp, 3+ clubs.
1♠: 6+ hcp, 4+ spades. If they're really helpful, I'll get "does not deny a 4 card red suit" or "may be weaker with short clubs".
1NT: 12-14 hcp, to play.

Even though, in fact, different partnerships have *very* different tendencies for these bids. How can the explanations be the same if the meanings are different?

I'm sure you're not one of the people who wants every possible nuance from somebody playing WJ or Precision while explaining every one of your bids as "standard" or whatever Goren or Audrey Grant says the bid should mean. But of course you're going to know things your opponents can't know, and usually that's extremely beneficial. I think if you took the top 100 players and paired them up randomly, and had them play the next 100 players playing in their favorite long term partnerships, that it wouldn't be close. Knowing partner's tendencies is crucial.

When an opponent alerts, it's because it's likely to change YOUR bid due to the additional information. Information that isn't sufficient to change your bid isn't, and shouldn't, be alerted. But it can still be mighty helpful.

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 31 2007, 06:35 PM, said:

I also strongly disagree with players being able to use methods that would result in opponents having to "re learn the game" or "play the opponent's system rather than their own". IOW, so called "dominant methods" are =definitely= a problem for most levels of the game

I've always felt that the complaints about so-called dominant systems are particularly ill considered, especially when they come from folks who play Drury....

Nearly every bidding system out here changes the meaning of the opening bid structure based on seat. A first seat preempt looks nothing like a 4th seat preempt. The strength required to open 1M and first seat is dramatically different than than required in third seat. Many pairs make significant changes to their response structures to protect against light openings in third / fourth seat (Drury, semi-forcing NTs, etc)

I'm not complaining that people make these changes. Indeed, I think that it is logical that they do so. However, I think that every system is equally dominant...

At the end of the day, complaints about Light Opening Systems boil down to some people's assumption that they have a god given right to an uncontested auction and that they shouldn't need to work on their defensive methods.

[foo]

jtfanclub, on May 31 2007, 11:12 AM, said:

foo, on May 31 2007, 10:35 AM, said:

I agree that we want to keep things as simple as possible.  I strongly disagree with any set of procedures that results in players being able to improve their results due more to knowing things their opponents can't know from the auction than from having superior bridge skills.

So you're going to ban Standard American?

Take a simple uncontested auction...1♣-1♠-1NT-P

Have you ever actually described your Standard American 1 club opener? I mean, really, completely, and totally described it? Are there some hands you would open with some partners and pass with others? Are there some hands that you open 1 club with 4-4, or open 1 diamond with 3-3 or 4 diamonds and 5 clubs? How about with a 5 card major, when would you open 1 club with those?

Then take the 1 spade response. When would you bypass a 4 card diamond suit? How about a 4 card heart suit? How weak can you be? Will you respond with a shapely 0 count like my example on the general forums?

Now how about the 1NT. Can you have 6 clubs? Would you ever bid 2 clubs with 5? How much would you need exactly to bid 2 diamonds? How about 2 hearts?

If I'm using SA in a field were SA is common or commonly expected, my opponents know all the inferences you are worrying about here that matter.

Some inferences don't matter to a specific board. "The difference that makes no difference is no difference."

Admittedly, there are inferences that may matter that may be missed. That's why Opening leader is allowed to ask questions before leading and their partner is allowed to ask questions before the opening lead is faced.

This is also why pairs must have a CC available for inspection at any time by the opponents.


...and FTR, experts play in pick up partnerships all the time w/o much system discussion beyond "SA pard?" or "2/1 pard?" and they do =quite= well at figuring out what the hands are around the table.
Your comment re: the top 100 pairs is simply wrong; and would likely be wrong for more than the top 1 =million= pairs in the world.

[foo]

hrothgar, on May 31 2007, 11:20 AM, said:

foo, on May 31 2007, 06:35 PM, said:

I also strongly disagree with players being able to use methods that would result in opponents having to "re learn the game" or "play the opponent's system rather than their own".  IOW, so called "dominant methods" are =definitely= a problem for most levels of the game

I've always felt that the complaints about so-called dominant systems are particularly ill considered, especially when they come from folks who play Drury....

Nearly every bidding system out here changes the meaning of the opening bid structure based on seat. A first seat preempt looks nothing like a 4th seat preempt. The strength required to open 1M and first seat is dramatically different than than required in third seat. Many pairs make significant changes to their response structures to protect against light openings in third / fourth seat (Drury, semi-forcing NTs, etc)

I'm not complaining that people make these changes. Indeed, I think that it is logical that they do so. However, I think that every system is equally dominant...

At the end of the day, complaints about Light Opening Systems boil down to some people's assumption that they have a god given right to an uncontested auction and that they shouldn't need to work on their defensive methods.

Drury is not even close to Dominant. Perhaps you need to refresh your understanding of the term.

The comment about all systems being equally dominant seems to underscore your lack of understanding of the term.

Perhaps some players "feel a god given right to an uncontested auction", but I'd be surprised if you could find one. Especially amongst experts.

You are being dismissive to an inappropriate degree about an important problem.

