[TylerE]

For me, in this sort of situation tolerance starts at around KJx. With the N hand I'd certainly be willing to try to wrangle 7 tricks in a 3-3. I've been in far worse partscores, and at more than the one level. Especially at MP...if it makes it's a sure top, and opposite HHx it's unlikely down more than 1, and -100 may not even be bad.

Plus, given what we know about partner's hand it's rather unlikely we have an 8 card fit anywhere except possibly diamonds...assuming partner will be rebidding 2♣ here with a decent 5 card suit and bad diamonds.

[paulg]

 ggwhiz, on 2013-October-07, 12:50, said:

Springing a system like this on the opps without a pre-alert and chance for them to discuss such things may be allowed (? I don't know) and if it is I find that distasteful but can't see a remedy just sympathy. Even then their are so many negative inferences to the system (ie, what does 1♥ or 1♠ mean) that disclosure is always lacking.

The EBU policy is that a completed system card provides the information that a pair needs and pre-alerts are done using the "other aspects of system which opponents should note" section. The EBU has always had a fairly liberal system policy and almost everyone is aware that they might meet unusual and exotic systems and conventions.

[CamHenry]

 richlp, on 2013-October-07, 15:18, said:

I'm well out of synch with everybody here but, depending on the definition of tolerance, North's explanation doesn't match his action. Would South have passed with a 12 count, balanced distribution and 3 cards in diamonds? If not, then their definition of tolerance doesn't match mine (certainly not impossible). If the pass showed a minimum of 4 diamonds then that certainly should have been mentioned.

Yes, South would have passed holding xxx/AKx/Kxx/Qxxx (for example). N would still pass - this might not match the action you would take on the N hand! NS take the view that most opponents don't make enough trump leads on defense, and 3-3 fits at the 1-level are often scrambleable when holding 20+ combined HCP. Even the 140 from 1DX= beats the expected value in a major partscore, and it's worth a shot.

Thanks for the comments, all. As is probably apparent, I was N: this was the first board of a 7-board match, which we then proceeded to lose 16-4, so opponents didn't feel excessively aggrieved overall! The director's ruling was that the score stands, as W should probably have asked; also that if the pass promised 4+ diamonds then it was alertable.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-07, 13:00, said:

Did EW have any agreement as to the meaning of East's double?

From the looks of East's hand, the double means nothing other than it was his turn.

[Vampyr]

 paulg, on 2013-October-08, 01:38, said:

The EBU policy is that a completed system card provides the information that a pair needs and pre-alerts are done using the "other aspects of system which opponents should note" section. The EBU has always had a fairly liberal system policy and almost everyone is aware that they might meet unusual and exotic systems and conventions.

Often it is the case that not everything fits in that section, and considerate pairs often do pre-alert, saying something like "We play strange two-bids" or the like.

[paulg]

 paulg, on 2013-October-08, 01:38, said:

The EBU policy is that a completed system card provides the information that a pair needs and pre-alerts are done using the "other aspects of system which opponents should note" section. The EBU has always had a fairly liberal system policy and almost everyone is aware that they might meet unusual and exotic systems and conventions.

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-08, 04:41, said:

Often it is the case that not everything fits in that section, and considerate pairs often do pre-alert, saying something like "We play strange two-bids" or the like.

The approach of the EBU does lead to inconsiderate pairs being labelled as such just because they are following the regulations. And even the considerate pre-alerting pairs can be labelled unethical if they do not pre-alert something rare and unusual that actually comes up.

As someone who does pre-alert in the EBU (transfers to a short club and look at our leads), I feel much more comfortable in the ACBL or SBU where my pre-alerting requirements are well defined (albeit, occasionally, tiresome).

[Vampyr]

 paulg, on 2013-October-08, 05:54, said:

The approach of the EBU does lead to inconsiderate pairs being labelled as such just because they are following the regulations. And even the considerate pre-alerting pairs can be labelled unethical if they do not pre-alert something rare and unusual that actually comes up.

I suppose it is true.

Quote

As someone who does pre-alert in the EBU (transfers to a short club and look at our leads), I feel much more comfortable in the ACBL or SBU where my pre-alerting requirements are well defined (albeit, occasionally, tiresome).

Yes, transfer responses to a club is another thing -- pairs who don't pre-alert this annoy me, because if you ask or even are seen to be looking at their convention card, you transmit tons of UI.

I mentioned in a thread a long time ago about sitting down against a pair for a 2-board round. We had been following a very slow pair and often felt too rushed to examine the opponents' convention cards. On one of the boards they opened 2♣, 5-10 (or 0-5 or 0-10, I don't remember) points and at least one 4-card suit, but not a single-suiter in clubs. A first-time partnership, we didn't have any default agreements or anything like that. And the convention was not in the section about things the opponents should know, which would maybe have given us a chance of seeing it in advance. Fine, they didn't do anything illegal, but I was pretty annoyed. (You know who you are.)

