[Tramticket]

661_Pete, on 2019-March-11, 05:37, said:

In our club all 1NT openers should be announced - which is rather pointless since every pair I've met invariably plays 12-14 - but it's the rule.

Your club is free to change the requirements on announcements. But I wouldn't advise this, since you and other players at your club, will be better prepared to play in County or EBU competitions if you are familiar with the EBU regulations.

661_Pete, on 2019-March-11, 05:37, said:

4-4-4-1 is my least favourite shape (probably everyone else's, too!) especially if the singleton is a major. I bid a suit; partner needless to say responds with that major - then what do I do?

If the singleton is a heart, then you can open 1m and rebid spades. This suggests a five-card minor, but partner will usually investigate other strains before leaping in the minor, so there is usually little damage.

If the singleton is a spade you will normally open 1♦ and rebid 2♣ over a 1♠ response. The danger is that your partner has responded 1♠ with five spades and four hearts. It can now be difficult to unearth a 4-4 heart fit, due to the murkiness of 4th suit forcing. I would certainly advise that you agree that a raise of the 4th suit should show a four-card suit. So in the sequence:

1♦, 1♠; 2♣, 2♥; 3♥

the 2♥ bid is 4th suit forcing (says nothing about the heart suit), but the 3♥ bid shows a four-card heart suit.

[Cyberyeti]

661_Pete, on 2019-March-11, 05:37, said:

In our club all 1NT openers should be announced - which is rather pointless since every pair I've met invariably plays 12-14 - but it's the rule. Sometimes I forget to announce - and get pulled up for it! Stayman and transfer replies must also be announced of course.

Although I've never played the system described in the OP, I sometimes wish I could open 1NT on 14 points with a singleton. 4-4-4-1 is my least favourite shape (probably everyone else's, too!) especially if the singleton is a major. I bid a suit; partner needless to say responds with that major - then what do I do?

When I play in my VERY occasional strong club partnership we agree that 4414s only are opened 1N (so that the old fashioned short diamonds 2♦ bid always has 5 clubs).

You open the right suit so you have a sensible rebid.

[steve2005]

pescetom, on 2019-March-11, 04:00, said:

2. Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special
understandings between the partners.

If you interpret this to mean 1C has to be alerted if can be done with 4-4 in minors then I would say practically every bid has a special understanding and almost all bids alertable by this interpretation.

sometimes opening 1C with 4-4 in minors just isn't special.

Is there an alert regulation or a case ruling? out there that says if you open 1C with 4-4 in minor. The ACBL alert regulation make no mention of this case in their reference material.

[msjennifer]

Sir,one of our opponents ,who played 14/16 NT and may have a singleton, opened 1NT holding A-A-AQxxx-xxxxxx.Since I am not a quarrelling type did not call the director as there was no nonplaying director available.I would like to know "Is this permissible under the existing laws" When I asked the person he said "this is not in our system but it is not binding on me to follow the system so long as my partner is totally ignorant of it and responds normally."

[nige1]

nige1, on 2019-March-10, 17:28, said:

IMO,

• If you open 1N with a singleton but partner won't, then, arguably, those are treatments.
• Treatments should be disclosable.
• Hence partner should announce "might have a singleton" but you shouldn't.

This seems to be a grey area, without clear guidelines. Yet another candidate for rule rationalization.

I apologize for mistakenly maligning the EBU that has implemented what I feel are sensible regulations, according to GordonTD:

EBU Blue Book said:

3 D Matters of style
3 D 1 If a partnership has understandings such as opening lighter in third and/or fourth position or overcalling on four card suits, these should be disclosed on the system card.
3 D 2 If a partnership agrees to make take-out doubles of suit bids on almost all hands with opening bid values including length in opener's suit, this should be disclosed on the system card.Similarly the practice of doubling for take-out on unusually weak hands should be marked on the front of the system card.
3 D 3 Members of a partnership may play a different style from each other, for example while opening pre-empts one player may take more liberties with suit quality than the other. Anyr elevant information about style should be explained in answer to a question, and, where appropriate, disclosed on the system card.

