[pescetom]

As things are quiet, I thought I'd create a place for players and Directors to gripe about episodes where it was difficult to obtain an explanation of agreements. I put it under Simple Rulings because I imagine there may be some legal dissection and digressions, but the main aim is just for people to blow off steam

[pescetom]

A gripe from last week.

Opponents with no system card have bid 1S-3S(alert), I ask for an explanation. "Passable" says opener solemnly. "Could you please explain more fully?". "It can be passed". "You already said so and that requires no alert. Does it say something unusual about strength or distribution?". (Irritated) "It could be weak". Thanks.
Dummy goes down with 5 HCP and 4 card support.

[pescetom]

A gem from last night.

Opponents fix trumps in hearts and then control-bid to slam, starting with 4C, 4D.
Before choosing the lead I ask for an explanation of the auction, 4C is explained as clubs control. I ask "does it also say anything about spades control?". "No, it just shows control of clubs". 4D is explained as diamonds control. "Does it also say something about control of spades?". "No, it just shows control of diamonds".
This doesn't make sense, but I can only ask about agreements. Then the light comes on: "But did the lack of a 3S bid deny spades control?". "Yes of course".

[mycroft]

I rarely have issues with players disclosing to me as Director what their agreement is. Some of it is that they know they're already in trouble, and want to make it very clear why "it was obvious" or "this is our exact agreement"; some of it is that I know the specific questions to ask to get the information that is either "obvious" (to them) or obviously confusing to the opponents (or "conveniently ignored" as "well we didn't say it *showed* that, did we?")

I do have issues with routine disclosure to players:

• Yes, you have to PreAlert Precision. Every round. Even to the people who you played against this morning as well. Technically, you have to do more than that - you have to describe your 1♣ and 1♦ calls and why they are not Natural. (Sure, they can shortcut it at my table, but they do the same at the Life Cs and the "just out of 199er" players as well, where they might as well be speaking Mandarin. Which is *effectively* the same as not PreAlerting.)
  
• We have possibly the largest population of Montréal Relay pairs in the world here. Who are resistant to good disclosure as well, because their teacher is, shall we say, one of those who likes being asked clarifying questions?
  • So they will announce their 1♣ opener as "Could be 2", but not PreAlerting it (it can be any 4432, which is *not* the same as "could be 4=4=3=2"). The (implied only, unfortunately, but deliberate) goal of the PreAlert is explicitly to separate the "majors 5, diamonds 4" crowd (considered Natural, and can only have the 3+ defences played against it) from these people (and the "clubs or balanced" ones, and the short diamond pairs) with much more open defences allowed (and the opponents can remind themselves of). I mean, nobody *does*, but it's still "convenient", isn't it?
    
  • 1♣-1♦ "denies a 5 card major". Really? So there is no meaning for any call 1NT or higher? (Better yet, the "source" of this system here would answer "well, yes, of course" - but not, you know, say what it is. Like "if balanced, up to 9 HCP." Or what hands they will pass rather than bid 1♦ on. Or...)
• Similarly not publicised (but there is an example nobody has read), the change in Alertability of slam auctions, designed to preempt "what are you playing" (to 4NT) or "what is 5♦?" (whether or not the player has diamonds to be led into), has reached a grand uptake of "me and my partner" after 4 years. I assume also "members of the C&C committee and their partners". So the questions (and potential UI rulings) inevitably continue.
  
• There are still way too many people whose explanation is the name of the convention. Frankly, this is understandable, as they are the same who, when given an explanation of the bid, ask what the convention name is (or better, "are you playing [convention]?" Having given the "full description" already, I will sometimes just answer that "No." If it turns out they are asking so they can know the other options, of course I will help them as required.)
  
• Not a "problem" as such, but we have one pair in B - they will play one game in A, but it's a big challenge - who play pretty basic Precision. And of course are so steeped in it that they can't see what isn't obvious about their explanations to people who have never played a limited opener system. They have learned to call the Director (especially if it's me) to get their explanation converted to "Standard" for the opponents, and learn a clearer phrase for next time.
  
• Given those other threads here and Over There, I think I need to print out the relevant sections of the Alert Procedure concerning overcalls of Quasi-Natural and Artificial openers, and hand one out to every Precision pair I meet. Just to trigger the "that's not fair" argument when there *isn't* a "we've been deceived" hand to muddy the waters.

I'm sure there's more, that's just what comes to mind immediately.

I've created two articles/lectures called "The Wrong Question" and "The Wrong Answer", all about this (and other things, like 1♥: 'how many hearts does that show?' 'Fewer than you have, obviously'.)

[mycroft]

In my other home, there are a large number of pairs who play Bergen Raises. Or Reverse Bergen Raises.

