[rbforster]

I play a number of unusual methods and consequently me and my partner often alert these unusual bids when they come up. We are happy to tell our opponents all the details, but they don't always know to ask and worse yet often assume the bid means something very different from how we play it. This can lead to messy situations.

Here are several examples -

1. We sit down, prealert our light openings, and mention that we play a strong club system. I open 2♦, which we play as a weak bid showing 5+♦ and a 4+ major. Partner alerts (even though it's not clear this is alertable). LHO with a good hand assumes this is a precision 2♦ (10-15 3 suited short diamonds) but doesn't ask and (trap?) passes. My partner raises to 3♦ preemptively (but which would be some sort of strong hand in precision) and they pass out their cold game in my other major.

2. We play overcall structure, which has non-standard meanings for 2NT and cuebid overcalls. For example, 1♦-(2♦) shows hearts and clubs for us, not both majors. To make this situation worse, I don't think we're even technically supposed to (are allowed to?) alert cuebids. So after 1♦-(2♦*) the opponents are going to have a hard time finding their spades unless they ask.

3. Similarly to #2, we play that 1♠-(2NT*) shows a very strong two suiter with diamonds and another. The opponents aren't going to be too happy to find out overcaller could have hearts after already bidding 3♥ NF (unusual vs unusual style). I don't think a "normal" 2NT for the minors is alertable so in principle they should know to ask and expect something strange (since we alerted), but I didn't know this distinction until I just looked it up and I'm sure many people mistakenly alert the normal "unusual 2NT" for the minors too.

4. We open 1NT, announced 10-12. Partner responds 2♥, a natural signoff (but not alertable). Opponents assume we forgot to say "transfer" rather than ask.


How do people address this general issue, as a matter of practice and within the ACBL rules?

What happens when the first opponent makes the wrong assumption and bids assuming the "natural" meaning, then later in the auction the second opponent asks and receives the conventional explanation. Should the second opponent now bid assuming his partner now knows the new meaning, but that their partner's first possibly conventional bid was made without that knowledge?

Suppose the opponents are have two different conventional defenses (and followups) and for the two cases (i.e. #1 vs the "standard" meaning of our bid, and #2 vs our convention). Without asking asking about our alert, the first opponent makes a conventional bid under system #1. His bid is alerted as appropriate under system #1, and now the second opponent asks and obtains the explanation of our bid. Should he now bid under system #2, to the extent this is feasible/reasonable? Should the first opponent alert his partner's conventional bid under system #1 or system #2? Even if he doesn't have an agreement on which system they play under this informational mixup, he might know that either meaning of partner's response would be non-natural and hence alertable?

[helene_t]

I think you meet your obligations and wouldn't be too worried about opps who just assume that you forgot to say "transfer" and that your direct cuebid is Michael's.

If you want to do something about it, you could put on the front page of your CC (do you have this "agreements of special concern to opponents" field on your CC?) the remark that
- Our two-suited overcalls are non-standard
- No transfers in response to a 1NT opening

As for the 2♦ opening, I think you must alert it, and opps are really silly if they don't ask or look at the CC. 2♦ can mean a thousand different thing, whether one plays Precision or something else.

[david_c]

Rob F, on Apr 17 2008, 11:17 AM, said:

How do people address this general issue, as a matter of practice and within the ACBL rules? 

For these examples I don't think there's much you can do about it. Particularly in 1, 3 and 4, it's extremely stupid of opponents not to ask. In number 2 I have more sympathy for them. (You might try alerting this one.)

Sometimes a pre-alert can help, but you can't do that for all the obscure parts of the system. I don't think it would help much here. And of course you should have a convention card, but if they don't ask questions they probably don't look at CCs either

If you follow the alerting rules then you cannot be criticised. If something goes wrong then it's either the opponents' fault, or the fault of the people who made the rules. If it's possible to be more helpful then by all means do that, but sometimes it just isn't possible - and then you shouldn't worry that you're doing anything wrong.

Quote

What happens when the first opponent makes the wrong assumption and bids assuming the "natural" meaning, then later in the auction the second opponent asks and receives the conventional explanation. Should the second opponent now bid assuming his partner now knows the new meaning, but that their partner's first possibly conventional bid was made without that knowledge?

There is UI here: the second opponent is not allowed to use the fact that partner might not have known the meaning. Loosely speaking, he's supposed to assume that partner knew all along.

