[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2025-March-19, 08:46, said:

I see it's a Global problem. This looks like a text book three card limit raise.
Your partner must have thought you only pened solid 13 counts and played your hands better?

He thought I would be singing from the same page as this seems to be a common agreement at higher levels in Turin: if I understand correctly then 2 clubs is the game force (followed by a relay) and the other 2/1 bids are two-way: either simple raise of major or natural 5 card invitational (so by not repeating hearts to cater for the weak raise I imagine I accidentally showed a strong hand).
This frees up 2M as a limit raise and I'm not sure why he didn't choose that, maybe he rightly guessed I would misunderstand, or wanted to highlight the good diamonds.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-March-19, 08:59, said:

He thought I would be singing from the same page as this seems to be a common agreement at higher levels in Turin: if I understand correctly then 2 clubs is the game force (followed by a relay) and the other 2/1 bids are two-way: either simple raise of major or natural 5 card invitational (so by not repeating hearts to cater for the weak raise I imagine I accidentally showed a strong hand).
This frees up 2M as a limit raise and I'm not sure why he didn't choose that, maybe he rightly guessed I would misunderstand, or wanted to highlight the good diamonds.

Interesting, I've heard of but not seen this treatment. So with a gf with diamonds, or the other major, you start with 2♣* ?

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2025-March-19, 09:20, said:

Interesting, I've heard of but not seen this treatment. So with a gf with diamonds, or the other major, you start with 2♣* ?

Yes, followed by a relay structure to expose opener's strength and explore fit. I guess the main advantage is gaining a further way to raise the major, which frees up 2M as the limit raise (or as a 3 card limit raise with 2N being 4 card). But some other twists are neat too, like being able to bid the opponents' probable hearts to show a weak raise of spades (but that might be five hearts).

[mycroft]

akwoo, on 2025-March-18, 23:41, said:

One note - are you sure that these pairs playing Flannery actually know how to play Flannery? I do know a pair playing Flannery (with 2500 MPs or so each, including probably 1500 together) for whom 1♥-1N DOES deny 4 spades. "Partner could have 4 spades with a 16 count." (At that point, I'm not going to point out to them that partner then could afford to reverse over the 1N response.)

Well, yeah. But from experience I'm guessing that most of the "it begins with F"(*) players know they can (my guess is also "but aren't required to", unlike say Levin-Weinstein) bid 1NT with 4 spades, especially if it's 43xx in the right range.

(*) The U(W) people used to say we played "it doesn't begin with F". Which meant "no Flannery, no Fishbein, " (and I think one other. It's been almost 30 years). "what about Fourth Suit Forcing?" "that begins with a 4".

[blackshoe]

jdiana, on 2025-March-18, 20:58, said:

I understand that this is not the right way to play 2/1 but I don't see any bid that requires an alert, unless they were playing 2♣ as a completely artificial game force (i.e., they might have < 3 clubs).

I've seen lots of club players bid 2♣ with only 3 or 4 clubs "to establish a game force" and don't think that's the end of the world.

Nothing that happens at the bridge table (with the exception of what happened to Mr. Bennett in 1929) is "the end of the world".

I don't think there is only one right way to play any bidding method, and I don't care if a pair plays something that is different to what I'm used to. What I do care about is that they tell me what the hell they're doing. As a director, I would explain to them -- once, or maybe twice -- what they're doing wrong, and what they need to do to do it right. If after that they still can't manage proper alerts or explanations, I'd issue a PP.

Someone upthread mentioned players with 2500 master points. How many master points someone has is not a measure of how good a bridge player they are. It's certainly not a measure of how well they know the rules of the game they're playing.

[jdiana]

♣

blackshoe, on 2025-March-19, 17:31, said:

Nothing that happens at the bridge table (with the exception of what happened to Mr. Bennett in 1929) is "the end of the world".

I don't think there is only one right way to play any bidding method, and I don't care if a pair plays something that is different to what I'm used to. What I do care about is that they tell me what the hell they're doing. As a director, I would explain to them -- once, or maybe twice -- what they're doing wrong, and what they need to do to do it right. If after that they still can't manage proper alerts or explanations, I'd issue a PP.

Someone upthread mentioned players with 2500 master points. How many master points someone has is not a measure of how good a bridge player they are. It's certainly not a measure of how well they know the rules of the game they're playing.

You're right. What I meant to say was something like "I understand this is not the standard way 2/1 is usually played" or something to that effect.

Upthread, JB said: "North tells you they would have made a different lead, "probably a club" if the opponents had disclosed their methods." My initial reaction was that there is nothing in the bidding as shown that is required to be alerted under ACBL rules. Of course, if asked, opponents are entitled to a full explanation. My point was that, if their methods are that 2♣ is GF and usually shows 5 clubs, but might be only 3 or 4 depending on the hand, then IMO no alert is required even if they chose (for whatever reason) to "establish a game force" on this hand.

