[awm]

We sit down at the table for a swiss teams match and our opponents pre-alert their methods as follows:

"Both our 1♣ and 1♦ openings could be as short as zero."

To this I asked, what types of hands would these be and how do they decide which minor to open. They responded:

"We might open on a void with 4450, or on a singleton ace. Generally we open the suit we want lead. We might also have a five-card major when we open 1m."

What do you think about this description of their methods?

[jdonn]

I think I've pretty much got the idea (so Qxxxx A they open the A, but AQxxx x they open the AQxxx). Anyway I think their description is fine even though it's obviously not complete, since a complete one would take forever and you are free to ask more if you want. I wouldn't bother unless they actually opened it. And I'm quite happy to play against this silly system.

[Echognome]

The initial description is inadequate, but heck, the opponents are pre-alerting. So let's ask for their system card and try to find out a bit more information. I wouldn't think of calling the director, unless the opponents were unwilling to answer the questions I asked them.

It may end up not being as complicated as they are making it out to be.

If they were friends of mine, I might talk to them afterwards and help them come up with a better way to describe their system. If not, then I wouldn't broach the subject with them.

I have some sympathy for making the pre-alert description brief. Back when I played transfer openings that could be canape, I would try to explain all the important bids to the opponents before we started. For example, I thought they would want to know that 1♠ is one or both minors, no 4cM and unbalanced (else open 1NT). Many times I would get eyerolls and the opponents wouldn't want to know. So I tried to unveil the system like an onion, depending on how many layers the opponents wanted to go into. It certainly doesn't mean I was successful at explaining my system. So maybe this pair just needs a little help in explaining things clearly.

However, maybe they think they are doing an adequate job of disclosure and need a bit more than that.

[MickyB]

Echognome, on Jun 30 2009, 12:40 AM, said:

So I tried to unveil the system like an onion, depending on how many layers the opponents wanted to go into.

Not the most flattering of comparisons. I would prefer to think of it as being like the dance of the seven veils.

[cherdanno]

Both of them make you cry, sometimes...

[655321]

MickyB, on Jun 29 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

Echognome, on Jun 30 2009, 12:40 AM, said:

So I tried to unveil the system like an onion, depending on how many layers the opponents wanted to go into.

Not the most flattering of comparisons. I would prefer to think of it as being like the dance of the seven veils.

I think the nine circles of Hell might be a more appropriate analogy.

[xcurt]

In theory I should have a problem with this, because it is not fully discloseable. However, in practice systems like this are usually rather poorly designed and have many holes, so I just make sure I'm playing power doubles (and 1NT takeout) and I make them reveal everything about their hands when they open in front of us and we have the balance of high card. There's no downside to this against this system, because they can never preempt.

Also, Adam, you should also have the following meta-agreement against 1m => {a random hand} methods

1NT = does not promise a stopper (ie, we won't distort our shape to avoid bidding NT when we have xxx(x) in their suit, but you are better off playing power doubles)
2 of their minor -> natural
2H = Michaels
2S = preemptive
and, probably, 2NT = both minors (I'm not sure this is best but the idea here is to avoid losing boards because you have a misunderstanding after the opponents randomize the auction)

[awm]

We have generic defenses to such things; that's not really the issue.

I think there is a bit of disclosure problem here, in that the opponents could very well have hidden agreements about which minor to open and there's no way we could tell, or use the information effectively. I don't really think it should be allowed to define multiple bids to show the exact same hands -- too easy to have undisclosed knowledge of partner's tendencies etc.

On the other hand, I thought (at the table) that it probably wasn't worth complaining about this. Of course, I might feel differently if one or both teams had been in contention for the event.

[zasanya]

I wont describe them as clowns but isnt it better to check if this system is allowed?

[Gerben42]

Quote

  I wont describe them as clowns but isnt it better to check if this system is allowed?

Why don't you just be happy that they play such a crap system first, and talk to the director maybe later to see if it's allowed

[hotShot]

Obviously their 1M openings have a better suit quality than usual 1M openings. Opps will have to alert all rebids, because the rebid suit could be longer than the opened suit. So I can ask about that stuff later.
Since they open 1m more often than other pairs, we have more chances for a cheap 1M overcall. I think opps system has weaknesses against weak jump overcalls over 1m or other preemptive moves.

I don't think the system is that silly, but if opps like to make their life harder, I won't object.

[helene_t]

Sounds as if they did their best to disclose their methods. If you want to know more you can just ask.

Try to let someone playing SAYC or Acol explain their methods to someone completely unfamiliar with those systems. Won't be easy either.

Not sure if I am happy to play against such a silly system, but if we are playing for high stakes I suppose I am happy.

[gnasher]

awm, on Jun 30 2009, 03:55 AM, said:

I think there is a bit of disclosure problem here, in that the opponents could very well have hidden agreements about which minor to open and there's no way we could tell, or use the information effectively.

Every pair of opponents might have hidden agreements, or might fail to disclose what they know from partnership experience. It's against the rules to do either. Isn't it best to assume that the opponents are playing within the rules until you have evidence that they're not?

Quote

I don't really think it should be allowed to define multiple bids to show the exact same hands -- too easy to have undisclosed knowledge of partner's tendencies etc.

They aren't exactly the same hands - they use their honour holdings and their judgement to decide with suit to open. How is this qualitatively different from sometimes opening 1NT with a five-card major, and sometimes opening one of a suit on the same shape and strength? Or sometimes opening 3♦, sometimes opening 2♦, and sometimes passing, all with the same shape and strength?

[mtvesuvius]

I would be thrilled to defend this, especially with my agressive pre-empting style. This seems so vulnerable to pre-emption. After all, in the auction (1♦) - 3♥ - (X) - P - ?

What does opener do now with KJxxx Jx AK Jxxx?
and how is that action distinguished between Axxx xx AKQxx xx?

Although they may have hidden agreements etc, I think I'm quite happy until they win a bunch of IMPs

This post has been edited by mtvesuvius: 2009-June-30, 07:03

[cherdanno]

I would overcall 1♠.

[Apollo81]

I would get a little more information out of them (which you presumably did) such as what strength is promised by their 1-suit openings, whether their 1-major openings promise 5, and what their 1NT and 2-level openings mean. Assuming that the answers to all of those are normal, then I get the idea and am happy to play against this.