[Fluffy]

---

Dealer west.

1♣-2♣!-ps-2♠
ps-3♠-ps-4♣
ps-4♠-ps-ps
X -ps-ps-ps


First time we played after the summer, and I didn't remember if 2♣ was majors or michaels. But given that LHO had shown 3+ (best minor). I decided it has to be michaels and alerted like it.

Partner raised, and I bid 4♣ just in case (not sure if this is ethical, feel free to coment). Partner wasn't on the joke and bid 4♠ anyway knowing what was coming.

When LHO led ♣A and RHO assisted I was a bit in flames, why nobody alerted 1♣?. I got no clear anser untill the board was finished, opponent said:

-I open 1♣ because that's my best minor I don't want partner to lead a diamond.

best minor is 100% standard here. No alert= best minor.


I felt like I made a decision based on the wrong information that opponents play best minor, wich they actually do not. But obviously I am also to blame for not knowing my system right. Didnt even bother appealing this at the local, but would appealing had any merit?.

[Phil]

No club King?

I sympathize but I don't see how the failure to alert has much to do with the result.

[blackshoe]

I think you may be too hung up on the name of a convention. You name a thing, you think you know what it means. Somebody else gives the same name to a slightly different thing, and you have a communication problem. That's why many (most?) jurisdictions' regulations deprecate "explaining" a call or play by naming a convention or treatment.

If their agreement is that they open the better minor, and the agreement calls for the suit opened to be at least three cards, then the fact that dealer opened this hand 1♣ this time with only two clubs does not necessarily indicate that his partner should have alerted. Sure, if there's partnership experience indicating that a hand like this would do so, then an alert is indicated - if the alert regulations in place require it. But absent some evidence of that, the "failure to alert" alleged here is probably no such thing.

I have no idea what "RHO assisted" means.

Other than that, I agree with Phil. It'd be nice to know which of the 29 x's in those hands is actually the ♣K, and I don't see much impact from any putative MI on the result.

Bidding 4♣ "just in case" if by that phrase you mean "just in case partner has clubs" is, it seems to me, clearly unethical.

"Majors or Michaels"? I think you meant "natural or Michaels", or perhaps "natural or both majors", no?

[bluejak]

While true, Ed, names cause trouble, we often have potential MI cases where names are used. Here it is described as "best minor". Sure, it should not be, but it was. Were N/S misinformed? Yes, in my view: it is hardly their fault that the opponents used the name of a convention, and got the name wrong.

Quote

Best minor is 100% standard here. No alert= best minor.

And here is where? Please would opening posters give their jurisdiction [or say 'online'].

In England there is a very common method called "better minor" which is nothing of the sort. Playing five-card majors, players open 1♣ with three+ cards, and 1♦ is opened on three cards specifically with a 4=4=3=2 shape. "Convenient minor" is a sensible, correct, and very ugly name I have heard used, but a very large number of people call this "Better minor" when it is nothing of the sort.

Note: I like to use the idea that if I say a hand is 4441 or 4-4-4-1 the suits can be in any order, but if I say 4=5=3=1 that is in order, ie 4 spades, 5 hearts and 3 diamonds.

[Pig Trader]

Quote

I open 1♣ because that's my best minor I don't want partner to lead a diamond.

The evidence here is that West will routinely open a doubleton minor so the partnership should be alerting.

Barrie

[blackshoe]

The evidence is that he opened on a doubleton minor on this hand. You'll need more evidence to convince me he does it routinely — and that his partner knows it.

Very many people play a convention called Marx: a response of 2♣ to a 1NT opening which asks if the opener has a 4 card major. Unfortunately, almost all these people mistakenly think the name of this convention is "Stayman", and so describe it on their system cards, in their notes, and in their explanations to opponents.

One man's "convenient minor" is another's "better minor". What else is new?

[duschek]

bluejak, on Sep 17 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

Note: I like to use the idea that if I say a hand is 4441 or 4-4-4-1 the suits can be in any order, but if I say 4=5=3=1 that is in order, ie 4 spades, 5 hearts and 3 diamonds.

I believe the WBF convention card guidelines specifies writing 4531 for "4 spades, 5 hearts, 3 diamonds, and 1 club", and (4531) for any ordering of suits.

Personally, I believe in using as few syntax conventions as possible, so I have decided to stick with that.

Certainly, I do not approve of the convention introduced in a Danish book on, erm..., conventions, where 4-5-3-1 means any ordering and 4-5-3-1 (in italics) means specific ordering. That is very hard to recognize when reading printed or on-screen material, and impossible to reproduce in hand-writing. I can hardly imagine that style gaining a large following.

[mjj29]

duschek, on Sep 18 2009, 01:34 AM, said:

I believe the WBF convention card guidelines specifies writing 4531 for "4 spades, 5 hearts, 3 diamonds, and 1 club", and (4531) for any ordering of suits.

Any time I don't write them in descending order then I'm specifying them in the order SHDC, so 4513 would always be specfic but 5431 would not be. In the rare cases where I happen to have them in descending order, then I do something else

[jeremy69]

Quote

In England there is a very common method called "better minor" which is nothing of the sort. Playing five-card majors, players open 1♣ with three+ cards, and 1♦ is opened on three cards specifically with a 4=4=3=2 shape. "Convenient minor" is a sensible, correct, and very ugly name I have heard used, but a very large number of people call this "Better minor" when it is nothing of the sort.

You may be right but on occasions when I've played in French tournaments that is precisely what the opponents have meant by "meilleur mineur"

[Fluffy]

Phil, on Sep 17 2009, 10:56 PM, said:

No club King?

I sympathize but I don't see how the failure to alert has much to do with the result.

