[Bende]

This has probably been discussed before but I cannot find it when searching.

In some situations you end up with no good bid with the agreements you happen to be playing and have to invent a bid. At which point are such "holes" in agreements so large that you are forced to alter your agreements after the situation has come up?

Example 1: You agree to play a strong club system with five card majors, a 2+ nebulous diamond, 2♣ showing a six card suit and weak twos. You pick up a 4414 12 count and open 1♦ because you didn't have any other bid available.

Example 2: You agree to play a 5542 system and 1m - (1♥) - dbl as showing a four card spade suit. You pick up a 3244 11 count and after 1♣ - (1♥) you double because you decide you didn't have any other bid.

[The_Badger]

If you analyse any system there are always going to be holes and discrepancies where certain hands do not fit.

Example 1: With the Wei Precision 2♦ opener of 4-4-1-4 shape, it was such a rare bid to use, other meanings got assigned to 2♦. So that's why many Precision partnerships state 1♦ is 1+

Example 2: With support doubles available now, I don't see any reason not to use a 1♠ bid in the auction shown as 4+, and Dbl denying ♠s and a ♥ stopper but showing values in the minors.

p.s. Just realised this post is in the Laws and Rulings Section. I'd better let the directors pass an eye over this correspondence from now on.

[jvage]

The_Badger, on 2017-August-15, 04:21, said:

Example 2: With support doubles available now, I don't see any reason not to use a 1♠ bid in the auction shown as 4+, and Dbl denying ♠s and a ♥ stopper but showing values in the minors.

Apart from potential system regulations (which does not apply in Norway, where I live), are there any reasons not to switch the suggested X/1♠ responses?

Note: What you suggested used to be standard, now almost all good players around here, including Helgemo-Helness (yes, I know they are Monegasq...) and Brogeland - Lindqvist have switched them around.

[The_Badger]

jvage, on 2017-August-15, 04:40, said:

Apart from potential system regulations (which does not apply in Norway, where I live), are there any reasons not to switch the suggested X/1♠ responses?

Note: What you suggested used to be standard, now almost all good players around here, including Helgemo-Helness (yes, I know they are Monegasq...) and Brogeland - Lindqvist have switched them around.

No reasons at all. But we had a similar discussion about bidding a 4 card ♠ suit (on the forum) after the auction 1m - (X) - ?. Yes, it's a completely different auction, I know. Maybe I am old school and like to bid a 4 card ♠ suit at the one level if at all possible. These days many players use transfer responses, so in a way I am not surprised Dbl equates to a 4 card ♠ suit exactly. Just their choice.

[Cyberyeti]

Bende, on 2017-August-15, 03:53, said:

This has probably been discussed before but I cannot find it when searching.

In some situations you end up with no good bid with the agreements you happen to be playing and have to invent a bid. At which point are such "holes" in agreements so large that you are forced to alter your agreements after the situation has come up?

Example 1: You agree to play a strong club system with five card majors, a 2+ nebulous diamond, 2♣ showing a six card suit and weak twos. You pick up a 4414 12 count and open 1♦ because you didn't have any other bid available.

Example 2: You agree to play a 5542 system and 1m - (1♥) - dbl as showing a four card spade suit. You pick up a 3244 11 count and after 1♣ - (1♥) you double because you decide you didn't have any other bid.

I think you need to modify your agreements in these cases because they're common enough cases that you should have thought of them. Something where meta agreements conflict on the 3rd round of a contested auction are different, but you should have an opening bid for all hands and add the edge cases to one of them (our 1N may contain a singleton diamond only in our version of precision to deal with your case).

[steve2005]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-August-15, 05:26, said:

I think you need to modify your agreements in these cases because they're common enough cases that you should have thought of them. Something where meta agreements conflict on the 3rd round of a contested auction are different, but you should have an opening bid for all hands and add the edge cases to one of them (our 1N may contain a singleton diamond only in our version of precision to deal with your case).

