[wyman]

Playing Walsh style rebids (opener rebids 1N with all balanced hands, even with 4423 after 1C-1D). This is not alertable as I understand it.

Suppose we have an auction like:
1C - 1H
1N - Pass

Are we obligated (legally or ethically) to inform the opps before the opening lead that opener may have a 4-card spade suit? Should we say something anyway? Does the caliber of opponent (or event) matter?

Or

1D - 1H
1S - 3S
4S - pass

where 1S shows unbalanced (i.e., opener is either 4144 or has 5+ diamonds).

Are we obligated (legally or ethically) to inform opps before the opening lead that opener has 4144 or 5+!d? Should we say something anyway? Does the caliber of opponent (or event) matter?

[ArtK78]

First of all, as I understand Walsh, it is normal with a balanced hand containing 4 spades to bid spades on the auction 1♣-1♥. It does not promise an unbalanced hand, as a failure to bid 1♠ on this auction could easily miss a 4-4 spade fit if responder does not have enough for a second call. For example, responder could have a 6 count with 4-4 or 4-5 in the majors.

But, in answer to your question, I don't believe that you are under any legal or ethical obligation to alert or explain the negative inferences of your bidding even if the negative inferences are non-standard, as long as they are not highly unusual. Bypassing a four card major (or even two four card majors) is not so unusual as to require any affirmative disclosure on your part.

You may want to go out of your way to disclose the "unusual" inferences from your bidding if you are playing in a club game or against an inexperienced pair. Against higher level competition, any voluntary disclosure is not necessary, as the opponents should be able to take care of themselves.

Question for others: I mentioned that it is my understanding that, even playing Walsh, the 1NT rebid in the sequence 1♣-1♥-1NT denies 4 spades. If, in fact, the partnership agreement is that the 1NT rebid does NOT deny 4 spades, and that a 1♠ rebid promises an unbalanced hand, is that sufficiently unusual to require an alert?

[mycroft]

The ACBL Code of Active Ethics (you're in NJ, so I assume) says:

Quote

The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically required in volunteering information to the opponents. Quite often, the declaring side in an actively ethical partnership will volunteer such information before the opening lead is made.

Legally you're safe if you follow correctly the Alert Procedure. Ethically, do you want to win by explaining the minimum you possibly can and hoping the opponents will go wrong, or do you want to win against opponents on the level playing field of Full Disclosure?

[CSGibson]

I play a similar style (bypassing 1♠ to bid 1N with all balanced hands). What I have done is to follow alert procedure (ie, not alert), but, after the auction, explain the negative inferences, as well as explain our slightly unusual style.

If I am playing behind screens, I actually give my screenmate the information during the auction. I believe that if I do that, then I should be prepared to disclose unusual style features after the auction when playing without screens, whether they are technically alertable or not. It is similar to the expectations around disclosing the negative inferences available when opener had an opportunity to make a support X.

[jeffford76]

wyman, on 2012-June-01, 09:19, said:

Playing Walsh style rebids (opener rebids 1N with all balanced hands, even with 4423 after 1C-1D). This is not alertable as I understand it.

Suppose we have an auction like:
1C - 1H
1N - Pass

Are we obligated (legally or ethically) to inform the opps before the opening lead that opener may have a 4-card spade suit?

This is covered on the ACBL alert chart. "Natural 1NT or 2NT rebids that may or may not bypass four-card major(s)" are under "No Alert". So legally it is clear that no alert is required. I don't think it hurts to tell the opponents before the opening lead, as long as you always do it, but don't be surprised if someone accuses you of tricking them out of leading spades at some point.

[barmar]

My partnership plays this style (well, I do, my partner rarely does). We don't actively volunteer that a spade suit could have been bypassed, but some opponents will ask "could he have a 4-card spade suit?" and we give a truthful answer (although my partner seems to have either a mental block, or wishes I were more like him, as he says it in a way that makes it seem less likely than it is).

[phil_20686]

ArtK78, on 2012-June-01, 10:58, said:

Question for others: I mentioned that it is my understanding that, even playing Walsh, the 1NT rebid in the sequence 1♣-1♥-1NT denies 4 spades. If, in fact, the partnership agreement is that the 1NT rebid does NOT deny 4 spades, and that a 1♠ rebid promises an unbalanced hand, is that sufficiently unusual to require an alert?

In the UK it would be unusual if 1c-1h-1S could be a balanced hand.

I wouldn't worry too much about it in a high level event, but I might pro-actively explain in a club setting.

To my mind in a high level game asking the right questions, and being aware of differences in style, is part of the game. Both of these styles are fairly normal, and non alertable, and good opponents should be expected to be aware of the Laws, and what is allowed and not allowed for non alertable bids, and to protect themselves by asking. Just like if you alert a bid that can have more than one meaning, they should ask.

