[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Nov 17 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 17 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

What if they open 1♣ when 6223, it's still a natural bid but it would be insane to say it shouldn't be alerted.

Seems to me it's insane to jump from "is opening 1♣ with 4-2-4-3 alertable" to "what if they open 1♣ with 6223?"

I agree, which is why I didn't. I made the jump from "canape bids aren't alertable" to "it would be ridiculous if this canape bid were not alertable". And I realize it's a prealert not an alert, the point is it would be nuts if the opponents weren't made aware. Insane even.

[P_Marlowe]

Alert.

No discussion.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

With a canapé style you bid your 2nd suit first,, you pre-alert your system and you alert the 2nd suit bid.

1♣ with 4-2-4-3 is not canapé because you open your 3rd longest suit, this is unusual and should be alerted.

[hrothgar]

Hi Kathryn

Many folks refer to this type of opening structure as "short club" or a "phony club".

You might find it easier to figure out what's what if you frame the question using one of these expressions...

[awm]

hrothgar, on Nov 18 2008, 08:58 AM, said:

Hi Kathryn

Many folks refer to this type of opening structure as "short club" or a "phony club".

You might find it easier to figure out what's what if you frame the question using one of these expressions...

I think the point was, ACBL regulations are pretty clear that a 1♣ opening which could be doubleton is supposed to be announced "could be short." Most people who play "short club" or "phony club" are opening 1♣ with a doubleton.

This particular pair seems to have agreed that opening 1♣ promises at least three of them, so describing their club bid as "short" or "phony" is not quite accurate, any more than describing the 1♣ opening in SAYC (which is certainly not alertable in ACBL-land even though it could be opener's third-longest suit) as a "short" or "phony" club.

[jillybean]

The player concerned wants me to remove the word routinely from “You routinely open 4243 hands 1♣” in the opening post but Im not sure how to best word it.

We had a lengthy, friendly, discussion after the tournament and one of the questions I asked was “do we agree; with 4♦ and 3♣, the usual opening is 1♦”? - she did not agree with this which indicates to me that xx43 hands will be opened 1♣ more frequently than expected.

For certain there is no consensus on this!

[jdonn]

It sounds to me like your partner is trying to be like a politician to not admit the truth so he/she doesn't have to tell the opponents. Of course I'm only speculating on the intentions, but that's sure how it looks.

[FrancesHinden]

It doesn't sound like it's jilly's partner, it is someone playing in a tournament she was directing.

To be honest, I've never seen exactly this style of opening before, which seems to be

- open 1D when 4=4=3=2
- open 1C on all other balanced hands without a non-club 5-card suit

the "real" phoney club often opens 1C on 3=2=5=3 12-14s as well, but I imagine that isn't the case here, that's a 1D opening?

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 18 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

It doesn't sound like it's jilly's partner, it is someone playing in a tournament she was directing.

I think you're right, my mistake.

[mycroft]

My guess - and it's only a guess - is that they play "1D implies an unbalanced hand", but they'll do it in 4=4=3=2 if necessary; but otherwise "all balanced hands are opened 1C if out of other NT ranges".

I'm not 100% sure it should be Alerted, but I think it should be pre-Alerted. I think if you tell the opponents the idea, something like "1C then some NT could be (42)43 as well as what's 'standard'", it wouldn't take too long or annoying, especially with macros and BBO.

Now that I think about it, it might be one of those things that's best Alerted when it's discovered, like 1NT-2C;2x-2NT "may not have a 4 card Major". 1C-1x; 1NT "may have 4 diamonds and only 3 clubs, if the hand's ..." or "may be 42 in the majors, with 4 diamonds and 3 clubs" or whatever.

The spirit of Law 40 means that the opponents should know about the possibility when it comes up somewhen; when seems to be vague.

But Check With Memphis for official ruling, as always.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on Nov 18 2008, 09:58 AM, said:

Many folks refer to this type of opening structure as "short club" or a "phony club".

"Short club" usually refers to systems where 1♣ could be a 2-card (or shorter) suit. Typically these systems promise at least 4 cards for a 1♦ opening, so you open 1♣ with 4=4=3=2 hands; and 5-card ♦ systems open 1♣ with 4=4=4=1.

Short club bids require an announcement in ACBL, you announce something like "Could be as short as 2."

[blackshoe]

Proper form for that announcement is simply "could be short". It applies when the opening 1♣ or 1♦ bid could be on a suit shorter than three cards (including no cards). If the opponents want to know how short, they can ask.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Nov 18 2008, 08:37 PM, said:

Proper form for that announcement is simply "could be short". It applies when the opening 1♣ or 1♦ bid could be on a suit shorter than three cards (including no cards). If the opponents want to know how short, they can ask.