Quote

Suppose the opponents are have two different conventional defenses (and followups) and for the two cases (i.e. #1 vs the "standard" meaning of our bid, and #2 vs our convention). Without asking asking about our alert, the first opponent makes a conventional bid under system #1. His bid is alerted as appropriate under system #1, and now the second opponent asks and obtains the explanation of our bid. Should he now bid under system #2, to the extent this is feasible/reasonable? Should the first opponent alert his partner's conventional bid under system #1 or system #2? Even if he doesn't have an agreement on which system they play under this informational mixup, he might know that either meaning of partner's response would be non-natural and hence alertable?

They are obliged to explain system #2 to you, since this is what they have agreed that their bids meant (even if they didn't realise it when they made them!) Arguably they should also explain system #1 if you ask. If it's unclear which system their partner was using, they are not supposed to tell you their guess as to what partner was thinking.

[Codo]

Sorry I don´t get it.

This is offline bridge and you play a highly unusual method.

So you surely have a CC and the opps are able to read it.
Besides this, you prealert and give some examples.

So, what should you do more? Nothing.

Besides: I don't know about ACBL, but here in Germany, all your examples must surely be alerted.

[Ant590]

I've been peeved recently against one pair who vs. our artificial 1♦ opening (showing hearts, frequently canape) seem to play a direct 2♦ as Michaels and a question then 2♦ as a natural diamond suit!

[rbforster]

david_c, on Apr 17 2008, 06:04 AM, said:

If you follow the alerting rules then you cannot be criticised. If something goes wrong then it's either the opponents' fault, or the fault of the people who made the rules. If it's possible to be more helpful then by all means do that, but sometimes it just isn't possible - and then you shouldn't worry that you're doing anything wrong.

Yeah I kind of figured this. I just felt bad for some of the opponents at the club game when they had disasters against us. We're happy to explain everything, but the rules don't let us sometimes (since the rules are more worried about us reminding our partner about special meanings than actively disclosing these to the opponents).

[david_c]

Ant590, on Apr 17 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

I've been peeved recently against one pair who vs. our artificial 1♦ opening (showing hearts, frequently canape) seem to play a direct 2♦ as Michaels and a question then 2♦ as a natural diamond suit!

Only one pair? You're lucky!

[TimG]

Rob F, on Apr 17 2008, 05:17 AM, said:

2. We play overcall structure, which has non-standard meanings for 2NT and cuebid overcalls. For example, 1♦-(2♦) shows hearts and clubs for us, not both majors. To make this situation worse, I don't think we're even technically supposed to (are allowed to?) alert cuebids.

I believe that you can and should alert this cue-bid. Occasionally you will find an opponent who insists that no cue-bids are alertable, but he is wrong.

It sounds to me like you are doing what you should to properly disclose your methods. You shouldn't worry too much about opponents who don't ask when they should or assume incorrectly.

[manudude03]

I played against a pair last year who had a 1C opener with different meanings depending on whether or not they self-alerted (and this is without screens).

They opened 1C NV which got self-alerted, partner explained it as denying an opening hand. I make a penalty pass, partner balances with double which gets passed out and taken for 800 (opener had JT9xxx in clubs and got 2 club tricks and an ace in dummy) and after the hand found out we had 35 combined.

Next hand, they open 1C again NV, but this time its not alerted. I ask to make sure and got told it was a natural opener with at least 11 points. Needless to say we called TD to hopefully get some more balance in the score, they were simply told to just use the natural meaning always.

By this stage, we were both thinking we were losing 5 imps or so. However, our comphensation came at the other table where they had a bidding disaster and stopped in 2D with their 35 CPC (I think 1 opened an art. strong 2D and the other thought it was weak) making 10 tricks (3-3 fit with diamonds splitting 5-2) so we gained 12 imps anyway

If you really want to know this was in the Irish Schools Teams where very few of the players know that partner alerts the artificial bids.

As for the actual topic, if you've alerted it then the opps can't complain.

[jillybean]

Re your last paragraph; The 2nd opponent is not allowed to ask about any 1 specific bid but may have the entire auction restated at his turn to call. Call the TD

Do your opposition have the opportunity to plan defense, follow ups against your methods before play starts?

[pclayton]

1. A Precision 2♦ isn't universal in a strong club setting. Some play it as diamonds, multi, Roman and others. They shouldn't assume anything.

2. Alert the OS cue bid. I've had several directors tell this is appropriate.

3. The fact you are alerting 2N should be enough to convey its an unusual meaning. You can't do more.

4. This one is laughable. 2M is frequently played as natural opposite any weak NT.

I've heard of saying "SPECIAL ALERT" when you alert a call that is unusual in nature and is unexpected even if it is alerted. We used to do this with the OS cuebid before Michaels cuebids became non-alertable.