[wyman]

Good , thanks. I tend to be over-disclosing (explaining _everything_ I know) to new-ish players and in club events.

In a serious event, pairs ask the rigt questions anyway I they care.

It's the sectionals and regionals where we face somewhat competent but not great competition. I have no problem over disclosing but I also don't want to be losing MPs giving away info I'm not obligated to (in particular if others are not making the same inferences abundantly clear before the lead and are gaining because of it).

But thanks, this sort of confirms what I suspected.

[gnasher]

Just use your judgement. If you think the opponents might not know enough to ask, tell them; otherwise don't bother.

wyman, on 2012-June-01, 16:58, said:

I have no problem over disclosing but I also don't want to be losing MPs giving away info I'm not obligated to (in particular if others are not making the same inferences abundantly clear before the lead and are gaining because of it).

That appears to mean the same as "I want to gain MPs by not disclosing my methods, as long as I can do so without breaking any rules." Do you really mean that?

[blackshoe]

Be very careful here folks. We don't want to be accusing people of anything nasty.

[markleon]

gnasher, on 2012-June-02, 01:58, said:

That appears to mean the same as "I want to gain MPs by not disclosing my methods, as long as I can do so without breaking any rules." Do you really mean that?

I think he means "I don't want to place myself at a disadvantage to the rest of the field by going above and beyond what is required by the regulations governing the game I am in."

[jillybean]

markleon, on 2012-June-02, 08:17, said:

I think he means "I don't want to place myself at a disadvantage to the rest of the field by going above and beyond what is required by the regulations governing the game I am in."

Don't the regulations encompass "full disclosure"? OTOH, if I set the bar at where I think most of the field are for disclosure, then the standard is significantly lower than what FD suggests.

Full Disclosure

[gnasher]

markleon, on 2012-June-02, 08:17, said:

I think he means "I don't want to place myself at a disadvantage to the rest of the field by going above and beyond what is required by the regulations governing the game I am in."

In any field there will be a range of approaches to disclosure, but for simplicity let's assume that there are only two groups:
- Group A discloses as required by the rules, and goes no further.
- Group B discloses as required by the rules. In addition, they volunteer information at the end of the auction (as the declaring side), if they think it may help the opponents to understand the partnership's agreements.

If you choose to be a member of Group A, you can describe it as "placing yourself at an advantage relative to Group B" or as "not placing yourself at a disadvantage relative to Group A", but it means the same thing. And, regardless of what you call it, the way that you "avoid disadvantage" or "gain advantage" is by not disclosing your methods as well as the players in Group B.

There's nothing improper about this in the legal sense, so I don't understand what accusation Blackshoe thinks we're in danger of making.

[gnasher]

jillybean, on 2012-June-02, 08:33, said:

Don't the regulations encompass "full disclosure"?

Does the ACBL Code of Active Ethics form part of the regulations?

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-June-02, 10:04, said:

Does the ACBL Code of Active Ethics form part of the regulations?

I don't believe so.

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on 2012-June-02, 10:00, said:

In any field there will be a range of approaches to disclosure, but for simplicity let's assume that there are only two groups:
- Group A discloses as required by the rules, and goes no further.
- Group B discloses as required by the rules. In addition, they volunteer information at the end of the auction (as the declaring side), if they think it may help the opponents to understand the partnership's agreements.

If you choose to be a member of Group A, you can describe it as "placing yourself at an advantage relative to Group B" or as "not placing yourself at a disadvantage relative to Group A", but it means the same thing. And, regardless of what you call it, the way that you "avoid disadvantage" or "gain advantage" is by not disclosing your methods as well as the players in Group B.

Yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

When you overcall, do you `disclose' that it is probably 8+, because probably greater than 70% of the players in club bridge will never overcall without 12 HCP. It will be unexpected to them?

When you make a call that is non alertable, and no-one asks, then you are under no obligation to volunteer. Full disclosure means that, if they ask, you should strive to give them all relevant information. Including information that they might not specifically have asked for, but if they don't ask you are not. If they ask about the 1N call, I would agree that 11-14 balanced is not sufficient disclosure if you have an agreement that it denies four spades. If that agreement is common in your district then you should probably say `may have four spades'.

If you volunteer information about a bid unasked, it has to be extremely unexpected and misleading imo. For example, in scotland, no doubles are alertable, so if you play dble of 1N = 5m4M that is extremely unexpected, so I would volunteer that information at the end of the auction if it came up (technically its pre-alertable, but its easy to forget in two board rounds - and most people don't listen to your prealerts anyway), but that is the kind of level of unexpectedness that is needed before you voluntarily disclose information about a bid that they didnt ask about. Not least because of the UI information you might be generating for partner.