A few ways
1) 2D =4441 and throw in some others like Prec
2) open 1D on 1+ or even 0+ but you inform opps in your alert explanation
3) open 1N on 4441, in ACBL you cant agree to do this without singleton QK/A
4) open 1H on 4 cards for this hand

[blackshoe]

steve2005, on 2017-August-15, 10:09, said:

A few ways
1) 2D =4441 and throw in some others like Prec
2) open 1D on 1+ or even 0+ but you inform opps in your alert explanation
…

I like 1. 2 is playable, but in the ACBL the "could be short" announcement applies to this opening. If they ask, of course you explain, but if they don't? Some won't like this, suggesting it should be alerted, in spite of the regulation. Personally, I don't like that. That's a player saying "my opinion is better/more important than the regulators'". No, it's not. In the EBU the problem doesn't arise because you announce the minimum length.

[nige1]

Bende, on 2017-August-15, 03:53, said:

This has probably been discussed before but I cannot find it when searching.
In some situations you end up with no good bid with the agreements you happen to be playing and have to invent a bid. At which point are such "holes" in agreements so large that you are forced to alter your agreements after the situation has come up?
Example 1: You agree to play a strong club system with five card majors, a 2+ nebulous diamond, 2♣ showing a six card suit and weak twos. You pick up a 4414 12 count and open 1♦ because you didn't have any other bid available.
Example 2: You agree to play a 5542 system and 1m - (1♥) - dbl as showing a four card spade suit. You pick up a 3244 11 count and after 1♣ - (1♥) you double because you decide you didn't have any other bid.

Possible ways of filling the holes:
Old-fashioned Precision 2♦ opener = 4414 or 4405.
Over 1m (1♥) ??, agree that: double = 4+ ♠s. A 1♠ overcall = 0-3 ♠s (often has ♣s.

There is a problem when you explain partner's calls, without realizing the implications of such holes. Many would argue that this is just a natural oversight. Especially as they are usually minor deviations, rather than gross departures from your system.

IMO, however, the director should consider treating your lapses as MI. Otherwise your "carelessness" can gain an unfair advantage.

[Bende]

Thanks for the responses. My question was not really about how to plug these holes in the system. That is very easy. Rather it is about whether a pair could continue to claim to play according to original agreements even though holes such as these have been uncovered.

Cyberyeti thinks you can no longer claim to play your original agreements. Nige1 says, as I understand it, that even when this situation comes up the first time the opponents could claim MI.

I agree with this. For these quite basic holes in agreements I think it could give the pair an unfair advantage if they pretend these holes in agreements do not exist.

[Cyberyeti]

As an aside, you CAN say (and we did for a while) we don't get dealt a flat 19, they're either 18s or 20s, the key is that the opps can see what you do with a hand unlike the cases in this thread.

[barmar]

When you encounter a hole in the system, you have to improvise. But who's to say that you or your partner would remember how you solved it, or come up with the same solution, the next time something similar comes up? If you're not consistent about it, it's not an implicit agreement. I don't think you can just assume that once it comes up, the solution chosen is a permanent addition to agreements.

[Bende]

barmar, on 2017-August-16, 08:30, said:

When you encounter a hole in the system, you have to improvise. But who's to say that you or your partner would remember how you solved it, or come up with the same solution, the next time something similar comes up? If you're not consistent about it, it's not an implicit agreement. I don't think you can just assume that once it comes up, the solution chosen is a permanent addition to agreements.

I think that would be right for some situations, sure. I also think there are some situations that are too obvious for you to claim that you were just not aware of that hole in your agreements, maybe not even the first time but at least when they have come up.

An obviously extreme example would be that you agree to play one of a suit as 12+ points and a five card suit and a strong no trump. You pick up 4432 and open 1♥. "Yes, we play five card majors. This just happened to be hand which we did not anticipate so we had to improvise a bid."

[gnasher]

I think that the proper explanation is "By agreement it shows X, but in our system there is no way to show Y." If your partnership has previous experience of the problem, you should continue with "On the previous occasions when Y has come up, we have bid either A or B."

