[OleBerg]

Just trying to raise some heat.


Assume I am in a teammatch, of at least three sessions.

Playing against pair A in the first session, the bidding goes:

(1♣) - Pass - (1♠) - 1NT

1NT showed the unbid suits.

After the first session, my partner and I decide to change the meaning of such a bid to 16-18 balanced. In session three, we face pair A again.

Are we required to notify our opponents of this change?

(This is theoretical, so I am not interested in what would be fair, courteous or the like.)


I am initially assuming that the CC's required for the tournament, does not have a field for this sequence, and that the organizing body has not required such things to be described on the CC.

But as a bonus question; what if it is on the CC, and has been changed? Would we then be required to inform our opponents?


And a last bonus question:

I have probably spelled courteous wrong. Does the word even exist? And how is it spelled?

[blackshoe]

courteous |ˈkərtēəs|
adjective
polite, respectful, or considerate in manner.

You are required to disclose your methods iaw the requirements of your RA. No regulation of which I'm aware requires you to inform an opponent that you have changed your methods since you last saw him.

If it is on the CC (even if there isn't, for example, a checkbox for this particular call, there should be a place you can put it), then that is, again AFAIK, sufficient everywhere. Opponents are, in most places, expected to examine your CC when they sit down. If they don't (for example, ACBL players rarely do) that's their problem. Again, there's no requirement to inform them you've changed your card.

[mrdct]

In Australia you would most definately be required to alert 1NT if it came up in the 2nd segment as the alerting regulations here require you to alert anything that your opponents may not expect that isn't otherwise self-alerting. Your opponents can't possibly be expected to know that you have changed your methods during the break.

Irrespective of jurisdiction I would suggest that you need to somehow inform your opponents under the general principle of full disclosure which could be achieved by simply telling them at the start of the segment, but given the low frequency of the auction I think it would probably be best to just alert it if it comes up.

[mjj29]

Wait, isn't 1NT alertable if it shows the minors and not if it's natural? Surely the lack of alert the second time round is sufficient notice?

[shyams]

mrdct, on Jun 24 2010, 05:33 AM, said:

In Australia you would most definately be required to alert 1NT if it came up in the 2nd segment as the alerting regulations here require you to alert anything that your opponents may not expect that isn't otherwise self-alerting. Your opponents can't possibly be expected to know that you have changed your methods during the break.

Irrespective of jurisdiction I would suggest that you need to somehow inform your opponents under the general principle of full disclosure which could be achieved by simply telling them at the start of the segment, but given the low frequency of the auction I think it would probably be best to just alert it if it comes up.

Totally agree with the principle described here.

Regardless of whether the call is alertable per se (e.g. a natural 1NT is not ideally alertable), I would think the logical thing to do would be to alert / inform opponents in an active way.

Merely updating one's CC and hoping the opps will refer to it can hardly be called active.

[mjj29]

shyams, on Jun 24 2010, 04:03 AM, said:

mrdct, on Jun 24 2010, 05:33 AM, said:

In Australia you would most definately be required to alert 1NT if it came up in the 2nd segment as the alerting regulations here require you to alert anything that your opponents may not expect that isn't otherwise self-alerting.  Your opponents can't possibly be expected to know that you have changed your methods during the break.

Irrespective of jurisdiction I would suggest that you need to somehow inform your opponents under the general principle of full disclosure which could be achieved by simply telling them at the start of the segment, but given the low frequency of the auction I think it would probably be best to just alert it if it comes up.

Totally agree with the principle described here.

Regardless of whether the call is alertable per se (e.g. a natural 1NT is not ideally alertable), I would think the logical thing to do would be to alert / inform opponents in an active way.

Merely updating one's CC and hoping the opps will refer to it can hardly be called active.

I'd mention it beforehand (perhaps in general if we'd changed a lot) and not alert. Certainly if I know you played that as minors and it went 1H-P-1S-1N (alert) I'd think "oh, yes, it's not natural, they play it as the minors" and then not ask.

