[peachy]

masse24, on 2011-November-26, 18:27, said:

Quick question for you ACBL Directors.

A friend plays Precision. When she opens 1♦ she alerts "May be short".

However, in the version they play, it can never be shorter than a 3 card ♦ suit.

Should there still be an alert?

Thanks

What other changes has this pair made in their Precision system? If a lot, probably best not call it Precision as the requirement to have at least three diamonds for a 1D opening might have repercussions to their other openings, and the opponents are in no position to figure out any inferences themselves if all they know that the pair plays "Precision".

[bluejak]

Precision is a very general title. Basically it means a strong club, five-card majors, natural responses to 1♣. You cannot really read more than that into it. Original basic Precision included a natural 1♦.

There might be a case for alerting the 1♦ on the grounds of it being unusual enough. But I doubt it, and "could be short" is completely inappropriate.

[awm]

If the 1♦ opening can include 1435 types (i.e. 3♦ and 5♣) it seems sufficiently unexpected that it might be an alert.

[blackshoe]

awm, on 2011-December-24, 01:05, said:

If the 1♦ opening can include 1435 types (i.e. 3♦ and 5♣) it seems sufficiently unexpected that it might be an alert.

I don't think this is correct under ACBL rules, which specify that players are expected to be familiar with common systems, including specifically Precision.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-24, 12:00, said:

I don't think this is correct under ACBL rules, which specify that players are expected to be familiar with common systems, including specifically Precision.

I truly hope that those rules were intended to cover the fact that an opening 1-bid might be limited and that they should prepare whatever gadgets they choose vs a strong club --- not as an excuse for failure to disclose a 1D opening which might contact two or three more clubs than diamonds.

I don't see a caveat in "unexpected" which gives strong clubbers carte blanche, although some directors seem to go out of their way to protect failures to alert with "he should have asked."

[blackshoe]

The proper phrase is not "unexpected", but rather "highly unusual and unexpected". As for "carte blanche", nobody said anything about that.

It is common to see 2/1 players open 1♦ with 4=5 in diamonds and clubs. Does that require an alert? No? Why not?

[aguahombre]

You might consider there is a difference between an occasional one-card difference and a more frequent 2 or 3 card difference in the two suits.

[blackshoe]

Yes, there's a difference. Is it significant? Doesn't seem so to me.

[mycroft]

I do play "could be short (as 2)" 1♦. I do Alert the calls that "do not encourage a preference, frequently longer clubs than diamonds." I expect that if I played 2♣ as 5+-and-4M, and 1NT as 12-15, so that 1♦ promised 3, I'd still Alert the calls that don't encourage a preference, but really wouldn't worry about the other inherences of the strong club. After all, I did tell them I played a strong club, and it's on the card that's facing them so they can read it.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-24, 18:56, said:

Yes, there's a difference. Is it significant? Doesn't seem so to me.

It does to me. A one card difference is often just bridge, and people will be one card different from expected in many situations. But a pure canapé opening 1♦ with 1=4=3=5 is not just bridge, but an unexpected agreement.

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on what system you're playing, too. Playing Precision, with a 6-card 2♣ opening, you really have no choice with 1=4=3=5 but to open 1♦, unless your hearts are good enough to open 1♥ (and, presumably, you've agreed with partner that you might do that).

The bottom line, for me, in response to the original question, is that you announce "could be short" when the hand opening 1♦ could have fewer than three cards. You neither alert nor announce the opening if it requires at least three cards. The fact that opener might have five clubs is irrelevant. That's my reading of the ACBL regulation. Other jurisdictions may have different rules.

[aguahombre]

There must be something wrong with the "reading" or with the wording of the regulations themselves if the following two things are both true:

1---People who treat reverses (after 1/1) as not necessarily extra strength, and don't know any better are required to alert what the rest of us think is highly unusual.

2---People who know what they are doing and will open 1-4-3-5 one diamond are not required to alert what the rest of us think is highly unusual.

Being prepared for a forcing club system does not, should not, require the opponents to know all that it entails. And TD's who believe the opponents should totally fend for themselves opposite a forcing club system are practicing favoritism/elitist thinking if they are the same ones who insist weak players doing what little they know should be held to a standard they know little about.

[blackshoe]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Mr. and Mrs. "We just started playing Duplicate last week" should be required to know all that Precision entails. Nor did anyone suggest that this couple should "totally fend for themselves". The fact remains that the regulation says what it says, and it doesn't take into account the level of experience or understanding of the players involved. At least, not directly.

It isn't about "what the rest of us think" either. It's about what the regulation says. "In light of historical usage". Precision has been around a long time. I don't think there's much in it that could be called "highly unusual and unexpected in the light of historical usage". A non-forcing reverse is another story.

