[uday]

Quote

partner could obviously see by looking at his hand that 4♣ was shortage

I disagree strongly.


To flip it around, you think 4C should be alertable if it is natural, length ?

[Walddk]

uday, on May 9 2005, 02:52 PM, said:

Quote

partner could obviously see by looking at his hand that 4♣ was shortage

I disagree strongly.


To flip it around, you think 4C should be alertable if it is natural, length ?

No, nothing is alertable if it's natural, and 4♣ is not alertable in this case either. You don't stop playing bridge just because you have a certain alert procedure.

Everyone with a bit of experience can figure out what 4♣ is after diamonds have been set. You don't need an agreement at all.

Roland

[hrothgar]

Walddk, on May 9 2005, 10:55 PM, said:

No, nothing is alertable if it's natural

Need to remember that next time I open a precision 2♣ bid...

[cherdano]

Walddk, on May 9 2005, 08:55 PM, said:

uday, on May 9 2005, 02:52 PM, said:

Quote

partner could obviously see by looking at his hand that 4♣ was shortage

I disagree strongly.


To flip it around, you think 4C should be alertable if it is natural, length ?

No, nothing is alertable if it's natural, and 4♣ is not alertable in this case either. You don't stop playing bridge just because you have a certain alert procedure.

Everyone with a bit of experience can figure out what 4♣ is after diamonds have been set. You don't need an agreement at all.

Roland

Oh come on. Recently there was an RGB thread on bids like 4♣, and several national top players agreed that you need an agreement (either you play this kind of bid as purely lead directing (could be void or Kx), or you play it as good second suit, with suggestion to sacrifice in case of a double fit, and lead directional value implied) for this.

It still looks to me that the pair in question had an explicit or implicit agreement about this choice.

Arend

[Walddk]

cherdano, on May 9 2005, 03:16 PM, said:

It still looks to me that the pair in question had an explicit or implicit agreement about this choice.

Arend

But you are guessing Arend. I don't want to make an assumption, let alone a ruling, if I don't know the facts. That's elementary in the democratic part of the world.

Roland

[luis]

Walddk, on May 9 2005, 08:19 PM, said:

cherdano, on May 9 2005, 03:16 PM, said:

It still looks to me that the pair in question had an explicit or implicit agreement about this choice.

Arend

But you are guessing Arend. I don't want to make an assumption, let alone a ruling, if I don't know the facts. That's elementary in the democratic part of the world.

Roland

And is something that we can't do and shouldn't do from the forums...

[cherdano]

Walddk, on May 9 2005, 09:19 PM, said:

cherdano, on May 9 2005, 03:16 PM, said:

It still looks to me that the pair in question had an explicit or implicit agreement about this choice.

Arend

But you are guessing Arend. I don't want to make an assumption, let alone a ruling, if I don't know the facts. That's elementary in the democratic part of the world.

Roland

Of course we are all guessing, but we are discussing about the best guess. And btw, a real life TD doesn't have to prove there is misinformation either -- rather to the contrary, if in doubt, he has to assume misinformation.

I am sure we agree that "The Facts" in bridge rulings are an artificial construct, that has very little to nothing to do with facts in criminal cases, and their standards in the democratic world.

Arend

[luke warm]

what a great discussion... i have to agree with roland, if asked (assuming there is no agreement), one must say "no agreement"... my earlier post went too far, i said what i *expected* it to mean (albeit after saying, in effect, 'no agreement')

[epeeist]

Since, according to the initial post North when asked SAID the 4♣ bid was lead-directing and south merely ranted, is it not reasonable for the TD to have inferred there was a partnership understanding that 4♣ was lead-directing?!

North did not say "I guessed given my length South had a void" or the like, North said unequivocally it was lead-directing.

[Echognome]

I'm not making any claims about the ACBL as I don't know the laws well enough. In EBU land, 4♣ would have to have been alerted. It could be explained as "no agreement", but since North didn't raise clubs, I would bet that wouldn't have flown very far. If it has been alerted and explained as "lead-directing" that would have been fine. If unalerted, then an implicit partnership agreement would be ruled (IMO).

However, the EBU alert procedures are very different. If it's not natural, then it's alertable (even above game level).

[mink]

First of all, if partners play together the first or the second time, I would not expect that there is some understanding about the 4♣ bid, and consequently there should be no alert.