[Cyberyeti]

I wondered about this one also, had a situation where opponents played an extremely nebulous 1C opener with 0+ cards and a really complicated system of transfers to disentangle it. We normally overcall fairly soundly, and felt it would be an idea to try to mess these auctions around more than usual. Our card simply says that one level overcalls are natural, may be 4 cards at 1 level which stays true. Do we have to advise the opps of the change of style ? particularly if they've asked during a previous set ?

[nige1]

mjj29, on Jun 24 2010, 02:37 AM, said:

Wait, isn't 1NT alertable if it shows the minors and not if it's natural? Surely the lack of alert the second time round is sufficient notice?

Agree that this really is a theoretical problem. Sensible regulations mandate an alert unless 1N is natural. But in almost all jurisdictions, one meaning is alertable and the other is not.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

No regulation of which I'm aware requires you to inform an opponent that you have changed your methods since you last saw him.

Um, someone please find the thread where Fred's opponents in the Spingold switched to penalty doubles sometime during a break between sets.

[peachy]

Phil, on Jun 24 2010, 10:04 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

No regulation of which I'm aware requires you to inform an opponent that you have changed your methods since you last saw him.

Um, someone please find the thread where Fred's opponents in the Spingold switched to penalty doubles sometime during a break between sets.

It was not as simple as that, IIRC. and with advance submission of systems etc. it complicates matters a bit more. But let the thread speak for itself when someone links it.

[bluejak]

There was certainly a row in the World Championship where if I remember rightly the Poles altered their CC going into the last set against [I think] Iceland because they had changed their CC from 'Psyches: Very Rare' to 'Psyches: Frequent'. It was made clear that while they had to tell opponents of the change - which is why I think it relevant to this thread - there were considered other problems with it.

[blackshoe]

Quote

(This is theoretical, so I am not interested in what would be fair, courteous or the like.)

That's from the original post. I agree that it would be fair, courteous, and actively ethical to pre-alert this change when it is made in the course of a single event. But the question was "is it required?" In something like the WCs, it may well be (a matter of conditions of contest, I would think) but I don't think there's a general requirement.

[Phil]

peachy, on Jun 24 2010, 12:24 PM, said:

Phil, on Jun 24 2010, 10:04 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 23 2010, 01:43 PM, said:

No regulation of which I'm aware requires you to inform an opponent that you have changed your methods since you last saw him.

Um, someone please find the thread where Fred's opponents in the Spingold switched to penalty doubles sometime during a break between sets.

It was not as simple as that, IIRC. and with advance submission of systems etc. it complicates matters a bit more. But let the thread speak for itself when someone links it.

YRW

It was the Spingold as IIRC which requires no advance of methods.

Even then, I would be pretty ticked if a pair switched methods without telling me.

[bluejak]

The problem is that when you say "changed methods" it makes it sounds like they changed from 2/1 to Precision.

Consider this case:

During the third stanza of a match you have a sequence 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - 3♥ - 3♠ - 5♣ - No and you have missed a slam. When discussing it with team-mates and each other you discover that you are not really certain whether 3♣ was forcing or not. "Why do you not play Blackout?" ask team-mates. That would mean that 2♥ over 2♦ shows any weak hand, and any other bid over 2♦ is game forcing. "Good idea" you say, and you write it on your SC.

Do you really, honestly, truthfully, believe that one player in a thousand will approach opponents at the start of the fourth stanza and say "We have decided to play Blackout in future"?

I know the idea of telling opponents changed methods sounds all very fine, but when you change a minor bit of system you really do not bother to tell opponents. And whether or not you play the Sandwich NT is a very minor bit of system. Of course, I play in a jurisdiction where Sandwich is alertable and natural is not, and the question was about alerting anyway. But the suggested solution to tell opponents really does not apply to such minor bits of system.

[aguahombre]

I think we have a situation where there is consideration involved. You used something that is a small part of your system. but you used this rarely ocurring thing against this pair very recently.

If you had this in your mind when you sat down, I would think it highly appropriate to mention the change --- and I think you would feel uncomfortable not doing so.

this is one of those "Just do it" things, which would make you feel good and probably make the opponents think you were nice people.

[shyams]

bluejak, on Jun 25 2010, 12:26 AM, said:

The problem is that when you say "changed methods" it makes it sounds like they changed from 2/1 to Precision.

