[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Oct 1 2007, 02:00 AM, said:

Talk about burying the opponents in a mountain of bullpoop.

I tend to agree with this.

From an organizational standpoint, the simple solution is to not allow such conventions in a stratified event.

Whether appropriate or not those who use unusual methods ought to take special care not to create these kinds of situations.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Sep 30 2007, 11:59 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 30 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

Ken, I believe in practice you say "can be short", rather than "alert" in ACBL land.

1♣ would never be a stiff right?

I'm not sure that this is accurate.

"Could be short" typically implies a 1♣ opening with 4432 when balanced.

For us, the minors may be 3-2, 2-3, 4-2, 2-4, 5-2, 2-5, 4-3, 3-4, or 3-3. 2245/2254 are also possible. With 6♦/2♣, you use judgment/tactics, such that this is possible. Even 4441 (stiff club) is possible if the club stiff is an honor (judgment/tactical).

I have heard many folks tell me that "could be short" is better here, but I don't think that this meets my obligation.

It does not imply a 4432. Where did you pull this out of?

A few years ago when I played a 10-12 NT, both of our 1♣ and 1♦ openings were prepared. We would open 1♣ just like you any time we held a balanced 13-15, even if we held a 3352 or a 3262 (and judged these to be balanced). We were advised an announcement was proper.

The cc is marked in blue which is consistent with an announcement.

[barmar]

The ACBL Alert Procedures says that you announce "After a non-forcing opening 1♣ or 1♦ for which the opener could have fewer than three cards in the suit opened."

In your system, is responder required to bid something (assuming LHO doesn't overcall), so that you can clarify which type of opening it is?

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Oct 1 2007, 09:29 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Oct 1 2007, 02:00 AM, said:

Talk about burying the opponents in a mountain of bullpoop.

I tend to agree with this.

From an organizational standpoint, the simple solution is to not allow such conventions in a stratified event.

Whether appropriate or not those who use unusual methods ought to take special care not to create these kinds of situations.

I wouldn't go that far.

I would say that most organizations give extra leeway in situatons like this. My personal favorite is....

"1NT" "12-15"
"What are we playing against a 12-15 No trump, P?"
"Hmmm...12-15 they said? How about Capaletti?"
"OK, capp it is. 2♦".

I called the director, and all they got was a warning.

I'm not sure I'd be against that as an official rule- that RHO could make such a decision after an opening. Since it isn't an official rule, then obviously I wouldn't rule that way, but I wouldn't adjust in a case like this, though there'd be at least a warning and maybe a PP.

[gwnn]

kenrexford, on Sep 30 2007, 09:59 PM, said:

"Could be short" typically implies a 1♣ opening with 4432 when balanced.

meh, people say "1♦=11-15 could be short" on at least 29 different kinds of 1♦ openers. Not to say that it's the right way. But they still do So "could be short", while a phlegmatic alert, is probably correct, and maybe even desirable.

[awm]

The whole "could be short" thing is one of the many ambiguities in ACBL regulations. For example, suppose partner and I play that a 1♦ opening shows 5+♠ with a limited hand. This is totally legal on the general chart as long as it guarantees 10+ hcp as well. So we open 1♦, it's not forcing (since it's limited in terms of points), it doesn't show any diamonds, we announce "could be short"?

Basically the regulations (and I think this was intentional) throw the whole thing into director's discretion. I think the idea is that openings which show either length in the suit opened or a balanced hand are announcements (the regulations say "could be short is the only non-natural meaning" -- who knows what this means though) whereas openings that could be unbalanced with shortage in the suit opened would be alerts. Ken's 1♣ is definitely in the "in-between" space since it's "supposed to be" clubs or balanced but potentially includes as balanced some patterns like 4-2-5-2 and 2-3-6-2 which most people may not think of as being balanced.

[kenrexford]

I love it when we aspire to full disclosure, offer it, and then are perceived as creating a problem because of the full disclosure.

The system is not all that bizarre. We open 1♦ only if 6+ (optional with 6322) or with 4+ and a stiff or void somewhere. 2254 or 2245 can be a violation justification.

Thus, 1♣ covers a lot of ground. 1♣...2♦ is not a reverse.

[awm]

The other side of the issue is, suppose partner and I play standard american. But we decide to alert our 1♣ opening, just for the heck of it. When opponents ask, we answer:

This is a 4-way bid. It shows one of:

(1) 12-14 hcp balanced without a five-card major, including at least three clubs. If holding exactly three clubs, we will have at most three diamonds. If holding four clubs, we will hold fewer than four diamonds unless the clubs are substantially stronger than the diamonds in which case we could be four-four in the minors.

(2) 18-19 hcp balanced, with the same constaints on shape as above.

(3) 10-22 hcp with five or more clubs and clubs longer than any other suit. It is possible to hold a five-card major if holding six or more clubs. If at the bottom end of the point range, will include six or more clubs. If at the top end of the range, will include four or more cards in a non-club suit.

