[helene_t]

jillybean2, on May 8 2005, 11:23 PM, said:

To the people who have answered:  “4♣ is just bridge” :

When tournament rules state “Alert all conventional bids”, is this interpreted as “only alert conventional bids that experienced players won’t recognize”?

Good question. The term "conventional" is not stringently defined.

Bidding a new suit after a fit has been found is unlikely to be a proposal to make that suit trump. It could be lead-directing, it could be a notrump probe, it could be a long suit trial. In this case, it could be argued that a second suit, looking for the double fit, would be more natural than lead-directing. Consider this
1♦-2♦
2♠*
Responder denied a 4-card major so 2♠ can't be a proposal to play in spades. It could be argued that a 6-5 shape would be more natural than a notrump probe. But nobody would alert 2♠. Probably the lead-directing 4♣ is less obvious than this.

[jillybean]

1♦-2♦
2♠*

I understand and agree with this, it is showing strength.

The explanation I was given and have been using to define conventional bids, is very simply:

It is NOT conventional if:
1. You are willing to play there
2. You have length there (3+)
3. You have strength



And then it goes back to this big grey area of 'partnership agreements'

jillybean2

[luis]

4♣ is not conventional and doesn't require any alert.
Why it is not "conventional" ? Because conventional is a bid where you agree a specific meaning with your pd and I really doubt this pair has discussed this situation in particular. Many people confuse bids that don't show a suit with conventional bids, there're a lot of not-natural bids that are not conventional.

Adjusting would be ridiculous there's nothing nothing nothing even to analyze here.

[Rebound]

Quote

<snip>
The term "conventional" is not stringently defined.

Sure it is.

A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named.

So, the first order of business in the actual case has more to do with whether N/S had a prior partnership agreement as to the meaning of the 4♣ call. If not, then it is, by definition, not alertable. It's hard to say in this case. There certainly is more than one possible meaning for the 4♣ call (well, perhaps exactly 2.) So, who do you believe?

My take is that, just because North's length tells him partner's lead directing call is based on shortness rather than strength, it is lead directing nevertheless and the opponents have no recourse.

Um seems I missed Luis's post - we seem to be more or less on the same page.

This post has been edited by Rebound: 2005-May-09, 09:57

[luis]

jillybean2, on May 9 2005, 03:28 PM, said:

1♦-2♦
2♠*

I understand and agree with this, it is showing strength.

The explanation I was given and have been using to define conventional bids, is very simply:

It is NOT conventional if:
1. You are willing to play there
2. You have length there (3+)
3. You have strength



And then it goes back to this big grey area of 'partnership agreements'

jillybean2

1,2 and 3 are wrong.
A bid is conventional if there's an explicit or implicit partnership agreement about the meaning of the bid. Explicit is when it has been discussed or it is in the CC. Implicit is when it has appeared in similar situations before and the pair has agreed about the meaning of the bid.

Law 40-A:
A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

[cherdano]

Playing without agreements, would you really not compete to 5♣ with the North hand after partner's 2♦-4♣ bids?

Arend

[jillybean]

Rebound, on May 9 2005, 08:54 AM, said:

My take is that, just because North's length tells him partner's lead directing call is based on shortness rather than strength, it is lead directing nevertheless and the opponents have no recourse.

Ah, I am beginning to understand !
or atleast I thought I was

This post has been edited by jillybean2: 2005-May-09, 10:05

[luis]

cherdano, on May 9 2005, 03:59 PM, said:

Playing without agreements, would you really not compete to 5♣ with the North hand after partner's 2♦-4♣ bids?

Arend

No, it would be quite crazy...

[jillybean]

luis, on May 9 2005, 08:58 AM, said:

jillybean2, on May 9 2005, 03:28 PM, said:

1♦-2♦
2♠*

I understand and agree with this, it is showing strength.

