[onoway]

♦

All red
south open 2♦ alerted as 5-5
west P
North2♥ not alerted.
We ended up in 5♣ making but were in total confusion as to what opps bidding was, and of course missed the slam.
We had no idea what the 5-5 referred to. Any suits? specific suits? One known? we were told no further info was available.
We also were astonished (when we saw it) at the ♥ bid response with that puny suit (hand!) over an alerted weak 2 bid.
What is this?

---

[the hog]

2D = 5/5 what? I guess this was Wilkosz and on this hand promised D+ a Major. So 2H is pass/correct and is the correct bid on this hand. Sure I guess it should have been alerted. The fact that you are so surprised is no doubt due to your lack of exposure to these bids - not your fault, of course, but the ACBL's. If you were playing in Australia you would find that many lols play these bids and ou would know what 2H was.

This is a typical example of how "molly coddling" players can backfire. No, Onoway, I am not criticizing you at all with this comment.

[awm]

Umm... I would say that "5-5" is pretty far from a suitable description of the Wilcosz opening. And the lack of alert/explanation of the 2♥ bid is also an issue, since the followups to Wilcosz are not necessarily intuitive (i.e. it's not really the same as responding to multi, 2♥ shows some hearts).

I know the "system snobs" out there feel that everyone (even a self-professed beginner) should be able to deal with any convention thrown at them without any pre-alert or apparently without even a descriptive alert and explanation, but in the real world most of us require at minimum some advance warning when opponents are going to throw the kitchen sink at us.

[the hog]

Wev'e been through this debate before Adam. Its got nothing to do with "system snobs". A couple of people on this forum have told me you are an experienced player. Surely if you were playing in an environment where these bids were common place, then you would have meta methods for coping. If lols can cope I don't see why you would find it hard.

Btw I agree that the explanation was wanting, and I did say that in my original post.

[helene_t]

Of course it is unacceptable that they just say "no further info available" and that they didn't alert the 2♥ bid. If you think the lack of explanation/alert was the reason why you didn't bid 6♣ (or, if matchpoints, why you didn't find the hearts fit) you should call the TD.

The discussion about the ACBL policy on systems and conventions is very interesting but we have had it hundred times before.

[mcphee]

It is difficult to police players. We have no idea where this hand took place. However, no matter where, the explanations offered are not adequate. How difficult is it for a person to offer your opp and explanation? And I am sorry to say the name of the convention is BS, no one cares what it is called, it is what it shows and the range.

It may well be the fault of the ACBL that players in NA are not familiar with defences to various 2 suiter conventions. OK covered that. Giving players ZERO chance without full disclosure is a dis service to the game. This is not a friendly situation now is it? Especially tossing this at player who are not expirienced. Failure to give proper information in cases like this should result in a "total zero" first time offenders, second time something far more serious should be considered. It is NOT FUN for newer players.

[Jim_Dandy]

Have fun.

[jillybean]

Jim_Dandy What a large ego you have!

Seems to me that the OP wants to learn rather than complain despite having a valid case to complain after the woefully inadequate explanation. Was this one of your exemplary TD decisions?

[jdonn]

Obviously south giving an awful alert was a bigger problem than north not alerting, though they both should. I think the hog and awm should both just drop this debate, starting it was stupid. No matter where you live there will be a first time to come up against anything, or are Australian players learning Wilcosz in the womb now? So obviously correct alerts should be given.

[jdonn]

Jim_Dandy, on Oct 5 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

What else do the opponants desire? The opening fits a SAYC weak two bid and thus not alertable. All west has to do is then bid the 2 hearts and likely find the heart contract. The inquiry actually showed more, that it was weak and two suited. The opponants now are likely to know more than partner.
The bottom line is that West passed a weak two bid with a good five card major. Most pairs also made 6 clubs instead of the five East made here. These players seem to be trying to make an excuse for bad bid and bad play.
http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...141495-22732777

Pretty much everything you said was wrong.
- It doesn't matter what bids the openings FITS, it matters what it SHOWS. It shows 2 suits.
- Overcalling 2♥ is a fairly terrible bid on a balanced 11 count with a mediocre suit.
- The original poster didn't seem to be whining at all, he/she is just trying to learn. Of course they should see now that a good way to learn is to ignore any post written by or tournament hosted by Jim_Dandy.

[awm]

As I understand it, the standard meaning for Wilcosz is:

2♦ opening showing at least 5-5 distribution in any two suits provided at least one of the suits is a major. Some "weak" point range (something like 4-9 or 5-10 or whatever).