[msjennifer]

wrong post

[pescetom]

gordontd, on 2019-March-11, 04:11, said:

Surely you aren't saying it's alertable to open 1D when 4-4 in the minors?

Not in an RA which says differently, of course, but otherwise yes, I would have thought. Certainly it must be alerted here, as was confirmed to me just a month ago by the most senior national Director. If partner opens 1D and could have 4-4 or opens 1C and cannot have 4-4 then those are special agreements which the opponents have a right to know about.

I understand that it might sound strange in an Acol setting where the tradition is for individual choice of openings. It also looks cumbersome in countries where opening 1D with 4-4 is becoming standard. My feeling is that the best solution would be to disclose this within the obligatory announcements of 1-level openings, rather than an alert. I hope our own national rules will take that direction.

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2019-March-11, 12:10, said:

I understand that it might sound strange in an Acol setting where the tradition is for individual choice of openings. It also looks cumbersome in countries where opening 1D with 4-4 is becoming standard.

This has been standard in North America for 50 years or more. I do wonder what happens in your RA if 1♣ is the standard opening. I will not try to list the auctions where you would have rebid problems, because I would be here all day.

What I wonder about is minor suit openings that promise 3 but the other could be 4, whether that is alertable in the EBU.

Quote

My feeling is that the best solution would be to disclose this within the obligatory announcements of 1-level openings, rather than an alert. I hope our own national rules will take that direction.

What do you mean by obligatory announcements of 1-level openings?

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2019-March-11, 19:53, said:

This has been standard in North America for 50 years or more. I do wonder what happens in your RA if 1♣ is the standard opening. I will not try to list the auctions where you would have rebid problems, because I would be here all day.

Yes it is standard in North America, although most there also open 1♦ with 3-card diamonds and 2-card clubs, which is arguably a strange combination of choices. In my RA almost all 5-card major players (the majority of all players) open 1♦ with minors 4-4 but 1♣ with majors 4-4 (and at least 2-card clubs). All but the most recent generation of players were however taught to play 4-card majors with a strict up-the-line philosophy, opening 1♣ with minors 4-4. They also had to deal with canape' style systems, so are used to drawing precise inferences about opponents' distribution.

Vampyr, on 2019-March-11, 19:53, said:

What do you mean by obligatory announcements of 1-level openings?

Here it is obligatory to announce almost all 1-level and 2-level openings, for example 1♣ might be announced "2 or more cards", 1NT "15 to 17" and so on. It wouldn't be difficult to find a phrase to indicate inferences about the other minor.

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2019-March-12, 07:24, said:

In my RA almost all 5-card major players (the majority of all players) open 1♦ with minors 4-4

But that's what you said was alertable!

[pescetom]

gordontd, on 2019-March-12, 09:08, said:

But that's what you said was alertable!

Exactly, nowadays the majority of players have the same problem. That's why it would make so much more sense to announce rather than alert.
There is a similar but smaller problem with a 1NT response to 1M, which most people play as semi-forcing but only a truly forcing 1NT is announceable.
The announcements are new and hopefully these problems will be fixed soon.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-March-11, 19:53, said:

This has been standard in North America for 50 years or more. I do wonder what happens in your RA if 1♣ is the standard opening. I will not try to list the auctions where you would have rebid problems, because I would be here all day.

When I first learned bridge about 30 years ago, the common rule was to bid 4 cards suits up the line, 5 card suits down the line, so 4-4 minors opened 1♣. As long as the opponents are silent, there are generally no rebid problems.

I think the switch to 1♦ happened because players were being taught to be more aggressive in overcalling, so that "As long as" qualifier was not so common. But some players, like my partner, are set in their ways.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2019-March-10, 13:44, said:

Our convention card just says that each of these bids shows 3+ cards in the suit. There's nothing on the ACBL CC that says anything about which you bid when you have a choice.

I don't think I'd invoke the poor design of the ACBL system card as a justification for the legality of an agreement. :-)

barmar, on 2019-March-10, 13:44, said:

Another case: In the auction 1♣ 1♦ 1NT I'm more likely to bypass 4-card majors to bid 1NT than he is (we play Walsh style, so 1♦ usually denies a major unless responder has invitational+ strength). If the opponents ask about such an auction, we'll disclose this tendency difference, but I don't think it requires a proactive alert.