(4) 11-22 hcp with exactly 4-4-1-4 distribution, or with 4-1-4-4 or 1-4-4-4 distribution with the clubs substantially stronger than the diamonds.


-----------

I'm sure that this explanation is quite accurate, much more complete disclosure than most people offer. But do you think it really helps people understand what the bid means more than saying "it's a standard american 1♣ opening" or just not alerting a bid that didn't require an alert anyway?

[blackshoe]

Heh. I always thought of "could be short" as "could be as short as 2 cards" - meaning that if pard could have 0 or 1, I should alert, not announce. Seems I was wrong.

I was taught that, in SA (or 2/1 for that matter), when you don't have a 5 card suit, so that either you're balanced or you're 4441, you open, in the latter case, 1♦ unless the shortage is in ♦, when you open 1♣, and in the former case, when you're outside the range for a NT opening, there are different views. If you have a four card minor, you open that suit (usually ♦ if you're 44 in the minors). If you don't have a four card minor, you're 44 in the majors, and you agree with partner whether to always open in the 3 card suit (in which case a 1♦ opening may show exactly 4=4=3=2 distribution) or to always open in clubs (in which case 1♦ will guarantee 4 diamonds, and 1♣ "could be short" - ie the 4=4=3=2 hand). Given what I've seen here, I would have to concede that under ACBL regs a pair could announce "could be short" with hands not matching this description, but even if I knew they weren't playing SA or 2/1, I'm not sure that it would occur to me at the table that they might not have this distribution. I suppose I'm going to have to start asking more questions.

Quote

(the regulations say "could be short is the only non-natural meaning" -- who knows what this means though)

Who indeed? The thing is, I looked for where the regs say that, and I couldn't find it. Pointer, please?

In general, I would expect a player with a 5 card or longer suit to open in that suit, unless he's opening an artificial bid or a natural NT. If he has a 5 card or longer suit, and opens in a shorter one, then IMO he's playing a canapé system, in which case his side must both pre-alert, and alert the opening bids. Unfortunately, the alert regulation, while it mentions "canapé" several times, doesn't define the term.

That whole "what are we playing against 12-15 NT" thing just boggles my mind. Is there any excuse for a pair to have this kind of discussion in the middle of a hand? Is there any excuse for the TD not coming down on them like a ton of bricks? Possiblely, but it would be very rare, IMO. So if the NOS achieves a score worse than they might have done because of this discussion, the NOS is entitled to, and should get, a score adjustment. Similarly for the OS. In any case, it seems to me a PP ought to be virtually automatic. The NOS can ask the TD to waive such penalties, of course. They'd have to come up with a pretty good reason. BTW, a score adjustment is not a penalty - I don't believe it correct for a player to ask the TD to waive a score adjustment.

[blackshoe]

kenrexford, on Oct 1 2007, 05:23 PM, said:

1♣...2♦ is not a reverse.

That turns out not to be the case.

A reverse is an unforced bid on the second round in a suit higher ranking than the one bid on the first round. The 2♦ bid here is a reverse, by definition. What you mean is that it doesn't show the extra values that a reverse would normally be expected to show. Which, btw, would IMO make it alertable in the ACBL.

Sorry, personal pet peeve.

[awm]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

Quote

(the regulations say "could be short is the only non-natural meaning" -- who knows what this means though)

Who indeed? The thing is, I looked for where the regs say that, and I couldn't find it. Pointer, please?

It's ACBL Alert Procedures

The exact text reads:

PART VI: OPENING SUIT BIDS, RESPONSES AND REBIDS
1) 1♣: Not Alertable if natural (three or more cards in minor) and non-forcing. Announceable if fewer than three cards is the only unnatural meaning. Any other meaning must be Alerted (e.g., a Precision opening 1♣).

[blackshoe]

awm, on Oct 1 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

The exact text reads:

PART VI: OPENING SUIT BIDS, RESPONSES AND REBIDS
1) 1♣: Not Alertable if natural (three or more cards in minor) and non-forcing. Announceable if fewer than three cards is the only unnatural meaning. Any other meaning must be Alerted (e.g., a Precision opening 1♣).

So it does. Somehow I skipped right over that. My bad.

It sounds like the ACBL considers canapé unnatural.

[kenrexford]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2007, 05:57 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Oct 1 2007, 05:23 PM, said:

1♣...2♦ is not a reverse.

That turns out not to be the case.

A reverse is an unforced bid on the second round in a suit higher ranking than the one bid on the first round. The 2♦ bid here is a reverse, by definition. What you mean is that it doesn't show the extra values that a reverse would normally be expected to show. Which, btw, would IMO make it alertable in the ACBL.

Sorry, personal pet peeve.

A "reverse" implies that you have "reversed" the normal bidding of two suits, "normal" being the higher before the lower.