[blackshoe]

"Special Alert" was an ACBL procedure years ago. It is no longer valid.

You should disclose as your SO requires you to disclose. You are not required to protect your opponents from their own stupidity.

[jeffford76]

Regardless of whether it "should" be alertable, the ACBL is quite clear about the 1D -2D auction:

EXAMPLE: 1D-2D
If the 2 bid shows the majors (Michaels), clubs and spades (top/bottom) or some other two-suiter (not including diamonds, no Alert is required.

(From http://www.acbl.org/...procedures.html)

[PassedOut]

At the Atlanta DBC several years back my partner and I had agreed that a negative double of 1♥ would deny 4 spades, and that we would simply bid 1♠ with 4 cards.

Partner opened 1♦, my RHO overcalled 1♥, and I doubled. Partner alerted, and the opponents did not ask, but they immediately called the director when I tabled a 9-point 3=3=3=4 hand with no heart stopper. My partner explained that he would have given a full explanation if asked about his alert.

The club director simply said, "Your negative double must show four spades." The contract, lead, and result were normal, so nothing was adjusted. We went back to the standard agreement.

[pclayton]

jeffford76, on Apr 17 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

Regardless of whether it "should" be alertable, the ACBL is quite clear about the 1D -2D auction:

EXAMPLE: 1D-2D
If the 2 bid shows the majors (Michaels), clubs and spades (top/bottom) or some other two-suiter (not including diamonds, no Alert is required.

(From http://www.acbl.org/...procedures.html)

I'm well aware of the regulations. What I'm telling you is that opponents appreciate the alert, and the directors I have spoken to use the 'unexpected' criteria for whether or not this is alerted.

There doesn't seem to be a penalty for alerting these calls either. Or at least one I can find.

[Apollo81]

I suggest you alert every unusual bid in accordance with ACBL's "practice active ethics" policy regardless of whether or an alert is required. Also if you're playing a team event you'll probably want to let them know that a lot of your alerts that look standard aren't. I wouldn't bother with this latter bid in a pair game since opps change so frequently -- their responsibility to ask.

[jtfanclub]

Ant590, on Apr 17 2008, 06:37 AM, said:

I've been peeved recently against one pair who vs. our artificial 1♦ opening (showing hearts, frequently canape) seem to play a direct 2♦ as Michaels and a question then 2♦ as a natural diamond suit!

I actually wrote to the ACBL Bulletin about that. The reply from the editor of the Bulletin was "You think that's bad? You should see the four-way method my opponents use!". I wouldn't go so far as to say blatant cheating against Precision is encouraged...at least, not somewhere I could be quoted.

As far as the other stuff goes, the most you could possibly do is create UI for your partner, which you won't since he knows that stuff anyways. For example, our 1NT overcalls are 12-15. We just announce "12-15" at the table. Nobody's complained yet, and if they do, well, I guess we'll stop for that tourney but they aren't going to get any redress.

[TimG]

Ant590, on Apr 17 2008, 06:37 AM, said:

I've been peeved recently against one pair who vs. our artificial 1♦ opening (showing hearts, frequently canape) seem to play a direct 2♦ as Michaels and a question then 2♦ as a natural diamond suit!

A new entry for the ACBL's Defense Database!

Seriously, at least be happy that you are allowed to play the method...

[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on Apr 17 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

We went back to the standard agreement.

Your choice, of course. But if the director meant what he said literally, this is one of the 6 billion errors club TDs make every day.

[awm]

There is a simple answer: pre-alert.

It seems clear you are in fact a system which may be unfamiliar to opponents (as mentioned on the ACBL alert procedures page).

If your pre-alert is "we play a strong club and open very light" then opponents will (reasonably) assume that you play something like precision. I'd recommend pre-alerting something like "we open very light and play a number of unusual methods which may be unfamiliar to you; you may want to look at our card or ask about our alerted bids."

In fact I have never understood why ACBL directors do not require a pre-alert for overcall structure, since it seems very much the case that this is a method unfamiliar to many opponents, and the part of the card where it is mentioned is not the "front of card" that is most frequently glanced at, and people who play it have (often gleefully) described wins that accrue from opponents not being prepared for the methods and not being on the same wavelength as to how they defend them (or trying to redouble after 1nt for takeout is bid).