Consider this case:

During the third stanza of a match you have a sequence 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ - 3♥ - 3♠ - 5♣ - No and you have missed a slam.  When discussing it with team-mates and each other you discover that you are not really certain whether 3♣ was forcing or not.  "Why do you not play Blackout?" ask team-mates.  That would mean that 2♥ over 2♦ shows any weak hand, and any other bid over 2♦ is game forcing.  "Good idea" you say, and you write it on your SC.

Do you really, honestly, truthfully, believe that one player in a thousand will approach opponents at the start of the fourth stanza and say "We have decided to play Blackout in future"?

I know the idea of telling opponents changed methods sounds all very fine, but when you change a minor bit of system you really do not bother to tell opponents.  And whether or not you play the Sandwich NT is a very minor bit of system.  Of course, I play in a jurisdiction where Sandwich is alertable and natural is not, and the question was about alerting anyway.  But the suggested solution to tell opponents really does not apply to such minor bits of system.

I see no connection between the OP example and the "Blackout" example quoted here.

1. The sandwich/natural NT is a competitive bid / overcall when opps are bidding; the blackout example shows a bidding sequence where opps remained silent.
2. The OP sequence creates "real" problems for the partner of the 1NT bidder, the blackout bid does not -- all one has to do is alert it.
3. Even if it is not alerted on time, declarer can explain after the last pass and before the opening lead
4. While I have no experience of playing Sandwich NT, I'd have thought that the frequency of Sandwich NT (or even natural NT) is much higher than the blackout example.

The "real" problem: The OP has described a situation where the system change is from an alertable to a non-alertable version of a call. If partner bids 1NT (natural) and I fail to alert, what would you expect opps to believe?
a. I forgot to alert and it is still sandwich NT, OR
b. I did not alert because it is natural NT
I'd be surprised if every opp believed it is B; I'd expect most to choose A!

Note that in the absence of an alert, the 1♣ bidder in the OP will find it difficult to ask without generating UI. Whereas a furious waving of the alert card, or an unsolicited verbalisation ("natural, not sandwich") by the partner of the NT bidder might do less harm.

[FrancesHinden]

Here's a real-life example which I think may illustrate the same point.
In one partnership I play a different method of leads against NT, depending whether they are in partscore or game.* And something else against suit contracts.

This is marked on our convention card, but very few people bother to look, instead they generally wait until they are playing in a NT contract and then say "what leads do you play?"

Now, in real life, we answer saying something like "against games, we play..." or "against partials, we play..." in accordance with the contract. In the same way that when it's a suit contract we always introduce the answer by saying "against suits, we play..."

But here's the theoretical question - do we need to? In fact, could we simply answer explaning the leads we play against this contract and not mention anything else?

*don't ask me why, my partner claims it is superior and I can't be bothered to argue.

[blackshoe]

Around here, the question is usually "Your carding?" The answer is usually "standard" (whatever that means). A more accurate answer would be "we think our methods are standard, but we don't really know". Most people seem satisfied with the answer "standard", and ask no further questions.

[campboy]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 26 2010, 10:55 AM, said:

But here's the theoretical question - do we need to? In fact, could we simply answer explaning the leads we play against this contract and not mention anything else?

I would say you do need to; your opponent asked a general question and your answer only applies in certain circumstances. I think this is quite different from a bidding question because you normally get asked "what does that 1NT bid mean?" rather than "how do you play your 1NT rebids?"; if asked the latter question I would feel it necessary to mention that it depends on position/vulnerability if that is the case.

[nige1]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 26 2010, 04:55 AM, said:

Here's a real-life example which I think may illustrate the same point. In one partnership I play a different method of leads against NT, depending whether they are in partscore or game.*  And something else against suit contracts. This is marked on our convention card, but very few people bother to look, instead they generally wait until they are playing in a NT contract and then say "what leads do you play?"

IMO: You are meant to answer "Our carding methods depend on context. Against notrump partscores (or whatever the current context), we lead ..." You should offer to divulge all this, even if you are asked a more vague or more specific question (eg "what was the significance your partner's SJ lead?").