Sorry ♣K felt on the right on first trick

[Fluffy]

RHO assisted is a bad translation of she followed, in fact she did with the King.

RHO told me her partner does this but she would never open with 3 cards at least. They ahve played together the last 16 years at least. And never play with anyone else.

best minor, or better minor, "mejor menor" is what its played here, in Madrid, with 3-2 you open the 3 carder, with 33 clubs, with 44 diamonds.


Blackshoe can you elaborate on why 4♣ is unethical? I have no UI from partner just trying to cover a different option. I just wanna know, I don't doubt you are right.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Sep 18 2009, 06:30 AM, said:

Very many people play a convention called Marx: a response of 2♣ to a 1NT opening which asks if the opener has a 4 card major. Unfortunately, almost all these people mistakenly think the name of this convention is "Stayman", and so describe it on their system cards, in their notes, and in their explanations to opponents. 

One man's "convenient minor" is another's "better minor". What else is new?

The difference of course is that better minor and convenient minor are descriptive, while calling it Stayman because George Rapee invented it at about the same time as Jack Marx is merely confusing.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on Sep 18 2009, 07:38 AM, said:

Blackshoe can you elaborate on why 4♣ is unethical? I have no UI from partner just trying to cover a different option. I just wanna know, I don't doubt you are right.

Are you sure you have no UI? Why did you think it necessary to cover yourself in case partner had clubs?

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on Sep 18 2009, 09:00 AM, said:

Fluffy, on Sep 18 2009, 07:38 AM, said:

Blackshoe can you elaborate on why 4♣ is unethical? I have no UI from partner just trying to cover a different option. I just wanna know, I don't doubt you are right.

Are you sure you have no UI? Why did you think it necessary to cover yourself in case partner had clubs?

Because he was unsure that the explanation he gave was correct, as he said.

I know partners sometimes react with a shocked expression or an inordinately long pause for thought, or similar when you give an incorrect explanation, but we know what to do in that case, so let's assume there's been no such reaction.

I don't see anything unethical in catering for the possibility of a misunderstanding, as in this case (although the opposition often don't see it that way). Of course, I'm not saying that Fluffy has immunity from prosecution if the director decides they actually had no agreement and that he has misinformed his opponents, but in that case the TD will adjust the score to rectify any damage. (The TD may even use such action as evidence that there was no agreement.)

I recall once playing with a novice and agreeing to play red suit transfers over 1NT. An auction started 1NT (X) 2♥ and I had no idea whether she intended it as a transfer (as many people in the club play over a double) or a weak take out.

I alerted (as required at the time) and passed it out, as I had four hearts and two spades, thinking this would limit the damage if it turned out I had guessed wrong. The opponents were none too pleased, but I don't think I had done anything unethical.

[blackshoe]

I think that if you are going to act on the assumption that partner's call is one of two possibilities, you need to disclose both those possibilities to the opponents.

[bluejak]

There was a short-lived EBU regulation on a similar point. It was got rid of because it was demonstrated to be illegal, but while various people used the normal terms ["disgrace", "unhelpful", "EBU causing trouble" and so on] in practice I still think it had a lot going for it.

The bidding goes (1NT) dbl (2♥) ? to you, and LHO alerts 2♥: you ask, and he tells you that it might be a transfer, or it might be hearts. Your call?

No, I am not telling you what your hand is, but just consider the following: what does dbl mean, what does 2♠ mean, and what does 3♥ mean?

This post has been edited by bluejak: 2009-September-18, 14:54

[RMB1]

bluejak, on Sep 18 2009, 07:38 PM, said:

The bidding goes (1NT) dbl (2♥) ? to you, and LHO alerts 2♥: you ask, and he tells you that it might be a transfer, or it might be hearts.  Your call?

There can be two problems here.

1NT (X) 2♥ [= ♥ or ♠] is difficult to deal with whether it is an explicit agreement or an implicit (lack of) agreement. The fact that partnerships that have not got an agreement are making the auction difficult for both sides is IMO unavoidable, once the explicit agreement is a permitted agreement.

The other problem is that the implicit (lack of) agreement can be described in various ways: "no agreement, everyone we play with plays this as natural or transfer", "natural, but we used to play it as transfer", "transfer, but partner forgets", etc. It is then difficult for the opponents to know what agreement has been explained, and whether the should treat 2♥ as "natural", or "transfer", or "either major".

To return to the earlier sequence (1♣)2♣-2♠, 3♠-4♣. The problem with bidding 4♣ is that it may provide evidence of an implicit understanding that 2♣=natural or majors. This understanding may not be a permitted agreement (depending on what 1♣ was) and you may have misinformed the opponents.

Robin

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2009-September-18, 16:14

[barmar]

Fluffy, on Sep 17 2009, 06:41 PM, said:

First time we played after the summer, and I didn't remember if 2♣ was majors or michaels.

Michaels is majors when the opening is a minor. Or is the name Michaels used for something else where you play? Or maybe you meant to say that you couldn't remember if it was natural or Michaels.

I think that most play that if they want to show a real club suit of their own, they jump overcall 3♣ immediately with a preemptive hand. With a good hand like this case, they pass on the first round and bid ♣ naturally later if they get a chance.

[duschek]

bluejak, on Sep 18 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

There was a short-lived EBU regulation on a similar point.  It was got rid of because it was demonstrated to be illegal

As I am unsure whether there could be similar problems in Danish regulations or practice, could I ask you to unveil the wording of the EBU ex-regulation, and the reasoning that led to the conclusion that it was illegal?

[bluejak]

Quote

3 B 10 If a player has knowledge that partner tends to forget a particular agreement that tendency must neither be disclosed nor acted upon. This is an exception to the principle explained in 3 A 2 and is a change in policy with this Orange Book.