[jdonn]

jtfanclub, on Nov 24 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

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).

Got it. Don't alert because:

- The opponents are idiots.
- Partner is unethical.
- I can not CONTROL the volume OF MY voice when I get EXCITED about CERTAIN words.

jtfanclub, on Nov 24 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

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.

This has already been touched on. I'll be clear.

Opening 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors is not highly unusual and unexpected.

Opening 1♣ with 4-3 in the minors is highly unusual and unexpected.

[mycroft]

Yeah, but opening 1C with 9632 AKT in the minors is not highly unusual or unexpected - just good(?) judgement.

Opening 1C with 9632 T85 in the minors, treating it as 3-3, may be less good judgement, but is it truly "highly" unusual or unexpected? If so, where is a reasonable borderline?

Not everybody has yet become a convert to "length rules on openings, strength is irrelevant"; they tend to win when partner finds the right lead (and lose in many other cases).

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Nov 24 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Nov 24 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

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).

Got it. Don't alert because:

- The opponents are idiots.
- Partner is unethical.
- I can not CONTROL the volume OF MY voice when I get EXCITED about CERTAIN words.

jtfanclub, on Nov 24 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

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.

This has already been touched on. I'll be clear.

Opening 1♦ with 4-5 in the minors is not highly unusual and unexpected.

Opening 1♣ with 4-3 in the minors is highly unusual and unexpected.

Woo hoo! Selective quoting at its best.

Maybe I should use bold instead of italics.

Don't alert if the usual meaning of the bid is the expected meaning of the bid. If there is a rare exception where the meaning of the bid is not the expected meaning of the bid, that is not an alert.

How many examples would you like of this rule? If 1♣ (1♠) P is usually a weak hand but could be a trap pass, this is not an alert. If 1NT p 2♣ usually has a 4 card major but might not on rare cases, this is not an alert. If you use 1NT P 2♦ as showing hearts 99% of the time but the other 1% you're just setting up for keycard in hearts because it's the only way you can find out about the location of the queen of hearts, it's not an alert.

Sure, 4 diamonds and 5 clubs isn't unusual, but I open 1 diamond with 4-6. Still not alertable. If I opened 1 diamond with 4-7 and even had a rebid just for 4-7, it still wouldn't be alertable. Why? Because 1 diamond usually means the expected meaning. If a later part of the auction made the rare freak more likely, it would be an alert then.

If 43 in the minors always opened 1 club, that would be common, and alerted.

If 43 in the minors is opened with the longer minor, but in rare exceptions where the longer suit is very weak but the shorter suit was very strong it gets opened with the shorter minor, that is not an alert in my opinion, and I suspect in most directors' opinion. In Vugraph or online where there's less cost in an alert, maybe you should do it as a courtesy.

[jdonn]

Sorry I thought we were talking about the topic under discussion, not changing it to some different case! Maybe it would help to reread the first sentence of the entire thread.

jillybean2, on Nov 17 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

You routinely open 4243 hands 1♣ - is it alertable under ACBL regulations?

I have never disagreed that if you make very rare exceptions about suit length based on suit quality there is no need to alert. No need for me to 'selectively quote' your ridiculous examples.

[jtfanclub]

jdonn, on Nov 25 2008, 01:05 PM, said:

Sorry I thought we were talking about the topic under discussion, not changing it to some different case! Maybe it would help to reread the first sentence of the entire thread.

jillybean2, on Nov 17 2008, 08:25 PM, said:

You routinely open 4243 hands 1♣ - is it alertable under ACBL regulations?

I have never disagreed that if you make very rare exceptions about suit length based on suit quality there is no need to alert. No need for me to 'selectively quote' your ridiculous examples.

Halfway through the thread, Jilly changed what was under discussion. In my first reply, I said that while I might have agreed that any 43 in the minors opening 1♣ should be alerted, her new version (that they only open it under these rare circumstances) it should no longer be alerted.

I thought I had made that sufficiently explicit, but looking back on it I see that I didn't. So I think we're arguing with each other in spite of being in agreement, and I'll leave it at that.

[jillybean]

jtfanclub, on Nov 26 2008, 08:33 AM, said:

Halfway through the thread, Jilly changed what was under discussion.  In my first reply, I said that while I might have agreed that any 43 in the minors opening 1♣ should be alerted, her new version (that they only open it under these rare circumstances) it should no longer be alerted.

I dont like being mis quoted, what I said was;

jillybean2, on Nov 18 2008, 09:11 AM, said:

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.

Its clear that this player should alert!