Later, JB said: "East thought they were playing a generic 2♣ GF
West believed they had dropped the generic 2♣ GF"

So, if by "generic 2♣ GF" we mean that East would bid 2♣ artificially with any GF hand, and the bid says nothing about clubs, then it should have been alerted. But, in general, in ACBL Land, we alert what the ACBL tells us we need to alert and give full explanations when asked. We're not required to volunteer information and, in fact, could be accused of providing our partner with UI if we alert something that is not required to be alerted.

(Life is different online, when we can provide explanations to the opponents that our partner doesn't see.)

[jillybean]

jdiana, on 2025-March-19, 18:15, said:

♣
You're right. What I meant to say was something like "I understand this is not the standard way 2/1 is usually played" or something to that effect.

Upthread, JB said: "North tells you they would have made a different lead, "probably a club" if the opponents had disclosed their methods." My initial reaction was that there is nothing in the bidding as shown that is required to be alerted under ACBL rules. Of course, if asked, opponents are entitled to a full explanation. My point was that, if their methods are that 2♣ is GF and usually shows 5 clubs, but might be only 3 or 4 depending on the hand, then IMO no alert is required even if they chose (for whatever reason) to "establish a game force" on this hand.

Later, JB said: "East thought they were playing a generic 2♣ GF
West believed they had dropped the generic 2♣ GF"

So, if by "generic 2♣ GF" we mean that East would bid 2♣ artificially with any GF hand, and the bid says nothing about clubs, then it should have been alerted. But, in general, in ACBL Land, we alert what the ACBL tells us we need to alert and give full explanations when asked. We're not required to volunteer information and, in fact, could be accused of providing our partner with UI if we alert something that is not required to be alerted.

(Life is different online, when we can provide explanations to the opponents that our partner doesn't see.)

Are we saying that, after opening 1♦ a pair would make a "natural" gf2♣ holding 2623 but not on 2632?

[jdiana]

jillybean, on 2025-March-19, 20:33, said:

Are we saying that, after opening 1♦ a pair would make a "natural" gf2♣ holding 2623 but not on 2632?

This has gone off the rails.

I don't think anyone who plays 2/1 in any standard-ish way would bypass a 6-card major to bid 2♣. I certainly wouldn't. I wouldn't even bypass a 5-card major, though I might bid 2♣ with 4 clubs and a 4-card major.

The point is that the ACBL alert procedures instruct us not to alert natural responses unless specifically told to do so. The definition of "Natural" includes: "Any response or rebid in a minor at the two-level or higher showing 3 or more cards in the suit." Therefore, a 2♣ GF bid (or non-GF bid for that matter) which promises at least 3 clubs is considered "Natural". None of the exceptions in the alert procedures apply, as far as I can tell, so it's not required to be alerted.

That's the best I can do to explain what I was trying to say. I think I'll stick to my knitting going forward and let the rules experts debate these things.

[jillybean]

jdiana, on 2025-March-19, 21:01, said:

That's the best I can do to explain what I was trying to say. I think I'll stick to my knitting going forward and let the rules experts debate these things.

I just can't imagine anyone agreeing to make a 2♣ gf on 2623 but not 2632
Let's also not forget the spirit of the laws vs. the letter of the laws. Heck, I'd be happy if people started announcing their 15-17 range and alerting their various game tries. I do a little dance when partner opens 10-13 nt, just to make sure the opponents are aware of our range.
At times I am tempted to keep quiet.

[blackshoe]

Unless you're playing in a club where ACBL rules are modified, f2f you should announce the range of your partner's 1NT opening bid, whatever it is. Online, of course, you announce your own bid's range.

"Spirit of the laws" is often used as an excuse to deviate from the rules, especially alerting rules. If you believe that the spirit of the laws requires a change to the alert regulation, lobby for it, don't just do your own thing at the table.

Jdiana is correct that if a pair bids 2!C "to establish a game force" and by agreement the suit is always three or more, no alert is required.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2025-March-19, 17:31, said:

Nothing that happens at the bridge table (with the exception of what happened to Mr. Bennett in 1929) is "the end of the world".

And Norman Mailer would remind us that such an extreme solution to a partnership divergence at least promises vast relief.

[jillybean]

 blackshoe, on 2025-March-20, 10:16, said:

Unless you're playing in a club where ACBL rules are modified, f2f you should announce the range of your partner's 1NT opening bid, whatever it is. Online, of course, you announce your own bid's range.

