[Cyberyeti]

 bluejak, on 2011-February-10, 07:25, said:

No. An unalerted 1NT response is natural with no agreements that are sufficiently unusual that opponents might not expect them. So none of the following are alertable:

• 1NT may contain four diamonds
  
• 1NT may contain five diamonds
  
• 1NT never contains four diamonds
  
• 1NT may contain a poor four card major
  
• 1NT never contains a four card major

May contain 5 diamonds is the only one I find unusual in this list (at least for UK viewing). I think if you give 90%+ of players in the UK a 3352, they will respond 1♦, so this would be an unexpected holding for a 1N bid.

[Trinidad]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-10, 03:43, said:

As Jallerton pointed out, it's South's lead, and he WILL lead a spade from KQJxx.

Shame on me!


Rik

[Vampyr]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-February-10, 06:10, said:

Really? When I play traditional Acol, I bid suits upwards. If partner opens 1♣ I will bid a 4+ card suit if I have one, so if I bid 1N I must have 4+♣ since I don't have 4♦,♥ or♠. Should my partner therefore be alerting the 1NT response?

Would you respond 1NT with 5 or even just 4 small diamonds?

Mainly the issue here, I think, is that "inferentially holds" different to "promises". In the auction 1♦-(P)-1NT, responder also has a good chance of holding clubs. How far do you want to take this?

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-10, 07:41, said:

I think if you give 90%+ of players in the UK a 3352, they will respond 1♦, so this would be an unexpected holding for a 1N bid.

Where did you come up with that figure?

Naturally it depends on "which" 3352. The presence of tenaces and the quality of the diamond suit will count for much here.

[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2011-February-10, 10:08, said:

Would you respond 1NT with 5 or even just 4 small diamonds?

Mainly the issue here, I think, is that "inferentially holds" different to "promises". In the auction 1♦-(P)-1NT, responder also has a good chance of holding clubs. How far do you want to take this?



Where did you come up with that figure?

Naturally it depends on "which" 3352. The presence of tenaces and the quality of the diamond suit will count for much here.

1♦-P-1N may hold 4 diamonds and not 4 clubs if you play inverted minors as a decent number of people do.

I would respond 1♦ to 1♣ as acol does with any hand with 5 diamonds or indeed 4 diamonds, 1N is precisely 3334 in response to 1♣ in the acol I was taught.

[gordontd]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-10, 12:19, said:

1N is precisely 3334 in response to 1♣ in the acol I was taught.

Not in any Acol book I've read.

[StevenG]

I learnt that 1♣-1NT showed four clubs and 8-10 points, when relearning the basics in the early 90s. My copy of "All about Acol" states this (not entirely clearly, though).

[campboy]

It hardly matters whether you, or I, expect 1NT to always have four clubs. A 1NT (nonforcing, suggesting playing in NT) which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings is not alertable, and since this 1NT conveys *less* information about suit holdings than you expect, how can it be alertable?

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, I am very reluctant to ever use the "c" word. But once in a while I am sorely tempted.

[Cyberyeti]

 campboy, on 2011-February-10, 19:29, said:

It hardly matters whether you, or I, expect 1NT to always have four clubs. A 1NT (nonforcing, suggesting playing in NT) which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings is not alertable, and since this 1NT conveys *less* information about suit holdings than you expect, how can it be alertable?

There is a requirement that where a bid may be made on an unexpected hand even if natural, then you should alert it. While it may be normal in the US to bid 1N on a 3352, in the UK it is normal to bid 1♦, hence the meaning is unexpected. cf 1♦-3♦ on a weak hand because you're playing inverted minors, perfectly natural, just not as strong as you'd expect so alertable.

[gordontd]

 StevenG, on 2011-February-10, 14:23, said:

I learnt that 1♣-1NT showed four clubs and 8-10 points, when relearning the basics in the early 90s. My copy of "All about Acol" states this (not entirely clearly, though).

I learned that it shows 8-10 points with four diamonds in basic Acol. With fewer points you can respond 1♦. With four clubs you can raise, since opener is also known to have four.

[campboy]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-11, 02:31, said:

There is a requirement that where a bid may be made on an unexpected hand even if natural, then you should alert it. While it may be normal in the US to bid 1N on a 3352, in the UK it is normal to bid 1♦, hence the meaning is unexpected. cf 1♦-3♦ on a weak hand because you're playing inverted minors, perfectly natural, just not as strong as you'd expect so alertable.