[jtfanclub]

[quote name='jillybean2' date='Nov 26 2008, 02:11 PM'] [/QUOTE]
I dont like being mis quoted, what I said was;
.
.
.
[/QUOTE]

Its clear that this player should alert! [/quote]
I didn't quote you, let alone misquote you. This is a quote:

[quote]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. [/quote]

It is clear this is NOT an alert, unless you can prove that what they're playing is not convenient minor! If they, on rare occassions and in their bridge judgement, decide that the convenient minor is the shorter one does not make it alertable, nor does it change it from being convenient minor.

If their partner was truly equally in the dark, then either it's part of convenient minor, and therefore not alertable, or it's a psyche, which is also not alertable. You alert non-standard agreements. You don't alert calls where the agreed meaning is standard and the partner is as much in the dark as to the actual holding as the opponents.

[Echognome]

You would have to be really careful to define "in the dark". Of course if she has a regular partner and varies her openings between the minors, then her partner is "not in the dark" as to the reliability of her bids. The agreement to "randomize" if you will, may be an implicit agreement, but it's an agreement nonetheless. So if, on a whim, I decide to open 1♣ holding ♠ATxx ♥KQxx ♦Qxx ♣Qx and my partner would expect me to open 1♦, then fine. However, if I do it regularly, and partner would expect that some of the time I would open 1♣ and some of the time I would open 1♦, then I think that should be alertable.

N'est ce pas?

[jillybean]

jtfanclub you are right, you didnt "quote" me. Just to be sure, quote "her new version (that they only open it under these rare circumstances)" are your words not mine.

I think the openings are clearly non standard when the player disagreed with the question “do we agree; with 4♦ and 3♣, the usual opening is 1♦?”

My comment about her partner being 'in the dark' was in regard to not knowing if her parter is opening on 43, 34, 32, 23.. rather than being unaware that her partner randomly opens minors.

[Tcyk]

With less than three cards in a minor suit, it should be alerted as "may be short." This applies to the Precision Club players that open 1D with less than two as well. It must be alerted every time, even when you have six cards in the suit. This is the most common infringement on the laws of bridge that I see on BBO. Perhaps they are playing Viennese Club where an opening bid of 1C denies five cards in any higher suit. Lacking a 5-card suit and the strength for 1NT, they must open 1C ... and it must be alerted. When I was an active director I asked my one pair that played canape to pre-alert that fact. Their minor suit opening bids always promised four or more cards but often promised a longer major.

[qwery_hi]

What is when you are 4-2-(43) you randomly choose to open 1c or 1d? Does this require an alert or a pre-alert? If so, what should you say to the opponents?

[hotShot]

qwery_hi, on Feb 21 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

What is when you are 4-2-(43) you randomly choose to open 1c or 1d? Does this require an alert or a pre-alert? If so, what should you say to the opponents?

If you do it randomly, than sometimes your bidding is canapé style, that is alertable.
Notice that some SO's order to alert the 2nd bid of a canapé and not the first bid.
Check your SO for details about alerting canapé style bidding.

[kenrexford]

hotShot, on Feb 21 2009, 07:50 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Feb 21 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

What is when you are 4-2-(43) you randomly choose to open 1c or 1d? Does this require an alert or a pre-alert? If so, what should you say to the opponents?

If you do it randomly, than sometimes your bidding is canapé style, that is alertable.
Notice that some SO's order to alert the 2nd bid of a canapé and not the first bid.
Check your SO for details about alerting canapé style bidding.

Yeah, this was an interesting point I was thinking. When I played canape a lot, they wanted the second bid alerted, not the first, because the 4-card major opening was not alertable.

Extrapolating out, if a 3-card club opening is not alertable, then any later nuance seems to be late-alerted.

I think that's wrong, and I think canape should be alerted on open, but we received these weird rulings nonetheless.

[qwery_hi]

hotShot, on Feb 21 2009, 04:50 AM, said:

qwery_hi, on Feb 21 2009, 02:42 PM, said:

What is when you are 4-2-(43) you randomly choose to open 1c or 1d? Does this require an alert or a pre-alert? If so, what should you say to the opponents?

If you do it randomly, than sometimes your bidding is canapé style, that is alertable.
Notice that some SO's order to alert the 2nd bid of a canapé and not the first bid.
Check your SO for details about alerting canapé style bidding.

Is it canape even if you make the planned rebid of 1NT?

[hotShot]

It seems logical to me that under your agreement 1♥ or 1NT would need no alert, while any later ♦ bid would require an alert.
But that would require a bridge law commission to decide.....