[Cascade]

A player playing in a regular partnership routinely opens a weaker minor (but 3+ cards) when intending to rebid in no trumps. The extreme shape is 2=2=6=3 maybe opened 1♣ or 2=2=3=6 maybe opened 1♦. Does this style if a partnership agreement, explicit or implicit, require an alert?

[Bbradley62]

Isn't this similar to canapé, which requires a pre-alert?

[Vampyr]

Bbradley62, on 2014-December-07, 22:38, said:

Isn't this similar to canapé, which requires a pre-alert?

Maybe not in the OP's jurisdiction.

I think that this style definitely needs to be alerted and marked clearly on the card in any sensible jurisdiction.

Edit: oops ACBL specified

[mgoetze]

I googled "ACBL Alert Chart". It told me not to alert opening one-bids in a suit if they are "natural non-forcing openings with an agreed range of somewhere between 10-21+ HCP". Further it told me that "An opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit."

Seems like the answer is a clear-cut "no".

I agree that the ACBL is not a sensible jurisdiction.

[Cascade]

mgoetze, on 2014-December-07, 23:56, said:

I googled "ACBL Alert Chart". It told me not to alert opening one-bids in a suit if they are "natural non-forcing openings with an agreed range of somewhere between 10-21+ HCP". Further it told me that "An opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit."

Seems like the answer is a clear-cut "no".

I agree that the ACBL is not a sensible jurisdiction.

The ACBL alert procedures includes the statement

"Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted."

So the question is "Is that partner might have three and a side six-card suit an 'unexpected meaning'?"

[Cascade]

Bbradley62, on 2014-December-07, 22:38, said:

Isn't this similar to canapé, which requires a pre-alert?

Similar in that you might have a longer suit different in that in canape your plan is to rebid the longer suit - not so here.

[pran]

Cascade, on 2014-December-07, 20:29, said:

A player playing in a regular partnership routinely opens a weaker minor (but 3+ cards) when intending to rebid in no trumps. The extreme shape is 2=2=6=3 maybe opened 1♣ or 2=2=3=6 maybe opened 1♦. Does this style if a partnership agreement, explicit or implicit, require an alert?

Wrong question, this is a matter of Law, not of (alert) regulation:

Law 40 A 1 b said:

Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done.

Once the player routinely opens a weaker minor there is no question if this style is a partnership agreement, explicit or implicxit, it is a partnership understanding and opponents must be informed before commencing play against them.

A regulation, for instance on alerts, if issued just specifies the manner in which this shall be done.

[mgoetze]

So, pran, since all partnership understandings must be revealed to the opponents before commencing play, I'll be entitled to have 1000 pages read to me if I ever play against Meckstroth-Rodwell, right?

Meanwhile, in the real world ...

[pran]

mgoetze, on 2014-December-08, 03:32, said:

So, pran, since all partnership understandings must be revealed to the opponents before commencing play, I'll be entitled to have 1000 pages read to me if I ever play against Meckstroth-Rodwell, right?

Meanwhile, in the real world ...

In the real world, if your opponents have a partnership understanding of which you are unaware because of lacking information and your ignorance leads to damage for your side then your side should receive redress for the damage, and opponents should receive PP for failure to properly disclose their understandings.

I understand that for tournaments at the higher levels all contestants must submit their complete system descriptions with ample time for the other contestants to study before the event.

[paulg]

mgoetze, on 2014-December-08, 03:32, said:

So, pran, since all partnership understandings must be revealed to the opponents before commencing play, I'll be entitled to have 1000 pages read to me if I ever play against Meckstroth-Rodwell, right?

pran, on 2014-December-08, 04:26, said:

In the real world, if your opponents have a partnership understanding of which you are unaware because of lacking information and your ignorance leads to damage for your side then your side should receive redress for the damage, and opponents should receive PP for failure to properly disclose their understandings.

I understand that for tournaments at the higher levels all contestants must submit their complete system descriptions with ample time for the other contestants to study before the event.

In almost all cases, the Regulating Authority specifies that completion of the appropriate system card is the manner in which partnership understandings should be initially disclosed and then an alert procedure for the rest, so you are not entitled to their system notes.

I do not know of any tournament where the contestants are required to submit their system notes. At many EBL and WBF events, there is the option of submitting your system notes prior to the event for use in appeals but they are not made available publicly nor to any of the contestants.

