[Fluffy]

ACBL has crazy rules for many things, it is completelly unthinkable around herefor someone to be penaliced on any way for alerting. Have you seen penalties for alerting ever?

[ArtK78]

Fluffy, on Nov 2 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

ACBL has crazy rules for many things, it is completelly unthinkable around herefor someone to be penaliced on any way for alerting. Have you seen penalties for alerting ever?

No one said anything about being penalized for alerting.

We were only commenting about what was alertable and what was not alertable.

[Fluffy]

yeah but my point is, who cares? if there will be no penalties oyu can do whatever

[Mbodell]

ArtK78, on Nov 2 2009, 12:56 PM, said:

In the context we are discussing, it would be unexpected that the pass in 1♠ - X - XX - Pass would be for penalty. I would be surprised if more than 2% of players who are "experienced tournament players" (there is that fuzzy language again) would play this pass for penalty (and I am being generous with the 2%).

I agree. But I think the more interesting one is 1m-X-XX-P. I've scored at least one very good board from that pass being penalty, as rare as it is.

[pretzalz]

I really don't understand pass being anything but a desire to defend. Why can't with no clear direction you just bid 1N? Or is 1N supposed to be natural with the opponents forced to double? The issue isn't that pass is frequent[though I think perhaps since two people have expressed shortness in spades as XX usually denies a fit, the odds are better that 4th hand has some spade length], but that the hand is otherwise unbiddable. If 4th hand has QJT985 xx Kxx xx would you rather be playing a seven card fit at the 1 level or another 7 card fit for which this hand might take 1 trick at the 2-level.

Perhaps I've seen partner struggle to down 1 after a misunderstanding pass out of 1SXX playing his 5-1 with with 22 points one two many time to be afraid of defending when I actually have the goods.

Travis

[kenberg]

As near as I can recall, I have never had an agreement to play the pass of XX as penalties,. If I am the doubler, and if we have had no discussion, I assmue partner's pass is "You are on your own, and good luck to you". I can well imagine some sensible use of 1NT in coordinating an escape over 1SXX (eg:I have two four card suits, bid clubs if you have four, and I'll convert to diamonds if I have the reds) but I have no such agreement with any partner.


However: The above discussion, I think, makes it clear that "alert unexpected meanings" is an approach that needs to be rethought. There are bridge players, and many of them are directors, who are quite certain what every bid means and believe that anyone who bids differently should at least alert and maybe pre-alet this "unexpected" approach that is different from theirs. The rule as it stands gives them more power than I believe they should have to enforce their bidding preferences.


I know the topic was the XX, but I am still in shock over the 1S-pass-2C-2S-X

As the spade opener, over 2S, I would do the following:

With AQJTxx, bid 3S. Partner's stiff K would be support.

With AQJ9x, double. Partner's Kx would be support.

With KJxxx I would pass or support clubs or someting, depending, but not double.

Anyone is entitled to his opinion that this is a crazy approach to bidding, but it goes too far to say that partner must alert my pass as discouraging a spade lead if that is the call I choose.

I will content myself with saying I think this is nuts, and then relax and not push it further.

[barmar]

Fluffy, on Nov 2 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

yeah but my point is, who cares? if there will be no penalties oyu can do whatever

Alerting a non-alertable is UI for partner. Although UI in itself is not an infraction, and it's rare for this to be penalized, it can create ethically difficult situations if partner had forgotten what your agreement was, and the alert or its explanation woke him up.

The alert regulation does say "If you're not sure, alert." Since the rules about doubles and redoubles are fuzzy, I recommend that you alert any questionable case. But where the regulations are clear, please try to follow them. And I think they're pretty clear about not alerting negative inferences, such as failure to make a support double.

[barmar]

pretzalz, on Nov 3 2009, 02:52 AM, said:

I really don't understand pass being anything but a desire to defend. Why can't with no clear direction you just bid 1N? Or is 1N supposed to be natural with the opponents forced to double? The issue isn't that pass is frequent[though I think perhaps since two people have expressed shortness in spades as XX usually denies a fit, the odds are better that 4th hand has some spade length], but that the hand is otherwise unbiddable. If 4th hand has QJT985 xx Kxx xx would you rather be playing a seven card fit at the 1 level or another 7 card fit for which this hand might take 1 trick at the 2-level.

How often do you actually get that hand? Much more likely is having a flat hand, and wanting the pass the buck back to the doubler. Ideally a takeout double has equal support for all the unbid suits, but that's pretty rare. If the auction goes 1min-X-XX, and you're 3-3 or 4-4 in the majors, wouldn't you like to be able to get partner to bid his 4-card major?

Sure, you could use 1NT for this, but then you're forced to play at the 2 level.

In any case, the question is about alerting, not whether an agreement is reasonable. Most people play the pass as passing the buck to the doubler, not as a desire to defend, so the latter meaning would be unexpected. Therefore, it should be alerted.