I am almost certain there are pairs there who believe that the way they play it is "normal" (or "reverse") - and who are playing different 3m responses from other pairs who believe the same thing. I know for a fact that Reverse Bergen in Ontario in the late 1990s was the same as normal Bergen in Calgary in the early 2000s, and I'm pretty certain this still is true somewhere.

But they insist on explaining as "Bergen Raise" or "Reverse Bergen". I've given up, and just tell them now that "I don't play Bergen. What is she showing?"

I mean, I haven't played it except to spare in 15 years (and even then, it was in a Precision framework, so 3♣ said "go on a Goren Opener" (if they were under 60, "go on a decent 13") and 3♦ said "go only if, if you knew we had a 9 card fit, you'd have upgraded your hand to 1♣". And yes, (somewhat understandably), we'd get "so how many points does he have?" "It's only approximate, because our agreement is 'what you should do', but I'd say about 11, 12"). I'm not technically lying.

[mycroft]

pescetom, on 2024-September-05, 08:46, said:

A gripe from last week.

Opponents with no system card have bid 1S-3S(alert), I ask for an explanation. "Passable" says opener solemnly. "Could you please explain more fully?". "It can be passed". "You already said so and that requires no alert. Does it say something unusual about strength or distribution?". (Irritated) "It could be weak". Thanks.
Dummy goes down with 5 HCP and 4 card support.

Well, it's obvious that since they play 1♠-2NT as "4 spades, limit raise or better", that 3♠ "can be weak", and because it's "passable", it could be very weak. Frankly, it's so natural that we were surprised when we were told last year that we have to Alert it. But we do, now, so what's your problem?

[mycroft]

pescetom, on 2024-September-05, 09:16, said:

A gem from last night.

Opponents fix trumps in hearts and then control-bid to slam, starting with 4C, 4D.
Before choosing the lead I ask for an explanation of the auction, 4C is explained as clubs control. I ask "does it also say anything about spades control?". "No, it just shows control of clubs". 4D is explained as diamonds control. "Does it also say something about control of spades?". "No, it just shows control of diamonds".
This doesn't make sense, but I can only ask about agreements. Then the light comes on: "But did the lack of a 3S bid deny spades control?". "Yes of course".

So, what was the response to the followup, "so 4♦ implies a spade control as well?" :-) Or is that "GBK"? (frankly, it's close)

The lack of consideration for "and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding" (20F1) boggles my mind, 30 years on. I know, sometimes they are "so obvious" that they don't even think about it themselves, but still.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2024-September-05, 09:55, said:

But they insist on explaining as "Bergen Raise" or "Reverse Bergen". I've given up, and just tell them now that "I don't play Bergen. What is she showing?"

My go to in these cases is to quote Bones Brennan: "I don't know what that means".

[jillybean]

Love the title.

Some years ago, playing in one of my first team events.
Partner opens 1nt (I announce 15-17)
RHO bids 2H, LHO says “that’s Hamilton”
(Hamilton is a lovely city in Northern NZ)
Confused, I say what’s that?

It’s HAMILTON!! She says, louder with a scowl.

I look at their card and sure enough, it says HAMILTON

Obviously I should know what Hamilton is, and too embarrassed to ask, I pass.

Some months later, I encounter the same pair, and after 1nt(2C) same alert,
HAMILTON!

Next board , LHO opens 1nt , partner bids 2C, RHO asks and my response is
“Biggles”

I still use that when I can today.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-September-05, 09:58, said:

Well, it's obvious that since they play 1♠-2NT as "4 spades, limit raise or better", that 3♠ "can be weak", and because it's "passable", it could be very weak. Frankly, it's so natural that we were surprised when we were told last year that we have to Alert it. But we do, now, so what's your problem?

I recognize the irony, but actually it's worse than that.
They alost certainly play 1♠-2NT as "limit raise (3+ spades)" and 3♠ as "4= spades, weak".
With our WBF-aligned alert procedure, that is alertable because 3♠ was the natural limit raise.
Add in that they had no card and that opener is a certified Director and knows his opponent is too

[mycroft]

"Hamilton"? Oh that's easy, it's the same as Pottage.

Spoiler

or Cappelletti.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-September-05, 10:04, said:

So, what was the response to the followup, "so 4♦ implies a spade control as well?" :-) Or is that "GBK"? (frankly, it's close)

The lack of consideration for "and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding" (20F1) boggles my mind, 30 years on. I know, sometimes they are "so obvious" that they don't even think about it themselves, but still.

I was frustrated about the situation because I could hardly avoid creating UI to partner despite my best efforts.
But Declarer should know that and help me, he was winning national-level tournaments with the same partner 20 years before I ever played the game.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2024-September-05, 15:35, said:

"Hamilton"? Oh that's easy, it's the same as Pottage.