[blackshoe]

The WBF system card regulations specify that additional notes should be provided with the card where there is not sufficient space on the card itself to adequately describe the agreement. Not only does the ACBL system card regulation not specify that, I am told by some TDs that the practice is deprecated, and by others that it's illegal. Given the extremely poor design and small size of the ACBL card, that seems insane to me.

[steve2005]

Why are you opening the weaker minor? Sounds like your trying to inhibit a lead. Should be alerted.

[helene_t]

I think common sense trumps the letter of the regulation in such clear cut cases.

[mycroft]

I see 3 cases:

1) We frequently open "weaker minor" when intending to rebid NT, but what it actually is is "random minor", half of the time each way.
2) We open "weaker minor" and hope to get away with it with opponents who don't know yet.
3) We open "weaker minor" and want to play it absolutely ethically, with the opponents knowing about it when necessary.

2) is obviously a violation of the proprieties, and if they actively attempt to hide this (rather than just "doing everything right, which is nothing"), a violation of several non-Propriety Laws as well. Viz the pair who, prior to Announcements in the EBU, played (and marked in this way on the card):

1NT: 12-14 V
15-17 NV

relying on people to read it the "normal" way and misdefend.

If this is a club pair, I think the TD has a talk with them about what they're doing, why they're doing it, and what their expectation of the "weaker minor" is. If it's not obviously "we do this to trick the opponents into misdefending/silently picking off their suit in the partscore battle", then just make it clear they need to be Actively Ethical about explaining auctions where this behaviour is in play. If it is attempting to gain through "legal" lack of full disclosure, a different talk is in order, probably with a discussion "have you noticed this before?" with some of the stronger and more ethical players in the club. Once the better players are woken up (if necessary) to the situation, their defence will get better, and the advantage will dwindle; those that already knew about it will keep an eye on it and let the TD know.

Of course, this just makes it work that much better at tournaments, where they can pull their "oh, did he? I didn't notice" game again. Ah well, over time...

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-08, 09:06, said:

The WBF system card regulations specify that additional notes should be provided with the card where there is not sufficient space on the card itself to adequately describe the agreement. Not only does the ACBL system card regulation not specify that, I am told by some TDs that the practice is deprecated, and by others that it's illegal. Given the extremely poor design and small size of the ACBL card, that seems insane to me.

The range of minor opening agreements that regulators classify as natural is ridiculous. IMO the law should stipulate that your system-notes should be complete, well-organised, clear -- and appended as supplementary-sheets to your system-card.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-December-08, 19:00, said:

The range of minor opening agreements that regulators classify as natural is ridiculous. IMO the law should stipulate that your system-notes should be complete, well-organised, clear -- and appended as supplementary-sheets to your system-card.

How many people do you think would actually even attempt to read Meckwell's system notes at the table? And are those notes the standard for this proposal of yours?

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-08, 19:16, said:

How many people do you think would actually even attempt to read Meckwell's system notes at the table? And are those notes the standard for this proposal of yours?

You'd balk at reading opponents' entire system, at the table. You are more likely to want to consult opponents' supplementary-sheets about a particular bidding sequence. Particularly, if an opponent's oral explanation is "Just Bridge". Also, IMO, there should be standard supplementary-sheets for standard system-cards.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-December-08, 19:32, said:

You'd balk at reading opponents' entire system, at the table. You are more likely to want to consult opponents' supplementary-sheets about a particular bidding sequence. Particularly, if an opponent's oral explanation is "Just Bridge". Also, IMO, there should be standard supplementary-sheets for standard system-cards.

I suspect that "just bridge" is not in Meckwell's lexicon when telling their opponents what's going on in the auction.

Yeah, we've had this discussion before. I still think you're bonkers. :-)

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-08, 19:47, said:

I suspect that "just bridge" is not in Meckwell's lexicon when telling their opponents what's going on in the auction.
Yeah, we've had this discussion before. I still think you're bonkers. :-)

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-08, 19:47, said:

I suspect that "just bridge" is not in Meckwell's lexicon when telling their opponents what's going on in the auction.

Yeah, we've had this discussion before. I still think you're bonkers. :-)

I suspect that "just bridge" is in Meckwell's lexicon.