"Spirit of the laws" is often used as an excuse to deviate from the rules, especially alerting rules. If you believe that the spirit of the laws requires a change to the alert regulation, lobby for it, don't just do your own thing at the table.

Jdiana is correct that if a pair bids 2!C "to establish a game force" and by agreement the suit is always three or more, no alert is required.

Am I the only one who is shocked that a 1S 2C* bid that could contain 6 hearts is not disclosed?

[sanst]

 jillybean, on 2025-March-20, 18:49, said:

Am I the only one who is shocked that a 1S 2C* bid that could contain 6 hearts is not disclosed?

That's why I prefer the WBF Alerting Policy

Quote

The following classes of calls should be alerted:
i Artificial bids should be alerted, natural bids should not.
ii Those calls (i.e., bids, passes, doubles or redoubles) which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners. (A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the Regulating Authority). See also Law 40B.
iii Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and non-forcing
new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit.
Players must also respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter.

The emphasis is mine.
The Dutch regulations are basically the same, but far too many players don't know these. For them alerting is some ritual to keep the bridge gods satisfied, not a warning that a call might mean something they don't expect.

[pescetom]

 sanst, on 2025-March-21, 03:58, said:

That's why I prefer the WBF Alerting Policy

And I have a neat story to recount about that one, if I can find time

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2025-March-20, 10:16, said:

Unless you're playing in a club where ACBL rules are modified, f2f you should announce the range of your partner's 1NT opening bid, whatever it is. Online, of course, you announce your own bid's range.

"Spirit of the laws" is often used as an excuse to deviate from the rules, especially alerting rules. If you believe that the spirit of the laws requires a change to the alert regulation, lobby for it, don't just do your own thing at the table.

Jdiana is correct that if a pair bids 2!C "to establish a game force" and by agreement the suit is always three or more, no alert is required.

How ridiculous, I would choke if I did not disclose this.

When I read from ACBL Full Disclosure
"A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents."
but then
"The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically required in volunteering information to the opponents."

We all know how much you can gain by leaving your ethics at the door.

[blackshoe]

Bridge is a terrible game.

[jdiana]

jillybean, on 2025-March-21, 07:07, said:

How ridiculous, I would choke if I did not disclose this.

When I read from ACBL Full Disclosure
"A major tenet of active ethics is the principle of full disclosure. This means that all information available to your partnership must be made available to your opponents."
but then
"The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically required in volunteering information to the opponents."

We all know how much you can gain by leaving your ethics at the door.

Geez Louise. I said I was done with this but you're obsessing over something that will virtually never happen. As I've said, the situation you posted about was apparently the result of a misunderstanding about how this pair was playing 2♣. If they were playing it the way East thought, then it certainly should have been alerted.

Most people who play a typical 2/1 system in the usual way would not bypass a 6-card major to bid 2/1. I regret ever starting this, but all I'm saying is that, if you play a typical 2/1 system (where 2♣ is "Natural" and game forcing but says nothing else about the shape of your hand) and you decide, for whatever reason, that you want to "set a game force" even though you have no intention of playing in clubs, you're allowed to do that and are not required to alert it.

This might be bad bridge, a la some of the (somewhat condescending, IMHO) comments made by mycroft above, but they haven't broken any rules.

Change the hand slightly:

♠K64
♥AK965
♦108
♣A104

If I choose to "set a game force" rather than bidding 1♥, am I supposed to alert it? If I don't, have I left my ethics at the door?

No one is talking about a situation where the agreement is that we systemically bid 2♣ to disguise a 6-card major. Anyway, go ahead and let me have it; I really am done with this now.

[mycroft]

I would certainly believe, Alert Procedure or no, that "[q]uite often, the declaring side in an Actively Ethical partnership will volunteer such information before the opening lead is made". And if we would *by agreement* bid a short minor (but 3+) over a longer major in order to set a GF, that sounds like "such information".

Having said that, most of the people who bid like this (and don't play 2♣ as "artificial game force" (or artificial LR+, or...)) think it was what they were taught, and so are very surprised that the opponents find this unexpected. So, whence "be nice to the newer players and don't call them on every little thing? And the director rules against them for something 'the experts should have guessed'?"

And in some clubs, or some games (where the teacher was unclear, or even thought this themselves!), this could be "the way 2/1 is", and *you're* the ones who unexpectedly bid 1♥ with game-forcing values. From there, whence "unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning"?

I am surprised that for all the pearl-clutching the PTB have about Canapé openers, they have no worries about canapé responses, though. I assume this is just "flight A-itis", where they just didn't think it was something that exists.

[jillybean]

The pearl-clutching description is so good, and so appropriate.