[VixTD]

The relevant regulation would appear to be:

Quote

[BB4C1] The following are considered ‘natural’ for the purposes of alerting and regulation of partnership understandings....:
(c) A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

I expect someone is going to raise the question whether "unexpectedly" modifies "specify suit holdings" as well as "convey values", and of course one person's expectation will differ from another's.

I don't alert partner's pass in the sequence 2♦(multi) - (X) - P if it shows willingness to play in diamonds opposite however many I may have for a weak two in a major. I do alert their pass in (1NT) - 2♣(Asptro) - (X) - P if it says this could be our best spot if this is my second suit, or if they might redouble with a particularly good club holding, as these are things they might want to know.

I'm not entirely sure of my ground here, but I also do not think North is required to alert South's pass of the double here.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2013-October-08, 04:05, said:

From the looks of East's hand, the double means nothing other than it was his turn.

That's why I asked the question.

[CamHenry]

 blackshoe, on 2013-October-07, 13:00, said:

Did EW have any agreement as to the meaning of East's double?

When asked, they said "you don't expect us to have a defense to this stupid system, do you? It's just bridge." When pressed for meanings of doubles in similar situations, they said it "probably shows some values".

[blackshoe]

"Just bridge". Right. Sounds like Agua is on target.

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-08, 07:21, said:

Yes, transfer responses to a club is another thing -- pairs who don't pre-alert this annoy me, because if you ask or even are seen to be looking at their convention card, you transmit tons of UI.

Speak for yourself. When I ask about the sequence

1♣ pass 1♥(A)

it conveys no UI at all.

[mycroft]

...and they expect Alerts when "Just bridge" minimum with some diamonds passes the double and sees what partner can do? Including minimum with lots of diamonds?

[Vampyr]

 gnasher, on 2013-October-08, 08:24, said:

Speak for yourself. When I ask about the sequence

1♣ pass 1♥(A)

it conveys no UI at all.

Do you not feel that asking and then passing carries a suggestion that you were about to bid spades?

[blackshoe]

To me, asking about an alerted call conveys little, if any, UI. Of course, the ACBL alert regulation tells me to ASK! DO NOT ASSUME! (the caps are in the reg).

It seems to me that it's difficult, if not impossible, to play bridge if every time you ask a question partner's choices are constrained. Is this really what the lawmakers intended? Is it what we players want?

[Vampyr]

 akwoo, on 2013-October-07, 15:01, said:

As to my reasoning, imagine N/S had the contrary agreement that a pass denied diamond tolerance. I suppose that would have to be alerted as well. At which point every possible meaning of pass has to be alerted...

Right, in that case the alert carries no information, but it might prompt the opponents to ask.

[paulg]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-08, 07:21, said:

Yes, transfer responses to a club is another thing -- pairs who don't pre-alert this annoy me, because if you ask or even are seen to be looking at their convention card, you transmit tons of UI.

It should not be the pairs that annoy you, they are just following EBU regulations and guidelines. It is the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee that should be the focus of your ire.

[mycroft]

Well, on their basic system and calls to be noticed, there's nothing about what 1♣-1♥ is. It could be spades (although that's a pre-Alert), it could be 5+hearts, it could be an artificial game force, it could be a "if you have a balanced hand, relay your range", it could be a lot of things.

Yes, asking passes UI, but an Alerted call on the first round of the auction, that isn't obvious from context and not on the "need to note" part of their cards, seems to pass "hmm, that's odd. I wonder what it is", even in the EBU, at least to me.

[Zelandakh]

 trevahound, on 2013-October-07, 12:42, said:

West's pass of 1dx is remarkable to me, and is the direct cause of e/w's bad score.

Surely the cause is that East's diamonds are not good for the ask and double sequence. They really should have either doubled without asking or asked and passed.

I would certainly be interested to hear if South would pass with, for example, a (14)35 hand and perhaps even a (43)33. Or to put it another way, does the pass merely show tolerance or does it also deny other features? That has a direct bearing on the likelihood of South holding 4 diamonds and may go a long way to explaining North's pass (but so might West's actions if North got a "read").

[gnasher]

 Vampyr, on 2013-October-08, 08:34, said:

Do you not feel that asking and then passing carries a suggestion that you were about to bid spades?

No, I know that it doesn't. When I ask, it merely conveys that I don't already know the meaning of the bid.

It may be that when you ask in this position it does convey UI, but the solution to that problem is in your own hands.