Not being aware of the hole, or not remembering what you did previously, makes no difference. The opponents are still entitled to know, and not telling them is misinformation.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2017-August-17, 07:27, said:

I think that the proper explanation is "By agreement it shows X, but in our system there is no way to show Y." If your partnership has previous experience of the problem, you should continue with "On the previous occasions when Y has come up, we have bid either A or B."

Not being aware of the hole, or not remembering what you did previously, makes no difference. The opponents are still entitled to know, and not telling them is misinformation.

"This game sucks. I quit."

[barmar]

Bende, on 2017-August-17, 02:52, said:

I think that would be right for some situations, sure. I also think there are some situations that are too obvious for you to claim that you were just not aware of that hole in your agreements, maybe not even the first time but at least when they have come up.

An obviously extreme example would be that you agree to play one of a suit as 12+ points and a five card suit and a strong no trump. You pick up 4432 and open 1♥. "Yes, we play five card majors. This just happened to be hand which we did not anticipate so we had to improvise a bid."

That's a ridiculous strawman. No one really plays systems with huge, gaping holes like that. 35% of hands have no 5-card suit, no one with a modicum of bridge experience could fail to anticipate this problem.

Holes will almost invariably be for rare situations, because any system that doesn't address the common stuff is unplayable. Or you're not really playing the system you claim -- in the above example, it's essentially a lie to say you play 5-card majors.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-August-17, 09:02, said:

That's a ridiculous strawman. No one really plays systems with huge, gaping holes like that. 35% of hands have no 5-card suit, no one with a modicum of bridge experience could fail to anticipate this problem.

Holes will almost invariably be for rare situations, because any system that doesn't address the common stuff is unplayable. Or you're not really playing the system you claim -- in the above example, it's essentially a lie to say you play 5-card majors.

The example given was not intended t be taken seriously; it was given to illustrate that holes can and should be anticipated.

Here is another example that might meet your standards: you play a .natural-based 5CM system. You pick up 4=4=4=1 in your 1NT opening range. You have decided not to include this hand in your 1NT opening. You open ♦, partner bids 2♣ and you...?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-August-17, 15:29, said:

The example given was not intended t be taken seriously; it was given to illustrate that holes can and should be anticipated,

The bigger the hole, the more I would agree. The smaller the hole...

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2017-August-17, 15:29, said:

The example given was not intended t be taken seriously; it was given to illustrate that holes can and should be anticipated.

Here is another example that might meet your standards: you play a .natural-based 5CM system. You pick up 4=4=4=1 in your 1NT opening range. You have decided not to include this hand in your 1NT opening. You open ♦, partner bids 2♣ and you...?

Well I would rebid 2♦ and some others would rebid 2NT. Either way it is so obvious that I would expect any longstanding, advanced pair to have an agreement and LOLs in the club not to have any idea.

With may last partner I had the specific agreement that 1♦ - 2♣; 2♦ was F1R and could specifically be just 4 diamonds. One of the first times it came up, my partner forgot to alert so I duly announced it to the table at the end of the auction after I became declarer. The opps in turn were extremely upset when I turned up with the usual hand type (weak, 5+ diamonds) and thought I was trying to mislead them. Sometimes full disclosure is "damned if you do, damned if you don't" .

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2017-August-17, 15:29, said:

Here is another example that might meet your standards: you play a .natural-based 5CM system. You pick up 4=4=4=1 in your 1NT opening range. You have decided not to include this hand in your 1NT opening. You open ♦, partner bids 2♣ and you...?

Hands in your 1NT range with singletons/voids can be tricky in many systems. I'm not sure they're actually a "hole", though. It should be clear that the auction 1♦-2♣-2NT can include this hand, it's not necessarily showing a hand below a 1NT opener.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-August-22, 14:43, said:

Hands in your 1NT range with singletons/voids can be tricky in many systems. I'm not sure they're actually a "hole", though. It should be clear that the auction 1♦-2♣-2NT can include this hand, it's not necessarily showing a hand below a 1NT opener.

That depends. I would never make such a rebid with a hand in my opening 1NT range. I play a weak NT, so I guess it is more dangerous as I would be overstating my hand and we could end up in a poor game, but anyway I have never considered it.