[dickiegera]

---

We play that 1♦ denies a 4 card major unless responder has opening count.

With opening count and 5+♦ and a 4 card major East would bid the 4 card major after openers 1NT bid.

I believe this is some what standard.

QUESTION: Are any of these bids alertable?

[blackshoe]

Not in North America.

[kenberg]

It once was required to alert this. Rules change. If it is no longer alertable it would be useful for S know how to pose the question before he leads. Assume 1NT is followed by three passes. As S, I ask "On this auction, which of you can routinely have a four card major?" With the style described E might well have, as he does, four cards in one or both majors. Playing some version of "up the line", E will rarely have a four card major on this auction (maybe if he is four triple three) but then W could well have one.

Surely the defense is entitled to know which way it is. Some play one way, some the other. With most partners I play that 1♣-1♦ does not mean that either I have no major or else I have the values to reverse into it over a 1NT rebid. Upon request, I will play in the style where I skip over the diamonds to bid a major unless I have game forcing values, but with most partners I do not play that way.

I really do not think either way can be called "standard" in the sense that "Oh everyone does it that way".

Most of us know that there are these two styles and so we ask. An alert would protect the less experienced player who thinks E cannot possibly have, or, maybe better is unlikely to have, a four card major.

I recall when this was a hot item for debate. At one time instructional articles in the acbl Bulletin claimed that if responder would jump over ♦ Jxxx to bid ♥ AQJx then this required an alert. That seemed then and seems now to be absurd. But if the agreement is such that after it starts 1♣-1♦ then opener would routinely rebid 1NT holding two four card majors, I think there is something to be said for an alert.

But rules are rules, I accept and follow them if I know them. It would be nice if they didn't keep changing.

[blackshoe]

People complain about rules changing too often even when the changes are twenty years apart.

The way to ask is 'please explain your auction'.

[helene_t]

Probably not alertable in most places. It is alertable in the Netherlands, though.

Online you may chose to anounce it if you know how to explain it in a compact way and you think opps are likely otherwise to make wrong assumptions.

In real life bridge it is IMO better not to alert natural bids unless there is a very clear local standard from which you deviate significantly (which obviously could be the case here), since there is a risk of "crying wolf" effect. But with respect to this specific sequence, probably most federations have clear rules about whether you should alert it or not. And then you just follow those rules.

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-19, 06:08, said:

People complain about rules changing too often even when the changes are twenty years apart.

The way to ask is 'please explain your auction'.

Seems too vague to me. Playing as I do, in the "non-Walsh" style, if asked to explain 1♣-1♦-1NT-all pass, it could be tempting, if in a mood, to say 1♣ shows clubs, 1♦ shows diamonds, 1NT shows a balanced minimum, passing 1NT shows a hope I can make 1NT. Tempting, but I don't give in to temptation. I understand what they are getting at. This comes up often. A question is posed in great generality but I can usually grasp the point of it and I explain. Here I say that the 1♦ bid does not at all deny a four card major and while it is not strictly forbidden for me to rebid 1NT holding a major I would very rarely do so since we have no agreements for then uncovering any 4-4 major suit fit that we might have. This is really what they are asking about so I tell them. I might just forget about the rare exception since I can't recall the last time I, as opener, skipped over a four card major to rebid 1NT unless we have the Walsh style agreement.


As I see it: After 1♣-1♦-1NT-all pass it is reasonable to expect defenders to know that the bid of a suit, diamonds, shows that suit, less reasonable to expect defenders to know that, combined with the pass of 1NT, it also denies two other suits, the majors.

Anyway, the question was whether or not it is alertable and I see that the answer is that it isn't. I can live with that.Generally when I have played Walsh I do not alert, as S, the 1♦ but I do, as N, alert the 1NT rebid explaining, if asked, that he could easily have four cards in one or both majors and bid this way, I will stop alerting it.

[helene_t]

I once asked the specific question "did opener deny a four card major?" and afterwards partner complained that he couldn't ethically switch to a major after having heard my question. Maybe this goes too far or is not entirely relevant here, but you get the general point: "Explain the auction, please" is the best way of asking since it doesn't give any UI. Asking p to leave the table in this situation is not really practical.

But OK, at my local club nobody would give any relevant information if you ask "explain the auction, please", so you will have to ask more specific questions.

[blackshoe]

People who don't give relevant information when asked that general question probably don't understand the law. Either that, or they're deliberately trying to conceal something. When you're asked, you give all relevant information. Your opponent should not have to ask specific questions. Being parsimonious with your explanations is not kosher.

[kenberg]

Presumably no one asks "explain the auction" after 1NT-3NT so if they do ask for an explanation after 1♣-1♦-1NT-all pass then there is no way around the fact that the partner of the inquirer can infer he has a reason for asking. And he probably knows exactly what the reason is.

But here it is plain. There are two well known ways of playing this auction. In one way N will not have a major but S might, in the other style S will not have a major but N might. The pair might be playing either way, the defense is entitled to know which way, and a clear unambiguous question about which it is seems to give no UI at all, especially if opening leader routinely asks the question.

These things happen often. Opponents have an extensive auction ending in a slam. I am wondering of 5♦ shows 0/3 keys or 1/4 keys. Or ine ace. I could say "Explain the auction" or I could simply ask about 5♦, perhaps first asking about 4NT if it was not clearly asking for keys/aces.