Correct but important to note that is only if the bid is nonforcing. Some people open 1♣ on 0+ or 1+ but have agreed never to pass, which is an alert not an announcement.

[jillybean]

As others have pointed out, 4243 is not a 'short club'

Today, the player further clarified that she plays convenient minor (defined as ‘Where opener lacks a five card major, s/he opens the longer/better minor. Guarantees at least 3 cards in the suit.) and asked 14 people at her club who confirmed; no alert needed.

I now believe the player opens 1♣/1♦ on whim and her partner is equally in the dark, its hard to undo 30 years of club games. I'll continue to review these openings in my games.

[mycroft]

Right. Convenient minor is fine. But 1C on 4=2=4=3 isn't "longer minor" - so it looks like she'll open 1C on 9753 AKT, but 1D on KQT4 853 (and somewhere in the middle is the borderline) as "better minor".

Like anybody playing a non-standard system, she needs to clarify in her mind where that border is, make sure that she and her partner are on the same page, and ensure that the opponents are in the know. How to do that is not terribly important as long as it happens.

Please note that that's what gets me about a lot of "standard" players; they say "it's standard" - which may be correct, but it's not Law 40. There are also situations where there are two or more subtly different ways to play <something> that are all "standard", and thanks, but I'd like to know which one - *and you have an absolute requirement to tell me*, just as they'd be upset if I only described 1S-3S in my Precision system as "weak", when I show up with 8 high.

[jillybean]

It seems to me, some people have never bothered to understand WHY it is important to alert an unusual minor opening and therefore take exception when queried. People don’t see a failure to alert a minor opening as being in the same league as failure to alert a precision or polish ♣ opening for eg.

[blackshoe]

My response to "it's standard" or "<name of convention>" is "I'm sorry, I don't know what that means. Could you explain further, please?"

[pigpenz]

awm, on Nov 17 2008, 10:28 PM, said:

The ACBL rule is very clear about this. Bids with an unusual or unexpected meaning are alertable. What's unusual? Director's discretion.

Thus the rule is, if Blackshoe is directing, then you do not have to alert. If Jdonn is directing, then you do have to alert. In some cases the rules may depend on who "you" are as well as who the director is.

Don't like this type of rule? Tough, ACBL used to have alert regulations with less leeway for "director discretion" -- they purposely changed it in the last update to be fuzzier.

yes and never ever quote Bridge World to an ACBL TD.

[JoAnneM]

I agree completely with jdonn. Active Ethics is promoted, even demanded, by ACBL, and that requires full disclosure. In my long years in duplicate bridge it is the wannabee experts who have the most trouble with this concept, the true experts, no matter their age, are expert at full disclosure and Active Ethics.

Notice at the vugraph tables how many bids are alerted that don't get alerted in your local club. And, we have a national champion playing regularly at an online to which I belong, and he and his partner alert religiously, with accompanying explanations. I imagine there are some there that think he is a "wuss". lol

[jtfanclub]

JoAnneM, on Nov 24 2008, 11:33 AM, said:

I agree completely with jdonn. Active Ethics is promoted, even demanded, by ACBL, and that requires full disclosure. In my long years in duplicate bridge it is the wannabee experts who have the most trouble with this concept, the true experts, no matter their age, are expert at full disclosure and Active Ethics.

Disagree in this case, although I might have agreed when I first read the OP.

If I tend to open 43 in the minors with the 4 card minor, but do it with the 3 card minor when the 4 card is complete junk, I think that it's a mistake to alert it. All I'm really doing is confusing the opponents and possibly revealing information to partner (because of unintentional emphasis in my wording or whatever). The second one isn't an issue in Vugraph because it's being written down- my partner doesn't get to see it.

When I play Precision, where 1 diamond promises 4 or more diamonds but could be longer clubs, I'll announce just before the opening lead if appropriate. But every director I've spoken to on this believes that this one diamond bid should not be alerted just because it could have longer clubs, because it's more likely to introduce UI or cause problems by people afraid to ask for fear of introducing UI than it is to actually be useful.

There is a 'usual' function going on here. If the bid usually means what the opponents expect it to mean, then it shouldn't be alerted. If a later call makes the unusual meaning more common or more important, then you alert later. Even for 'standard' experts, there are cases where they'll respond 1♥ with 3 across a 1♦ opener. But that doesn't mean you alert the 1♥ bid because one time in a million it'll be short.

If every time they have 4 diamonds and 3 clubs, they open 1 club, then that should be alerted. But if it's limited to the rare case of 3 good clubs and 4 awful diamonds, I don't think that's alertable. And based on the later posts, I think that's what they were actually playing.