[pretzalz]

barmar, on Nov 3 2009, 08:36 AM, said:

pretzalz, on Nov 3 2009, 02:52 AM, said:

I really don't understand pass being anything but a desire to defend.  Why can't with no clear direction you just bid 1N?  Or is 1N supposed to be natural with the opponents forced to double?  The issue isn't that pass is frequent[though I think perhaps since two people have expressed shortness in spades as XX usually denies a fit, the odds are better that 4th hand has some spade length], but that the hand is otherwise unbiddable.  If 4th hand has QJT985 xx Kxx xx would you rather be playing a seven card fit at the 1 level or another 7 card fit for which this hand might take 1 trick at the 2-level.

How often do you actually get that hand? Much more likely is having a flat hand, and wanting the pass the buck back to the doubler.

a) I was clearly talking about 1S-X-XX so silently switching to 1C-X-XX is slightly disingenuous, but no big deal
If the goal is to play something undoubled or be taken off the hook, I'd rather confidently feign a fit then advertise weakness. If 4th hand is 4-4 than playing the 4-3 instead of the 4-4 is frequently not a disaster.
c) a crude simulation suggests that after 1C-X-XX 4th hand will have 6+ clubs 5-10% of the time depending on your assumptions. Your view of the frequencies is clouded by the fact that the auction in the first place isn't that common.

[ArtK78]

pretzalz, on Nov 3 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

c) a crude simulation suggests that after 1C-X-XX 4th hand will have 6+ clubs 5-10% of the time depending on your assumptions.  Your view of the frequencies is clouded by the fact that the auction in the first place isn't that common.

While I admit that having 6+ clubs would give one a preference (even a desire) for defending 1♣xx rather than bidding anything else, (a) I find it hard to believe that it is true that this would occur as often as 5-10% of the time and (b ) that doesn't guarantee a successful defense to 1♣xx. Presumably, the opponents have all or all but one of the outstanding trump as well as a majority of the high card strength.

That is not to say that 1♣xx may not be your best spot, even if it makes. But I would not design my system around such a rare occurrence.

[barmar]

pretzalz, on Nov 3 2009, 10:58 AM, said:

a) I was clearly talking about 1S-X-XX so silently switching to 1C-X-XX is slightly disingenuous, but no big deal

I didn't think most players would have different agreements about what passing the redouble means, depending on opener's suit. But I also see how 1NT would be a "free" bid when opener bids 1♠, since it doesn't force you any higher than the original double did. And if opener had bid 1♥, and you don't have spades, it's available to ask doubler to bid his better minor -- it's kind of like a responsive re-redouble.

So it's certainly a useful agreement, and then allows pass to be used to suggest defending. But I still don't think it's common enough to not require an alert of the pass, especially if its meaning varies depending on original suit.

Quote

If 4th hand is 4-4 than playing the 4-3 instead of the 4-4 is frequently not a disaster.

When the other side has the majority of the strength, playing in your best fit may be really important.

And often when 4th hand has no preference, it's not because he's 4-4, but because he's 4333, with 4 of opener's suit. Now it's critical to pass the buck to the doubler, lest you end up in a 3-3 fit.

[kenberg]

Well, with the four triple three, if opener has spades, you just bid 1NT and pass the response. You may well end a 4-3 fit when a 4-4 fit was available, but you won't end in 3-3. If opener started with 1H it's a little trickier. With three spades you can try 1S. Should be a 4-3 but that's just should.

But then must we alert the 1S as could be on 3??? I hope not. Alert: Partner thinks we are in deep stuff and is doing the best he can.

My various partners' views to the contrary, I am not a beginner. But few of us spend a lot of time discussing how many spades would be shown by that spade bid. Meckwell may have 800 pages of system notes, or however many it is, but I don't. In situations such as this, I do the best I can, so does partner, I may have an opinion about what he intends, that opinion may well come from looking at my hand, and I think it really goes against the spirit of the game to call a director over and say "I didn't expect that, they should have alerted". I'm am delighted when partner tables anything remotely resembling what I thought his bidding showed.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on Nov 2 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

yeah but my point is, who cares? if there will be no penalties oyu can do whatever

If you alert a call, and it turns out it was not alertable, there is no problem. If you fail to alert a call, and it should have been alerted, there is definitely a probelm. There might not be a penalty, but you might well get an adverse score adjustment.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Nov 3 2009, 07:33 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Nov 2 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

yeah but my point is, who cares? if there will be no penalties oyu can do whatever

If you alert a call, and it turns out it was not alertable, there is no problem. If you fail to alert a call, and it should have been alerted, there is definitely a probelm. There might not be a penalty, but you might well get an adverse score adjustment.

Fluffy's comment was in reference to the earlier post that said "have you ever seen anyone penalized for alerting?" So failure to alert isn't relevant. We all know that that's more serious.