There can be UI from a question, I have seen it happen. But with a little care and good intentions, it seems to me we can navigate this without having to start with "The opening bid of 1♥ showed five or more hearts hearts and enough high card points so that combined with shape he, rightly or wrongly, had what he considered an opening bid ...".

Anyway. Not alertable. Got it.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-19, 07:20, said:

People who don't give relevant information when asked that general question probably don't understand the law.

I expect that most players don't understand the law.

Haven't you told stories of repeatedly asking an opponent for an explanation of an auction or bid, and getting frustrated because they don't provide the detail that you're really trying to learn (but you don't want to ask a leading question for fear of passing UI)? Or maybe you wanted to know whether they lead ace or king from AK, but just ask a general question about leads and carding, and they didn't explain their A/K agreement.

[kenberg]

I rarely have problems with this but I do think being able to ask something specific can help. Take the case here. OP regards this as a "standard" auction. For some at least, this would mean that it would never cross their minds, if asked to "explain the auction", that opener would routinely rebid 1NT holding both four card majors. Wouldn't everyone do so? Well, no. Helene, if I understand her correctly,said that at her local club that's pretty much the way it is. Every S there would rebid 1NT with that hand after 1♣-1♦ so they would not think that needed to be part of the explanation. Very possibly they would ask later over drinks "What on Earth was I supposed to say? I rebid 1NT, it shows I have a 1NT rebid. Was I suppose to say whether I might do it with a stiff diamond? With five clubs and a stiff diamond? With six clubs? I have no idea what was being asked. "

With experience we learn of different approaches. Add this to an acceptance of an obligation to disclose methods and I think the problem usually is very solvable. There will always be the guy who thinks bidding a hand differently from how he would requires at least an alert and perhaps an apology or an adjusted score, but most people simply want a clear indication of special agreements and perhaps general style. For example, 1♥-2♦-2♥ does not promise six cards if I have my way. With some, it does. Neither choice is so standard that it should be assumed, and neither, as far as I know, requires an alert. On the other hand, when I play that the 2♦ bid promises five cards that gets an alert and so then does 1♥-2♣ because the diamond agreement sometimes forces 2♣ on not much in clubs. The trick is to be aware of different styles. so that information can be given smoothly. We focus on things that need to be explained and skip over things that need not be explained. I rarely have trouble telling the difference. But then I stay away from exotic approaches.

[mycroft]

I frequently get this question (playing a weak NT in the ACBL), and I happily say "we freely bypass 4cM to show a 15-17 balanced hand." (I don't believe it's *required*, but we also Alert 1x-1y-1M "tends to show an unbalanced hand" because our "freely bypass" is "bridge definition of always". Hearing or remembering that Alert does tend to prompt the "so you could have a major in this auction?" question after 1x-1y-1NT :-)

We also play "bypass 4cD to show a major with less than invitational values", and will explain that, too, as asked.

I can see the UI implications; but this one just seems to be (in the places I play in the ACBL anyway) just a boring determination of negative inferences in a common case where there are multiple options with reasonable frequency.

[akwoo]

kenberg, on 2016-April-19, 07:37, said:

But here it is plain. There are two well known ways of playing this auction. In one way N will not have a major but S might, in the other style S will not have a major but N might. The pair might be playing either way, the defense is entitled to know which way, and a clear unambiguous question about which it is seems to give no UI at all, especially if opening leader routinely asks the question.

The problem is that it can very well not be "well known". There are a lot of pairs out there, even fairly experienced pairs, who have been taught one way and have never considered there might be a different way of doing things.

Recently, I asked about an auction starting 1♥-2♦-3♣, with 2♦ game forcing. I wanted to know if 3♣ showed extra strength. The opponents are a fairly good local pair with close to 2000 masterpoints each, and I could not get this info out of them without specifically asking. It turns out that, not having played outside of the Western US very much (if at all), they had never heard of versions of 2/1 where one could not bid 3♣ with a minimum.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-April-19, 09:16, said:

Haven't you told stories of repeatedly asking an opponent for an explanation of an auction or bid, and getting frustrated because they don't provide the detail that you're really trying to learn (but you don't want to ask a leading question for fear of passing UI)? Or maybe you wanted to know whether they lead ace or king from AK, but just ask a general question about leads and carding, and they didn't explain their A/K agreement.

One story maybe. As for leading from AK, I would ask "what's the significance of that card?" while pointing at it - after asking the general question (if they answer fully, I won't have to ask the specific question).

Quote

Law 20F3: Under F1 and F2 above, a player may ask concerning a single call, but Law 16B1 may apply.

Quote

Law 16B1: {a} After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.
{b} A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

* i.e., unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-19, 07:20, said:

People who don't give relevant information when asked that general question probably don't understand the law. Either that, or they're deliberately trying to conceal something. When you're asked, you give all relevant information. Your opponent should not have to ask specific questions. Being parsimonious with your explanations is not kosher.

I tried to ask this at the local club here once but eventually had to give up without getting a satisfactory answer. It is not that the pair were trying to conceal anything, they were simply clueless and could not grasp the concepts being asked about. Perhaps the club standard over in America is better of course. I am mildly interested if CY has much luck with questions of this type over in Norfolk.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-May-12, 18:28, said:

Perhaps the club standard over in America is better of course.

Pairs that play unusual conventions generally know it, and understand what they need to disclose about it. Clueless players tend to play simple stuff, so there's not as much to disclose.

Of course, some of them may have learned unusual styles, and not realize that they're unusual, so have no idea that it's worth disclosing.