[WellSpyder]

We have been discussing elsewhere the problem of potential MI when there is a gap in the system that leaves some hands without a systemic call to describe them. This is an issue I face with one of my partners since there is a very clear hole in the system. Our opening bids are similar to Precision except that 1♣ is two-way: 1♣= any 16+, or 11-13 BAL with 4M; 1♦ = 3+; 1♥/♠ = 5+, 1N = 14-16 BAL, 2♣= 6+ or 5 with 4M; 2♥=4405 or 4414. This means that there is no specified opening bid for hands with 11-13 and exactly 3325 shape. The traditional Precision solution to this hand type is to include it within the 1♦ opening bid, which therefore only shows 2+. We prefer not to do this since it is a very specific hand type and we prefer to be able to "rely" on 3+.

Instead, our "solution" is to decide which of the permitted hands the actual hand is "closest" to. So, depending on honour strength/location, we might chose to bid any of Pass (if it is a marginal opener anyway), 1♣ (or even possibly 2♣)if we are prepared to treat one of the majors as a 4-card suit, 1♦ if it is a good doubleton, 1N if it is close to 14 points, or 2♣ if it is a good 5-card suit. Experience has shown that most of these options are certainly possible in practice - certainly Pass, 1♦, 1N and 2♣ have all been chosen at least once over the past 2-3 years - so it is not the case, for example, that we tend always to open 1♦ with this hand type.

This gap is prominently marked on our SC under "aspects of system which opponents should note". But the real question is how far to go in mentioning this lacuna whenever we open 1♣, 1♦, 1N, 2♣ or indeed Pass. And does it make 1♦ alertable? (we play in England, where 1♦=3+ is not alertable but 1♦=2+ is alertable). Strictly speaking, it feels like we should be including this option in the description of each of the potential bids, but as you can imagine it is not something that ordinary club players thank you for mentioning!

One further issue has arisen with this part of the system. We play 2N in response to 1♣ as showing 12-13 BAL. It is therefore, a pretty rare response by a passed hand! But it did happen in a match a while ago. Next time it happens, I will draw the inference that partner almost certainly has 3325 with a good 11 or poorish 12, and has chosen not to open the bidding. At the time, I explained the bid as normally showing 12-13 but undiscussed by a passed hand, and I failed to draw the inference about the implied shape. Since I didn't draw this inference when the bid actually happened, I could hardly explain it to the opposition, but was I nevertheless guilty of MI by failing to mention this? - after all, I at least had the information available from which to draw this potential inference, and there is no reason to expect the opponents necessarily to have picked up on this.

[gnasher]

WellSpyder, on 2011-March-16, 05:07, said:

This gap is prominently marked on our SC under "aspects of system which opponents should note". But the real question is how far to go in mentioning this lacuna whenever we open 1♣, 1♦, 1N, 2♣ or indeed Pass. And does it make 1♦ alertable? (we play in England, where 1♦=3+ is not alertable but 1♦=2+ is alertable).

Yes, you should include it in the explanations and alerts.

Quote

Strictly speaking, it feels like we should be including this option in the description of each of the potential bids, but as you can imagine it is not something that ordinary club players thank you for mentioning!

You might say something like "2+ diamonds but nearly always 3", so that anyone who wants the details knows to ask, and the rest can get on with whatever it is that they go to the bridge club to do.

If even that causes confusion, find a less ordinary club, or play a more ordinary system.

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2011-March-16, 05:07, said:

We play 2N in response to 1♣ as showing 12-13 BAL. It is therefore, a pretty rare response by a passed hand! But it did happen in a match a while ago. Next time it happens, I will draw the inference that partner almost certainly has 3325 with a good 11 or poorish 12, and has chosen not to open the bidding. At the time, I explained the bid as normally showing 12-13 but undiscussed by a passed hand, and I failed to draw the inference about the implied shape. Since I didn't draw this inference when the bid actually happened, I could hardly explain it to the opposition, but was I nevertheless guilty of MI by failing to mention this? - after all, I at least had the information available from which to draw this potential inference, and there is no reason to expect the opponents necessarily to have picked up on this.

I think you have answered your own question correctly. It's much the same as when you forget you have an agreement - you can't alert or explain something you have forgotten, but you are of course still responsible for the failure to alert or explain it, and subject to an adjusted score for any damage it causes.

[mycroft]

I had one of those "should be, but not agreed" last night. 1C-2D; 2NT-3D; 3H-3S; 4D-4H. I know we play:
- transfer responses to Strong club (so I'd shown 5 hearts with 2D)
- transfers after a shown balanced hand > 14.

But does that mean that 3D is a retransfer, and that it promises 6? I had to hope so; we hadn't covered it. Luckily I had
H KQJT952 D J962 and I was going to survive (my hand can play hearts opposite a void). But what do I say? Well, at the end of the auction I explained the above, and that that *probably* meant that 3D means "this" - at least that's what I intended. Turned out I was right, so now we *do* have an explicit agreement.

In WellSpyder's case, I'd probably do (maybe as a Pre-Alert, as we don't have the "special things to note") a "we don't have a designated call for 3325 11-13; we make our "best lie" with it - 1 minor, 1NT, 2C or pass."

[ahydra]

Had one amusing incident recently where I examined the opps system card and they had opening bids showing 2445 minimum lengths (CDHS). A little thought should reveal that a minimum length of 3 in clubs is all that's needed - and so I asked them shouldn't it say 3 on the card, or if not, when would they open 1C with only 2 clubs? They stared at each other for a little while before coming up with "I don't know".

Personally in OP's case I would play, and alert, 1D as "either 11-13 3325 or 11-15 w/3+ diamonds". It doesn't feel like you're losing out on much by including this specific hand type in your 1D.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

When I read the OP, I thought much as Mycroft. Something like, when explaining any of the relevant openings, "We don't have a systemic bid for 11-13 3325; we might open this hand with any of Pass, 1♣, 1♦, 1NT, or 2♣".

[bluejak]

It is important to know what to do with this opening. We play a fancy defence to 1♦ which is legal in the EBU and the ACBL over a short diamond, but not over a three card 1♦.
So, is it legal over this 1♦?