In the case of the diamond raise, of course, there is a specific regulation that this is unusual enough to be alerted. I am not sure about the 1NT response, though you are right that it is not as clear-cut as I thought last night. I don't see why your argument would not apply equally well to a 1NT rebid showing 12-14, though, and that is certainly not alertable.

[bluejak]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-11, 02:31, said:

There is a requirement that where a bid may be made on an unexpected hand even if natural, then you should alert it. While it may be normal in the US to bid 1N on a 3352, in the UK it is normal to bid 1♦, hence the meaning is unexpected. cf 1♦-3♦ on a weak hand because you're playing inverted minors, perfectly natural, just not as strong as you'd expect so alertable.

Unexpected is a matter of judgement, of course, and if it is a perfectly normal agreement even if not common it needs no alert. It is quite normal to play a 1NT response with all sorts of rules for a certain type of player, but it is also normal to play it without such requirements for a different type of player. I do not believe that the possibility of a 5332 hand is sufficient for an alert unless the five card suit can be a major.

[jallerton]

 knyblad, on 2011-February-09, 05:20, said:

It is very likely that the missing alert of 2♣ screwed up E-W's bidding. East has no way of knowing that that have a 10 card fit. Assume that West would not bid a four card suit without and honor. Then West could 4342 distribution or even 4441 distribution. I think the score should be adjusted to 5♣ 11 tricks.

West can't be 4441 with a singelton club, as the 1♣ opening was natural or balanced.

Did anyone ask West what he thought the double of 2♣ meant, I wonder. I suspect West intended it to show clubs and East was not on the same wavelength. If the correct explanation really was "no agreement" then you should only adjust for misinformation is you consider that this misunderstanding would not (or might not) have occurred after a "no agreement" explanation.

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-09, 05:01, said:

The only issue is what I do over 3N. I described my thought process earlier, partner hasn't passed over 2♣X as a suggestion to play, so doesn't have any real length there or bid 2♦, and honours he has are well placed, and it sounds like he has some sort of real fit in an auction where he wouldn't necessarily bounce it due to the vulnerability. I assessed this on the basis that he had alerted 2♣, and also on the Zia principle that when you're having one of those days where you clearly have the Midas touch, keep going with your instinct so I did (we were in the process of putting together a card that was 20-0 just on our card in a 32 board teams of 8 match).

That partner hasn't overcalled is a red herring, we tend to jump overcall on tram tickets, and a simple overcall is opening bid +. Also it seems that partner's spades are only 10 high at best (given the 3N bid), so that would make it a pretty unattractive overcall.

In normal circumstances, it's fine to use your gut feeling to make some strange bids, as long as you have an understanding partner, of course. Once you have UI, the problem is that the UI has helped you to arrive at your gut feeling. Now it is not acceptable to "keep going with your instinct" unless the calls and plays you make also comply with Laws 16A and 73C.

[Cyberyeti]

 jallerton, on 2011-February-11, 09:46, said:

West can't be 4441 with a singelton club, as the 1♣ opening was natural or balanced.

Did anyone ask West what he thought the double of 2♣ meant, I wonder. I suspect West intended it to show clubs and East was not on the same wavelength. If the correct explanation really was "no agreement" then you should only adjust for misinformation is you consider that this misunderstanding would not (or might not) have occurred after a "no agreement" explanation.

Yes, takeout with extra values, they both agreed on this.

Quote

In normal circumstances, it's fine to use your gut feeling to make some strange bids, as long as you have an understanding partner, of course. Once you have UI, the problem is that the UI has helped you to arrive at your gut feeling. Now it is not acceptable to "keep going with your instinct" unless the calls and plays you make also comply with Laws 16A and 73C.

Agreed, but I'm not sure whether you read the previous post, I was fully aware at the time that 2♣ when I bid it was ambiguous (we have no specific agreement in this auction).

We play quantum straight over 1♣, so I was aware I might be showing ♦/♠ but it was murky and I certainly didn't want to bid 3♣ which is the right bid. When partner bids none of pass/2♦/2♥ (it's going to be murky for him too), I know he has 4+ spades and not 4♦/♥. It might have been complicated if partner had answered ♠/♦ as to what 2♣ meant and then bid 2♦. I knew I was bidding 2♥ in that circumstance, but explaining it to the appeals committee might have been awkward.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2011-February-11, 16:37, said:

It might have been complicated if partner had answered ♠/♦ as to what 2♣ meant and then bid 2♦. I knew I was bidding 2♥ in that circumstance, but explaining it to the appeals committee might have been awkward.

I hope that your obligations in re: UI have been explained well enough to you by now that you realise that this plan would not have been acceptable, and that the attitude expressed in the final clause is entirely the wrong approach.