The explanation I was given and have been using to define conventional bids, is very simply:

It is NOT conventional if:
1. You are willing to play there
2. You have length there (3+)
3. You have strength



And then it goes back to this big grey area of 'partnership agreements'  

jillybean2

1,2 and 3 are wrong.
A bid is conventional if there's an explicit or implicit partnership agreement about the meaning of the bid. Explicit is when it has been discussed or it is in the CC. Implicit is when it has appeared in similar situations before and the pair has agreed about the meaning of the bid.

Law 40-A:
A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

Are 1,2,3 correct if also "4. There is an agreement" exists ?
Otherwise the bid is natural or a psyche.

[pigpenz]

if there is no firm partnership understanding it is not a convention and does not need to be alerted. A tactical bid is not necessarily a psyche! if the oppoenents had passed 4♣'s then his partner would have been on the spot by having to bid 5♣ or 4♦'s

[luke warm]

pigpenz, on May 9 2005, 10:25 AM, said:

if the oppoenents had passed 4♣'s then his partner would have been on the spot by having to bid 5♣ or 4♦'s

i sure don't see the "spot"... diamonds are agreed, eh? one thing partner must not do is pass, so 4D or even 5C is fine... if, as in the actual hand there is a ♣ void, partner will correct 5♣ to 5♦... i'd bid 4♦ over 4♣, to see what pard had in mind

the whole purpose of 4♣ is to give partner a good lead if the opps steal the hand

[uday]

So at least some of the people in this thread automatically assume that overcallers second call is purely lead directional, and it would be crazy to raise it.

I don't think this is playable, but even if it is, is this group also saying that this is a normal, standard, not unexpected meaning of overcallers second suit after his first suit has been raised in a competitive auction?

So that playing against this group, overcallers second call in competition can be a void, and partner will never, ever, raise ? And for this group, this is normal, standard, routine, because they never ever need to find a second suit fit ?

Maybe it makes some sort of sense to do this. I have a really hard time believing that any TD in ACBL land would let this second call slide by without an alert. I strongly suspect it would be treated as an alertable partnership agreement.

[DrTodd13]

It doesn't matter if partner raises because you will correct to 5♦. In a competitive auction like this, 4♣ with a void IS a normal, standard, and not unexpected meaning. I'm working on a number of serious partnerships. I can tell you that in neither of them have I had a discussion about a sequence like this. Nevertheless, if it came up I would still expect partner to understand what is going on. We haven't discussed it so we have no partnership agreement other than to follow general bridge principles. This is "just bridge" and is not alertable and I believe that no TD would say that this requires an alert. I'll post the hand on David Stevenson's website and see what he says but I can almost quarantee you that is completely normal and not alertable.

[luke warm]

todd, can i make a suggestion? post 2 hands, one with the void and one with a real, live, club suit (say headed by A,K or A,Q)... ask which of these, if either, is alertable...

as i said earlier, i've seen similar bids many times and i've never seen an alert... i'm sure fred, and many others, have made many lead-directional bids 'on the way' to the final contract...

note that this occurred in a competitive auction... if my partner bid like that in r/l and i was asked, i'd say 'we've never discussed this, but i take it as lead directing' ... if asked whether or not it shows a real suit, i'd say "i honestly don't know" (assuming i honestly didn't know)... in a non-competitive auction i'd fully expect it to be a 2nd suit, and would say so if asked

oh, i've only seen it happen once when the 2nd suit was higher ranking than the first... that was a slam look...

[hrothgar]

jillybean2, on May 9 2005, 06:28 PM, said:

The explanation I was given and have been using to define conventional bids, is very simply:

It is NOT conventional if:
1. You are willing to play there
2. You have length there (3+)
3. You have strength

Rebound has already provided the formal definition of "Convention".

Its quite easy to demonstrate significant differences between the two definitions:

Suppose that I am playing a Muiderberg type 2♠ opening in which a 2♠ opening promises 5+ Spades and either (4+ clubs or 4+ Diamonds).