Unless we decide that all players have to take a qualifying exam, and demonstrate that they know everything they're expected to know about the laws and regulations in place, before they're allowed to play (yes, of course that's never going to happen) we have to accept that people will play while ignorant of the rules, ignorant of the implications of their own bidding system, and so on. If someone violates a rule out of ignorance, the first order of business, it seems to me, is to educate them so they don't run afoul of the same problem again, and the second order of business is, where necessary, to redress damage to the NOS.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-31, 17:42, said:

There must be something wrong with the "reading" or with the wording of the regulations themselves if the following two things are both true:

1---People who treat reverses (after 1/1) as not necessarily extra strength, and don't know any better are required to alert what the rest of us think is highly unusual.

2---People who know what they are doing and will open 1-4-3-5 one diamond are not required to alert what the rest of us think is highly unusual.

Being prepared for a forcing club system does not, should not, require the opponents to know all that it entails. And TD's who believe the opponents should totally fend for themselves opposite a forcing club system are practicing favoritism/elitist thinking if they are the same ones who insist weak players doing what little they know should be held to a standard they know little about.

I don't know if that is what the regulation says but it seems pretty unreasonable that a player who has never heard or understood a reverse should be required to alert it. Against players whose methods I am unfamiliar with I routinely ask about the auction before the play and if necessary during the auction when there has been a 'reverse' to protect myself - its general bridge knowledge that a large number of players do not play reverses.

1♦ on 1=4=3=5 is not just 3+ it is a canape method. The alert procedures in ACBL albeit under 1♥/♠ openings says "Note that canapé systems must be pre-Alerted and canapé bids must also be Alerted during the auction."

I suppose that you can argue that one bid does not make your system canape but the language changes from canape systems to canape bids when changing from prealerts to alerts.

I think that there is a strong case that such a 1♦ should be alerted.

As a player for me the bottom line is would I be happy getting a good score because the opponents don't understand my methods. No I wouldn't. Therefore I have an obligation to disclose this. The alert procedures also say "The objective of the Alert system is for both pairs at the table to have equal access to all information contained in any auction." An advantage gained in this way comes because both pairs did not have "equal access to all information".

[blackshoe]

I wonder what the ACBL was thinking when they wrote "canapé bids". Is it the initial, possibly (but not always) shorter suit bid, or the later bid in a suit that may be longer than the shorter first bid suit? If the latter, is a 2♣ rebid that might contain more clubs than the initial 1♦ bid has diamonds alertable? If not, why not?

I agree that the spirit of full disclosure may induce one to go further than the letter requires in alerting, but that doesn't make someone else's failure to do that illegal.

[bluejak]

Well, I had to agree with Cascade eventually!

If you open 1♦ systemically with 1=4=3=5 then you are playing a canapé system. My understanding of ACBL alerts is that canapé requires an alert. Therefore a 1♦ showing at least three cards but may have longer clubs is alertable.

[aguahombre]

If two prominent students of Bridge laws ---one in New Zealand, and the other in UK ---keep believing the same as I do about what the ACBL laws are saying, maybe we are all wrong

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on 2012-January-01, 09:25, said:

Well, I had to agree with Cascade eventually!

If you open 1♦ systemically with 1=4=3=5 then you are playing a canapé system. My understanding of ACBL alerts is that canapé requires an alert. Therefore a 1♦ showing at least three cards but may have longer clubs is alertable.

Is a 1♦ opening that "could be short" also a canapé system, then? If not, why not? What if the "could be short" suit is clubs?

It appears that a "canapé bid" is a rebid in a suit that could be longer than the first bid suit. This bid requires an alert. If you bid a "could be short" minor, then any suit you rebid could be longer than your minor. Are we supposed to alert all suit rebids after a "could be short" opening?

[awm]

While I don't see it codified anywhere in the laws, I strongly suspect there is a difference between balanced hands and unbalanced ones.

A canape bid (or system) involves choosing to open a shorter suit before a longer one on unbalanced hands. This is unusual and requires an alert (for a canape bid) or pre-alert (for a system in which canape bids are frequent). It's not totally clear whether it's the opening or rebid that should be alerted; in practice this probably depends on frequency. I think that the sequence 1♦-1M-2♣ should be alerted if the style is such that the clubs are often longer than the diamonds.

Opening balanced hands with 1m when holding a longer major is much more common than a canape approach (in fact it's part of American "standard") and this does not generally require a pre-alert or an alert during the auction. It does require an announcement ("could be short") if the minor suit opened does not require even three-card length.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-01, 13:00, said:

Is a 1♦ opening that "could be short" also a canapé system, then? If not, why not? What if the "could be short" suit is clubs?

As an outsider to ACBL alerting, I might suggest that if 1D is only short when then hand is balanced then it is not a canapé system. If the rebids show either a balanced hand or an unbalanced hand with diamonds as the longest suit, there is no rebid that shows a suit longer than diamonds (even if the there may be a suit longer than diamonds), there is no canapé rebid and it is not a canapé system.

But I presume that in a strong club system, 1♦ would always be the opening bid on 1=3=4=5 or 3=1=4=5. I suppose you can avoid rebidding 2♣ on these hands (raise to 2M or rebid 1NT) but perhaps 1♦ would always be a potential canapé opening.