The auction 1♣...2♦ shows a balanced hand (usually) with 5332 and long diamonds or possible 6322. It is no more a reverse than would 1♦...2♦ be a reverse IF that alternative auction promised a balanced or semi-balanced hand.

The key is that 1♣...2♦ only shows 2+ clubs. Thus, partner does not have the "need" to go to the three-level to return to your first, and longer, suit. There is no first and longer suit at issue.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Oct 2 2007, 02:09 AM, said:

The auction 1♣...2♦ shows a balanced hand (usually) with 5332 and long diamonds or possible 6322.  It is no more a reverse than would 1♦...2♦ be a reverse IF that alternative auction promised a balanced or semi-balanced hand.

The key is that 1♣...2♦ only shows 2+ clubs.  Thus, partner does not have the "need" to go to the three-level to return to your first, and longer, suit.  There is no first and longer suit at issue.

Personally, I agree that the 1♣ opening requires an alert. When I hear the expression "could be short" my assumption is that the 1♣ opening includes balanced patterns with a doubleton club. I can see arguments that this could (potentially) be broadened to include 4=4=4=1 patterns or some such. I don't think that Ken's methods really fall into this category. (In my mind, the main issue is the treatment of 3=3=6=2 hands and the like. In my mind, the presence of a 2♦ rebid that shows 5-6 Diamonds means that your 1♣ opening includes single suited hands with Diamonds. Simply put, you are treating hands with 5+ Diamonds differently than you are treating other balanced hands which presumably get lumped into a 1NT rebid or some such. It would be interesting to know what auctions like

1♣ - 1♦
1M

or

1♣ - 1♦
1N

show. In particular, whats you're rebid with a balanced 4=4=2=3 shape. Do you rebid in NT or do you show a 4 card major holding a balanced hand?)

I'd go so far as to say that the system should be pre-alerted. I'm played against a lot of weird *****. I certainly don't have a standard defense against this opening. I'd sure as hell appreciate the chance to reach an agreement with partner how we should defend against this message before it actually occurred.

Taking a minute to pre-alert might have saved a hell of a lot of trouble later on.

[blackshoe]

kenrexford, on Oct 1 2007, 06:09 PM, said:

A "reverse" implies that you have "reversed" the normal bidding of two suits, "normal" being the higher before the lower.

And that's what you've done. So?

The rest of your argument makes no sense whatever to me.

We can play word games if you want. If it's not a reverse, it's canapé. And that's alertable. <shrug>

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2007, 08:25 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Oct 1 2007, 06:09 PM, said:

A "reverse" implies that you have "reversed" the normal bidding of two suits, "normal" being the higher before the lower.

And that's what you've done. So?

The rest of your argument makes no sense whatever to me.

We can play word games if you want. If it's not a reverse, it's canapé. And that's alertable. <shrug>

Then you also consider 1♣=precision 1x 2♦ = natural a reverse?

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2007, 05:51 PM, said:

That whole "what are we playing against 12-15 NT" thing just boggles my mind.

Believe you me, I was boggled but good. Both of them at least bronze LMs, maybe silver. This wasn't a 199er tourney.

But you know, it would be interesting to have a tourney with rules like that, where the partner of the person making the bid would declare before the bid what the calls would mean (within a certain limited set). After all, that's what FD ends up doing, since you can look at the bids before bidding.

[kenrexford]

blackshoe, on Oct 1 2007, 09:25 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Oct 1 2007, 06:09 PM, said:

A "reverse" implies that you have "reversed" the normal bidding of two suits, "normal" being the higher before the lower.

And that's what you've done. So?

The rest of your argument makes no sense whatever to me.

We can play word games if you want. If it's not a reverse, it's canapé. And that's alertable. <shrug>

Um. OK, it's a canape.

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Oct 1 2007, 06:27 PM, said:

It would be interesting to know what auctions like

1♣ - 1♦
1M

or

1♣ - 1♦
1N

show. In particular, whats you're rebid with a balanced 4=4=2=3 shape. Do you rebid in NT or do you show a 4 card major holding a balanced hand?)

It depends upon the version.

In one version:

1♣(as stated)-P-1♦)artificial, denies 5-card major)-P-?
1M = 4-card, minor situation unknown
1NT = no 4-card major
2♣ = standard
2♦ = balanced minimum with 5-6 diamonds

In another version:

1♣(as stated)-P-1♦(Walsh)-P-?
1M = natural, unbalanced with clubs
1NT = balanced
2♣ = standard
2♦ = strong revese

In the later, Walsh version, there are some slight systemic differences, however. A 2♦ opening shows roughly 13-16 HCP's with 9+ in the minors (either one could be as short as four cards), and 1♦...2♣ shows a wild bust (10-13) minor two-suiter, which may be 2245/2254. That's a simplification, but close enough.

With the 4423 pattern, you show the major with version #1; not with version #2.

BTW, there's technically a possibility of a 5332 hand, long major, with 17-18 balanced in a sub-version of the second version, which creates even more nuances (of course).