The definition that you are using suggests that the 2♠ opening is not conventional since the opening meets all the criteria for a natural bid. However, the bid is clearly conventional using the formal definition since the 2♠ opening explictly provides information about holds in a side suit...

Its important to remember that bids can simultaneously be both conventional and natural...

[DrTodd13]

luke warm, on May 9 2005, 10:02 AM, said:

todd, can i make a suggestion? post 2 hands, one with the void and one with a real, live, club suit (say headed by A,K or A,Q)... ask which of these, if either, is alertable...

as i said earlier, i've seen similar bids many times and i've never seen an alert... i'm sure fred, and many others, have made many lead-directional bids 'on the way' to the final contract...

note that this occurred in a competitive auction... if my partner bid like that in r/l and i was asked, i'd say 'we've never discussed this, but i take it as lead directing' ... if asked whether or not it shows a real suit, i'd say "i honestly don't know" (assuming i honestly didn't know)... in a non-competitive auction i'd fully expect it to be a 2nd suit, and would say so if asked

oh, i've only seen it happen once when the 2nd suit was higher ranking than the first... that was a slam look...

What? I'm saying that neither are alertable. Guess I wasn't making myself clear.

[luis]

uday, on May 9 2005, 05:32 PM, said:

So at least some of the people in this thread automatically assume that overcallers second call is purely lead directional, and it would be crazy to raise it.

I don't think this is playable, but even if it is, is this group also saying that this is a normal, standard, not unexpected meaning of overcallers second suit after his first suit has been raised in a competitive auction?

So that playing against this group, overcallers second call in competition can be a void, and partner will never, ever, raise ? And for this group, this is normal, standard, routine, because they never ever need to find a second suit fit ?

Maybe it makes some sort of sense to do this. I have a really hard time believing that any TD in ACBL land would let this second call slide by without an alert. I strongly suspect it would be treated as an alertable partnership agreement.

Are you serious? I think there's a huge missconception about what is alertable and what is not. For some reason I think that there's a tendency to force good players to alert good bids even if they don't have any agreement with pd.

This is a clear example, a good player made a good bid without any specific agreement and here we are with a 3 page thread were people is still thinking that there should have been an alert.

I strongly hope no ACBL director would even care about this case, any normal TD should dismiss the case inmediately.

[Walddk]

I must agree with luis and Dr. Todd. You are only supposed to alert bids (if conventional) you have an agreement about. Opps are not entitled to know what you actually hold.

Having said that, it's also important that partner does not try guess as to what the 4♣ call shows, unless they have an agreement. If they don't have any, the answer, if asked, must be.

"No agreement".

Many inexperienced players also seem to have the misconception that you must alert a pre-empt for example if you have 15 hcp instead of the usual 5-10(11). That is not the case. You can do anything you please as long as it's not a partnership understanding.

Then your partner is left as much in the dark as the opponents are. No one is entitled to know what you actually have in your hand - only what your agreements are.

Roland

[uday]

You don't think the failure to raise the second suit with six card support and a singleton and a double fit was evidence of an agreement, or at least an understanding?

Or is this in the "lucky guess category", where it sometimes shows a void and sometimes AQxx , and partner must guess right?

[Walddk]

uday, on May 9 2005, 02:38 PM, said:

You don't think the failure to raise the second suit with six card support and a singleton and a double fit was evidence of an agreement, or at least an understanding?

Or is this in the "lucky guess category", where it sometimes shows a void and sometimes AQxx , and partner must guess right?

Right Uday, in this case partner could obviously see by looking at his hand that 4♣ was shortage rather than a suit, but that does not change the point. If they have no agreement as to what 4♣ is, it is not alertable, and partner with the 6 clubs must answer "No agreement" if asked.

I can't tell whether this was an experienced partnership or not, and therefore it's impossible to know whether there was an agreement, or much worse an understanding. I will have to be at the table in the capacity of a TD in order to sort that out.

Roland