Spoiler

or Cappelletti.

Spoiler

or Helms.

[mycroft]

 pescetom, on 2024-September-05, 15:37, said:

I was frustrated about the situation because I could hardly avoid creating UI to partner despite my best efforts.
But Declarer should know that and help me, he was winning national-level tournaments with the same partner 20 years before I ever played the game.

Not a problem for me - if they are incomplete, then the information I generate to get what I should have got last time (at worst, the answer to "does 4♦ say anything about a spade control" should have been "implies one, yes") they can't legitimately claim is a problem (well, okay, yes they can. Director's answer should be "well, if you had explained your agreement/cuebidding style on the original question, he wouldn't have asked the followups.")

I'm more concerned with the other game with explanations like this - some deliberately phrase their explanations in an incomplete manner to induce followup questions - so *they* get the information. The classic example is ...4NT-5♥ "two keycards". Then wait to find out who asks about the trump queen, in case they have a two-way finesse... Is it possible that this pair don't say anything about the spades to induce questions that will help them place missing spade honours?

[jillybean]

 mycroft, on 2024-September-05, 15:35, said:

"Hamilton"? Oh that's easy, it's the same as Pottage.

Spoiler

or Cappelletti.

 blackshoe, on 2024-September-06, 08:34, said:

Spoiler

or Helms.

Spoiler

You really should give BIGGLES a try

[mycroft]

I have the one story (that unfortunately didn't happen).

1NT (12-14). LHO overcalled 2♣ which was Alerted. When asked, explained as "I'm to bid 2♦, so she can show her hand". Well, that's helpful.
We play systems on over 2♣, whatever it means, so I was hoping for a double. Which I would Alert, and when asked, would explain as "I'm to bid 2♦, so she can show her hand".

Just as correct, just as helpful. Maybe they'd get the point.

(Oh, and they were playing straight Hamilton, to tie in to the other topic. We weren't :-)

[mycroft]

Love the "Pet Peeve" over on the Other Site, too (Alertable Responses to Puppet Stayman). Again, players hear what they *want to* hear, which is "Puppet Stayman (and all responses) isn't Alertable".

Even explaining the reason for the change 10 years ago (which should make both the issues - the non-Alerted responses, and people thinking 1NT-3♣ Puppet isn't Alertable either - obvious. But doesn't.) doesn't clue in some people. Witness the ones who are saying "we should change it so Puppet is Alertable, and penalize those who don't do it" - thus bringing back the "bad old days" where you could tell what your partner's response meant by whether they Alerted Puppet or not. Sure, the card would show that they were playing that game, but who looks at the card? (who has a card?) And of course, when one forgot, the other one would claim *they* forgot, too.

So much easier to lose this. For those who then complain that we ask "what was 3♦"? looking at ♦AQJxx, I agree, this is an issue. Ask better. "What did opener show?"

(Note, I'm on the damageable side of this - in my main partnership we do not play Puppet Stayman. And we get asks about our unAlerted rebids, because so many don't, you know, Alert.)

[jillybean]

I hope you do know, you do not need to announce your 1nt range if it is 15-17.

Players who believe that if they were "always going to bid xx", the UI they have received does not matter.

[mycroft]

Of course not. I mean, I've even written a 5 page article about why you shouldn't, and why your opponents will thank you for not announcing.

That one I actually don't have a problem with (except I'm an SB. And it seems to be my fault that they didn't hear my 12-14, and "assumed" I didn't say anything because...(*)) - because it really does help the opponents - assuming *they* don't know about the defence and are therefore barred from playing it.

Remember, though, ACBL clubs are allowed to make their own decisions (although we *recommend* they use one of the CCs, and the ACBL Alert Procedure, so their players aren't "surprised" at a tournament).

(*) Yes, there is case law in the ACBL that "100% of 1NT openers are Alerted or Announced. If they don't say anything, and you don't ask, you are assumed to not care." I mean, if it is 10-12 and they actually didn't say anything, we'll probably PP them, but "if you needed to know, you should have asked."

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2024-September-06, 09:01, said:

I'm more concerned with the other game with explanations like this - some deliberately phrase their explanations in an incomplete manner to induce followup questions - so *they* get the information. The classic example is ...4NT-5♥ "two keycards". Then wait to find out who asks about the trump queen, in case they have a two-way finesse... Is it possible that this pair don't say anything about the spades to induce questions that will help them place missing spade honours?

I don't think I've encountered the "2 keycards" ploy as such, but then it's a sort of advance-finesse anyway, isn't it? The asker might be staring at the Q or might be wondering if partner is. Of course some of our more deviant pairs do have (at least implicit) agreements about who asks when, but one still has to know them. I guess the real tell might come from their different "table feel"