With this I agree.

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2019-March-12, 09:24, said:

Exactly, nowadays the majority of players have the same problem.

"In most RAs"?

[blackshoe]

661_Pete, on 2019-March-11, 05:37, said:

Although I've never played the system described in the OP, I sometimes wish I could open 1NT on 14 points with a singleton. 4-4-4-1 is my least favourite shape (probably everyone else's, too!) especially if the singleton is a major. I bid a suit; partner needless to say responds with that major - then what do I do?

A friend of mine recently expressed an interest in playing Fantunes (yeah, I know it's not PC to call it that any more. Don't care.) So I've been re-reading Bill Jacobs' excellent Fantunes Revealed. 4441 with 12 to 14 HCP is a difficult hand for the system. It's opened 1NT. Doesn't matter what the singleton is; it could be the deuce. Not legal in ACBL-land. I haven't had a chance to discuss this yet, but I guess we'll agree to have no agreement to open such hands. Then the question becomes how often does it come up. The first time, it should be classed as a deviation (the deviation is not imo gross enough to be called a psych). After that, frequency matters. OTOH, we will have discussed it. If we disclose that we've done so, will we be subject to a ruling that we have a "partnership understanding" in spite of having specifically agreed not to do it?

[pescetom]

gordontd, on 2019-March-12, 10:38, said:

"In most RAs"?

The WBF systems policy is not specific to an RA.
If it is a conventional agreement between partners then it should be disclosed, unless a certain RA decides otherwise.
And when I (or a SAYC player for that matter) open 1C it certainly is agreed that I cannot be 4-4 in minors, it's not a question of style or judgement.

[gordontd]

pescetom, on 2019-March-12, 10:45, said:

The WBF systems policy is not specific to an RA.
If it is a conventional agreement between partners then it should be disclosed, unless a certain RA decides otherwise.

The WBF systems policy does not apply in events except its own, unless an RA decides to adopt them.

But the WBF systems policy does not mandate alerting an agreement to open 1D when 4-4 in the minors, and nor is it correct to say, as you did, that

Quote

In most RAs you would already be in violation of the rules if you failed to alert (or announce) a 1♦ opening that does not deny clubs of equal length, however common that agreement might be.

To say nothing of opening 1D with 5-5 in the minors!

[blackshoe]

A partnership understanding is only "special" if the RA so designates it — unless it involves an artificial call.

Interestingly, takeout doubles are "special".

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-March-12, 10:44, said:

A friend of mine recently expressed an interest in playing Fantunes (yeah, I know it's not PC to call it that any more. Don't care.) So I've been re-reading Bill Jacobs' excellent Fantunes Revealed. 4441 with 12 to 14 HCP is a difficult hand for the system. It's opened 1NT. Doesn't matter what the singleton is; it could be the deuce. Not legal in ACBL-land. I haven't had a chance to discuss this yet, but I guess we'll agree to have no agreement to open such hands. Then the question becomes how often does it come up. The first time, it should be classed as a deviation (the deviation is not imo gross enough to be called a psych). After that, frequency matters. OTOH, we will have discussed it. If we disclose that we've done so, will we be subject to a ruling that we have a "partnership understanding" in spite of having specifically agreed not to do it?

I haven't done the math, but I expect these hands come up pretty frequently, so it's hard to credibly claim no agreement for how to bid them. If you decide to play Fantunes, and both read the same book, I'd consider everything in that book to be an implicit agreement, unless you've explicitly agreed to do something different.

BTW, I think this agreement is legal on the Open+ Chart in segments of 6+ boards. It's also legal on the Open and Open+ charts if 1NT is forcing.

[PeterAlan]

blackshoe, on 2019-March-12, 10:44, said:

4441 with 12 to 14 HCP is a difficult hand for the system. ... Then the question becomes how often does it come up.

0.6172% of all hands (roughly 1 in 162). That's 3 27-board sessions for a partnership.