But if this is an established partnership, it is not necessary to have discussed this kind of bid in order to create a partnership understanding. Rather, you have an idea of your partners skills and bidding habits, and therefore you expect your partner to understand that 4♣ is simply lead-directing and does not necessarily show a second suit. If you thought he might think this shows a second suit, you would have to worry that he competes too high in case he has Clubs, too, and thinks both sides have a double fit.

Therefore, I would have alerted and explained "lead-directing".

And as a director, if I believed that the partnership is not a very new one, I would assume a misinformation - no matter if this results in an adjusted score or not.

The arguments that 4♣ is just bride do not hold. Nearly everybody knows and plays that a 2♠ overcall over a 1♦ opening is weak, but still this has to be alerted as it is non-natural.

Karl

[Rebound]

uday, on May 9 2005, 01:32 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.

Good point. However, I have been approaching this from the view that, regardless of the failure to alert, West's call of 4♥ takes away the need for North to make a call in any event.

My post about what constitutes a convention was directed solely at the satatement no clear definition of a convention exists. I simply pointed out this is not the case.

If, as has been pointed out, no agreement of the 4♣ call existed, I agree it was incumbent on North to say so, rather than that it was lead directing, although as I understand it, the question of the meaning of South's call did not arise until the opening lead was faced. So, to nutshell it, a judgement is called for:

1. If no agreement existed, the whole argument is essentially moot.
2. If an such an agreement existed, then I grant it ought to have been alerted but then the question becomes,
3. Was there damage caused by the failure to alert? West's argument seems to be that he wouldn't bid over 4♣ if it was lead directing rather than showing a 2-suiter. So, who do you believe? It looks to me like West was prepared to make another bid in any event, so I would have ruled against E/W, but that's just my opinion. Without being able to ascertain all the facts, (mind probes - when are we getting one? lol) I would just make a decision and stick to it.

Finally, one last point. I firmly believe that, the stronger the player, the more incumbent it is upon him to protect himself. It has not been mentioned anywhere that E/W asked about the 4♣ bid before the end of the auction. Since W could have asked S what his bid was before calling 4♥ (this being BBO and not F2F) I have less sympathy for him, although this opinion is contingent on the overall ability of the player.

[luis]

Echognome, on May 10 2005, 12:08 AM, said:

I'm not making any claims about the ACBL as I don't know the laws well enough. In EBU land, 4♣ would have to have been alerted. It could be explained as "no agreement", but since North didn't raise clubs, I would bet that wouldn't have flown very far. If it has been alerted and explained as "lead-directing" that would have been fine. If unalerted, then an implicit partnership agreement would be ruled (IMO).

However, the EBU alert procedures are very different. If it's not natural, then it's alertable (even above game level).

You are completely wrong.
How can yo alert and say "no agreement" ? That's in first instance absurd.
Even worst without an agreement how can pd alert and say "no agreement, but I guess it's not natural so I alert" it's so ridiculous that I'm quite mad that you can post as if you were 100% sure about the EBU rules, with my respect if you don't know please don't invent because the damage is greater. You can say "In my opinion" but don't say what the EBU would do since it's quite evident that you have no clue about the rules.

[luis]

mink, on May 10 2005, 08:51 AM, said:

First of all, if partners play together the first or the second time, I would not expect that there is some understanding about the 4♣ bid, and consequently there should be no alert.

But if this is an established partnership, it is not necessary to have discussed this kind of bid in order to create a partnership understanding. Rather, you have an idea of your partners skills and bidding habits, and therefore you expect your partner to understand that 4♣ is simply lead-directing and does not necessarily show a second suit. If you thought he might think this shows a second suit, you would have to worry that he competes too high in case he has Clubs, too, and thinks both sides have a double fit.

Therefore, I would have alerted and explained "lead-directing".

And as a director, if I believed that the partnership is not a very new one, I would assume a misinformation - no matter if this results in an adjusted score or not.

The arguments that 4♣ is just bride do not hold. Nearly everybody knows and plays that a 2♠ overcall over a 1♦ opening is weak, but still this has to be alerted as it is non-natural.

Karl

This is an amazing reasoning, every time a player makes a good bid in a new partnership and the opponents yell are you going to rule missinformation ? I [disagree completely with - edited] you rulings.