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on 2012-June-03, 02:37, said:

Yes, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Yes. But when you decide where to draw the line, you might have two possible objectives:
(1) To balance the needs of disclosure against the need to keep the game moving and the need to avoid annoying people.
(2) To maximise your score.

Personally I prefer (1).

Quote

When you overcall, do you `disclose' that it is probably 8+, because probably greater than 70% of the players in club bridge will never overcall without 12 HCP. It will be unexpected to them?

Probably not. If I know them well enough to know what their overcalls look like, they should know me well enough to know what mine look like. And a player who doesn't realise that overcalling styles vary is unlikely to be able to make use of the information anyway.

Quote

When you make a call that is non alertable, and no-one asks, then you are under no obligation to volunteer. Full disclosure means that, if they ask, you should strive to give them all relevant information. Including information that they might not specifically have asked for, but if they don't ask you are not. If they ask about the 1N call, I would agree that 11-14 balanced is not sufficient disclosure if you have an agreement that it denies four spades. If that agreement is common in your district then you should probably say `may have four spades'.

Is this still part of a reply to my post? I didn't argue for "full disclosure", which I believe to be impractical anyway. I am in favour of good disclosure.

Quote

Not least because of the UI information you might be generating for partner.

What UI? We (or at least I) are talking about information volunteered by the declaring side at the end of the auction.

[aguahombre]

phil_20686, on 2012-June-01, 16:38, said:

In the UK it would be unusual if 1c-1h-1S could be a balanced hand.

I wouldn't worry too much about it in a high level event, but I might pro-actively explain in a club setting.

To my mind in a high level game asking the right questions, and being aware of differences in style, is part of the game. Both of these styles are fairly normal, and non alertable, and good opponents should be expected to be aware of the Laws, and what is allowed and not allowed for non alertable bids, and to protect themselves by asking. Just like if you alert a bid that can have more than one meaning, they should ask.

gnasher, on 2012-June-03, 03:40, said:

I didn't argue for "full disclosure", which I believe to be impractical anyway. I am in favour of good disclosure.

Sorry, Gnasher. But I am borrowing "good disclosure" in reply to Wyman even though you were not addressing his comments.

Good disclosure, IMO, is what the discussion of rebids after 1C-1D or 1C-1H is all about...not requirements of the RA or someone's experience about what is common vs unusual. Wyman is probably right on about both, but our choice is to alert these rebids at the time they occur.

A 1/1/1 bid which guarantees an unbalanced hand absolutely says something more than opener has four of the second suit. That is a criterion for us to alert, and we are appreciative when the opponents see fit to do likewise.

A knowledgeable pair familiar with the Laws is most likely also familiar with the two schools of style on rebidding 1N vs 1S, and should be grateful for an alert when the spade suit has been bypassed. Sure, they can ask. But, then they have the concern about always asking vs. only when they want to know; and they shouldn't be in that situation.

[CSGibson]

jeffford76, on 2012-June-01, 11:15, said:

This is covered on the ACBL alert chart. "Natural 1NT or 2NT rebids that may or may not bypass four-card major(s)" are under "No Alert". So legally it is clear that no alert is required. I don't think it hurts to tell the opponents before the opening lead, as long as you always do it, but don't be surprised if someone accuses you of tricking them out of leading spades at some point.

Interestingly enough, you avoid having this "always do it" or "tricking opponents" thing if you have dummy disclose unfamiliar inferences from the auction, rather than declarer.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-03, 13:09, said:

Sorry, Gnasher. But I am borrowing "good disclosure" in reply to Wyman even though you were not addressing his comments.

Good disclosure, IMO, is what the discussion of rebids after 1C-1D or 1C-1H is all about...not requirements of the RA or someone's experience about what is common vs unusual. Wyman is probably right on about both, but our choice is to alert these rebids at the time they occur.

A 1/1/1 bid which guarantees an unbalanced hand absolutely says something more than opener has four of the second suit. That is a criterion for us to alert, and we are appreciative when the opponents see fit to do likewise.

A knowledgeable pair familiar with the Laws is most likely also familiar with the two schools of style on rebidding 1N vs 1S, and should be grateful for an alert when the spade suit has been bypassed. Sure, they can ask. But, then they have the concern about always asking vs. only when they want to know; and they shouldn't be in that situation.

A four card major, weak no-trump system has different inferences in this auction than does a five card major strong no-trump system, so what constitutes good disclosure on this auction is almost certainly different depending on which system you're playing.