For instance, there is only =one= viable defense strategy vs. Forcing Pass systems.
a= be in 1st chair
b= else play a FP system yourself.
If a pair playing a FP system comes to your table, the only reasonable defense on any board where We are not in 1st chair is to play their card and not your own. =That's= why they are called "Dominant."

Now let's look at a less extreme example. The Kamikaze NT.
This flat preempt is actually fairly bad bridge if the opponents have a proper defense and use it with proper discipline. That's why you don't see it much at the highest levels.
Unfortunately, the proper defense requires a fairly complex structure and has reasonably high memory overhead.
Low level players who are still having trouble with more basic aspects of the game are at a seriously unfair disadvantage when facing a pair playing the KNT.
Most of the good results obtained by the KNT pair when playing against such opponents is due to the KNT pair "pulling a fast one" due to information they have that the opponents don't, not due to superior bridge skills.
Clearly there is a need to restore equity here. Less so than in the FP example, but still seriously so.

Compared to either of these or a number of other examples I could give (Multi-2D, Most 2suited 2bids, etc etc), Drury is a =minor= problem for the opponents to defend against since you can use effectively mostly standard defensive methods with a few tweaks against it.

[helene_t]

jtfanclub, on May 31 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

foo, on May 31 2007, 10:35 AM, said:

I agree that we want to keep things as simple as possible.  I strongly disagree with any set of procedures that results in players being able to improve their results due more to knowing things their opponents can't know from the auction than from having superior bridge skills.

So you're going to ban Standard American?

Take a simple uncontested auction...1♣-1♠-1NT-P

"Natural" system are inherently difficult to disclose because so much is left to style: what to bid if no call fits, or if several calls fit. On the other hand, most players know the basics.

So when do you feel best informed: when playing against an SA pair, the system of whom you're completely familiar with but the style of whom is an enigma, or a Symmetric Relay pair, the system of whom you didn't know beforehand but the style of whom are completely formalized so you can get answers to all your questions? I don't know. Maybe I'd feel more comfortable against the SA pair in a 3-boards-per-round pairs tourney, but more comfortable against the Symmetric Relay pair in a 96-boards team match.

Of course in a perfect World everybody would play similar Symmetric Relay systems so that it would be feasible to learn everything about opps' system, even in the 3-bords-per-round pairs tourney.

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 31 2007, 08:43 PM, said:

Drury is not even close to Dominant. Perhaps you need to refresh your understanding of the term.

The comment about all systems being equally dominant seems to underscore your lack of understanding of the term.

I think that you misunderstand my point: I am not claiming that Drury is "dominant". I am, however, claiming that the very notion of a dominant system is meaningless and that the existing of Drury is evidence of that fact.

[hrothgar]

foo, on May 31 2007, 08:43 PM, said:

You are being dismissive to an inappropriate degree about an important problem.

For instance, there is only =one= viable defense strategy vs. Forcing Pass systems.
a= be in 1st chair
b= else play a FP system yourself.
If a pair playing a FP system comes to your table, the only reasonable defense on any board where We are not in 1st chair is to play their card and not your own. =That's= why they are called "Dominant."

I'd say that the most reasonable defense against a forcing pass system is learning to defend against a forcing pass system.

As I said, you seem to assume that you have some god given right to an uncontested auction. Why should I give a rat's ass whether you get to use your preferred opening structure in 4th seat?

I'd hazard a guess that at least 80% of the "work" in designing bidding systems is predicated on the assumption that there is going to be an uncontested auction. Pickup any book you want on bidding. What percentage of that book deals with uncontested auctions as opposed to competitive bidding sequences? I'd argue that this focus is a mistake.

For what its worth, I very much agree that bridge would look different if strong pass systems were in common use. People would be spending a lot more time developing overcall structures/generic defenses that can be applied against a variety of different opening bids. However, the fundamentals of the game would be the same. I'd even go so far as to say that the game strikes me as being a lot more interesting...

[helene_t]

Richard, I'm sorry but I don't follow your logic. A dominant system is a system in which an opening pass has an "unusual" meaning which makes a "normal" opening scheme an inadequate defense so that opps are forced to play an "unusual" opening scheme as well.

I don't see what that jhas to do with a different opening scheme in 3rd seat. Even if we agree to play 0+ openings in 3rd seat, it doesn't force opps to do something against our 3rd seat pass (which might not even exist, then).

Of course if we play 3+ major suit openings with 0+ points in 3rd seat and 6+ minor preempts, then a pass in 3rd seat shows at least 5/4 minors and then I agree.

If your point is that "normal" and "unusual" in my definitions are subjective and that SA would be a dominant system in a weak-opening culture, then I agree.

Also, you could say that short minor suit openings are dominant in the sense that they force opps to discuss when a cue-bid is natural and when it's not. But then everything becomes dominant. I think the term "dominant", in the absolute sense, can only be defined in a meaningful way when applied to the opening pass. And then only in the context of a culture with a specific "normal" meaning of the opening pass.

Maybe there's a gray scale. Maybe fertilizers and short major suit openings could be said to be slightly more "dominant" than short minor suit openings.