-This is a new partnership.
-4♣ in "bridge" may obviously be for the lead.
-There was no damage

Don't you see that what EW want is to force good pairs to tell them what their bids are so they won't have to reason or learn to play bridge?
If they are better they are better you can't pretend to make the game more even by asking them to alert their bridge decisions.

For example if I bid 7♥ missing once ace gambling on a trump lead should I alert my 7♥ bid as "missing one ace but I'm probably getting a trump lead"
It's exactly the same case here.

I'm really astonished and quite disgusted by the view that many posters have about this issue.

[cherdano]

If this partnership has no agreement for 4♣, then of course they should not alert it. However, if they have an agreement or partnership understanding that it is purely lead directional, I still maintain they should alert it.
(I see nothing backing up Luis' claim that this was a new partnership.)

For example, if both partners knew the other has read and likes Robson-Segal (where it is discussed at length in which situations (in competition after a shown fit) bids should be lead directing, and when suggesting a sacrifice in case of a double fit, and where this 4♣ bid would be classified as lead directing), there is IMHO a good case for self-alerting 4♣.

Still, West should have protected himself by asking about 4♣ (in case his 4♥ bid was based on 4♣ showing a suit).

Arend

[DrTodd13]

Link to this topic on David Stevenson's forum.

[Echognome]

luis, on May 10 2005, 09:52 AM, said:

You are completely wrong.
How can yo alert and say "no agreement" ? That's in first instance absurd.
Even worst without an agreement how can pd alert and say "no agreement, but I guess it's not natural so I alert" it's so ridiculous that I'm quite mad that you can post as if you were 100% sure about the EBU rules, with my respect if you don't know please don't invent because the damage is greater. You can say "In my opinion" but don't say what the EBU would do since it's quite evident that you have no clue about the rules.

Hmm. I did give my opinion of the rules I thought. I don't mind if you disagree, but to use ad hominem arguments doesn't get us very far now does it? I will defer to more knowledgeable people on this case, but to say that I don't have a clue about the rules. I find that to be very rude. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine I won't take offense. But I don't think you know me well enough to say more.

If you know a bid is conventional, but do not know what it means, you ARE supposed to alert even if you do not know what it means. I agree that "no agreement" is different than "I forgot the agreement."

(edited for typos)

[uday]

From that referenced forum

Quote

Whether it is "just bridge" is not the standard for alerting in most jurisdictions, though it may be in some online games. If the fact that the 4 club2.gif bid maybe short is known to both partners, and they know their partners know it, then it is an agreement, and certainly alertable. Whether it is "just bridge" as well is irrelevant. On the other hand, if they have no agreement, and the one who made the bid was merely guessing that his partner would consider it "just bridge" then it is not an agreement and not alertable.

So, it boils down to whether the could-be-short-4c-bid was made with an agreement.

If so, it was "certainly alertable."
If not, it was not alertable.

[pigpenz]

I agree Uday...and certainly west could have asked or passed and let them see where they were going.

[david_c]

luis, on May 10 2005, 09:52 AM, said:

Echognome, on May 10 2005, 12:08 AM, said:

I'm not making any claims about the ACBL as I don't know the laws well enough.  In EBU land, 4♣ would have to have been alerted.  It could be explained as "no agreement", but since North didn't raise clubs, I would bet that wouldn't have flown very far.  If it has been alerted and explained as "lead-directing" that would have been fine.  If unalerted, then an implicit partnership agreement would be ruled (IMO).

However, the EBU alert procedures are very different.  If it's not natural, then it's alertable (even above game level).

You are completely wrong.
How can yo alert and say "no agreement" ? That's in first instance absurd.
Even worst without an agreement how can pd alert and say "no agreement, but I guess it's not natural so I alert"

Say for example if your LHO opens 2♠ and partner bids 3♠. Then even if you've not discussed the 3♠ bid and have no idea what partner indends, you know it must be alertable, so playing face-to-face bridge in the EBU you have to alert. Our regs say, "Alert any call of your partner which you believe to be alertable even if you cannot explain its meaning." And what else can you say but "no agreement"? Nothing absurd about it.

Still, I'd be surprised if North was ruled against for not alerting on a hand like this, even in the EBU. I don't think that his failure to bid 5♣ is enough to show they have an understanding (yes he has six clubs, but he might decide he can wait for a round when his RHO bids 4♥). And the TD will probably think it's unlikely they have discussed this situation. But if they admit that they have an understanding, then they might be in trouble.