The responses are geared towards finding a playable partial. Basically:

2NT is some sort of strong inquiry in order to find out which suits opener has and bid game.

2♥ is "pass or correct" but implies some hearts. If hearts are responder's shortest suit then he knows the best fit will not be in hearts since opener promises two suits. So 2♥ would typically promise moderate length there (something like 2-3 hearts at minimum, maybe more in a weak hand).

2♠ is similarly "pass or correct" suggesting that responder has short hearts and wants to play in spades (if opener has spades) or in opener's minor (if opener has hearts and a minor).

This convention is potentially pretty hard to defend, part of the difficulty coming from that fact that bids showing an "unknown two suiter" are actually pretty effective and that there are reasonable odds that opener actually holds long diamonds when opening 2♦ making a "point showing" double riskier than it would be over (for example) 2♦ multi. There are also subtleties about the response structure (for example that 2♥ promises some hearts) which are often not disclosed very well. Wilcosz is currently restricted even in the round robin stages of major international team events, but it is widely played in Poland (where it was invented) and in Australia (where coming up with crazy preempts is in fashion).

As to defending it, the easiest thing to do is probably to adopt whatever defense you use against 2♦ multi, since this is yet another 2♦ opening showing a weak hand with an unknown major suit. Likely this is not best however.

On the hand in question, I think north bid 2♥ because he was not sure his partner had diamonds (remember, Wilcosz promises any 5-5 with at least one major) so he could not take the more normal action of raising diamonds aggressively.

[onoway]

Just to exonerate the ACBL this was in a Hornets tourney, we did enquire about the bid after the tourney and got basically an insulting response, which was what led to posting in the forums.

"What else do the opponants desire? The opening fits a SAYC weak two bid and thus not alertable. All west has to do is then bid the 2 hearts and likely find the heart contract. The inquiry actually showed more, that it was weak and two suited. The opponants now are likely to know more than partner.
The bottom line is that West passed a weak two bid with a good five card major. Most pairs also made 6 clubs instead of the five East made here. These players seem to be trying to make an excuse for bad bid and bad play.
http://online.bridge...141495-22732777 "

We are making no claims to be above making mistakes in bids or play but it is no help when you have no idea what opps bids mean. I had never before run across a bid where player would respond to a pard's weak opening with a magnificent 4 hcps, for example, and it most certainly did have an effect on both bidding/play.

Also this was not an indy tourney so highly unlikely these people were unfamiliar with the bid meanings. In the years I have been playing in various tourneys on BBO I have never run across this before so very doubtful random pards try this on.

Certainly p had nice 5 card !h suit, but with both openers suit unknown it is perhaps not unreasonable to wait and see if there is a misfit. And to be sure, 6!c was there, but when floundering it is sometimes difficult to see the correct line of play. We were quite pleased that we even got to game in the circumstances, actually, and not unduly unhappy given the circumstances, with our 46+%

However, we were curious if this was actually some sort of recognized system or something these people had just dreamed up.

To make a snide comment about the fact that we only made 5 when some made 6 ( and lots either never made it to game or went down but of course that is unmentioned) says more about your attitude and competance as a person to whom queries should be directed than anything else.

Since I see now a variety of posts following the one I was responding to, thanks to all who have treated the question with respect and given us info which will be helpful if in future this comes up.

[Jim_Dandy]

Just for the record I did not know about this hand and not involved until the partner of complainer sent me an e-mail.

[NickRW]

Jim_Dandy, on Oct 5 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

Just for the record I did not know about this hand and not involved until the partner of complainer sent me an e-mail.

I don't think anyone is saying anything with regard to what your actions were at the time if you didn't know until later - obviously. It's the comment you made that the 2♦ was not alertable just because it indirectly conformed to a weak 2 - the bid wasn't anything like a normal weak 2 - it didn't even guarantee diamonds - also the play, be it good bad or indifferent, is not relevant.

Nick

[the hog]

jdonn, on Oct 6 2008, 12:38 AM, said:

I think the hog and awm should both just drop this debate, starting it was stupid.

Yeah, probably.

[matmat]

Wilkosz

[SoTired]

I think first, you should not bid until you understand what their bids mean. This is how some players get an undeserved advantage. It is bad enuf that you have no idea how to defend this oddball convention, it is totally unfair that you aren't told what the bids mean.

What suits? What strength? What is 2H? What strength? What other bids could responder bid? What strength would those bids show?

Get all the answers you need.

Actually, the 2H response helped prevent your side from getting to an unmakeable 6H contract.

[the hog]

"oddball convention". Very silly comment!
Oddball to YOU maybe, but not to those playing Polish Club