[blackshoe]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-03, 14:25, said:

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.

Really? I guess I don't see how this works.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-03, 16:21, said:

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.

And absent an alert, the opponents' understanding might be different because of what they are familiar with. You are making a case for alerting and disclosing accurately, each time 1/1/1 occurs. Not sure I would go quite that far, but maybe.

[blackshoe]

My point is that if you're in a place where Acol is the norm, then if 1-1-1 shows an unbalanced hand for you, you aren't playing anything unusual, so you probably don't need to be extra concerned that opps get an explanation from you - it won't differ from what they're expecting, generally. OTOH, if you're in North America, where it would be unusual to play that way, opps won't necessarily expect an unbalanced hand, so you need to make sure they know they should.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-03, 19:09, said:

My point is that if you're in a place where Acol is the norm, then if 1-1-1 shows an unbalanced hand for you, you aren't playing anything unusual, so you probably don't need to be extra concerned that opps get an explanation from you - it won't differ from what they're expecting, generally. OTOH, if you're in North America, where it would be unusual to play that way, opps won't necessarily expect an unbalanced hand, so you need to make sure they know they should.

Undoubtedly, that would be the case, with regard to the norms of the jurisdictions. I am not an expert on who is from where and what they think is expected. So, we alert and disclose; and they can decide whether they already guessed/assumed our style. Maybe they know we are from North America, but don't know our style is not.

Again, to be clear...I am sure these alerts we choose to make are not required.

[mjj29]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-03, 19:09, said:

My point is that if you're in a place where Acol is the norm, then if 1-1-1 shows an unbalanced hand for you, you aren't playing anything unusual, so you probably don't need to be extra concerned that opps get an explanation from you - it won't differ from what they're expecting, generally. OTOH, if you're in North America, where it would be unusual to play that way, opps won't necessarily expect an unbalanced hand, so you need to make sure they know they should.

OTOH, I'm much less worried about actively disclosing these kinds of inferences when it's a subset of what they might expect. If I only make this rebid when I have an unbalanced hand, and they expect that I might have an unbalanced hand or a balanced hand, then all hands I could possibly have are ones they would expect to have this auction with, it's hardly a surprise when I do have them. (of course there are some inferences they don't have that might have been useful, so this isn't a hard and fast rule).

In the case of the 'unalertable X showing 5m 4M' then if they expect penalties, the hand I hold doesn't conform to that at all, so I'd definitely want to point that out.

[Phil]

In my experience a pair is doing the right thing if after the auction is over they point out agreements that are specific to their partnership understandings:

- 1♥ - 1♠ when playing Flannery
- The Walsh sequences referenced originally
- Raising partner when a support double is available

Things that don't need to be mentioned are items of general bridge knowledge, disclosing partner's pattern based on inferences from common sequences. For instance, do I really need to go out of my way and tell my opponents that 1N - 2♣ - 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♥ isn't a suit since "hearts first" is generally played?

If I'm asked by a defender about something, I will be forthcoming with truthful answers. However, there needs to be some boundary where I not required to do the defender's thinking for them, and they need to figure things out based on generalities, and not asking 20 questions after an auction or during a hand.

[jeffford76]

CSGibson, on 2012-June-03, 14:25, said:

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.

I'd never considered that. Thanks for the suggestion.

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-03, 16:22, said:

Really? I guess I don't see how this works.

The point is that if dummy explains what the agreements are about declarer's hand, then it is obvious to opponents that declarer is not doing anything untoward based on the contents of the hand.

For example, it would be highly unethical to only say that a 1NT rebid might contain 4 spades exactly when you don't have 4 spades, and if the declarer is doing the disclosure there's no way to tell if declarer is behaving this way. Having dummy do the disclosing avoids any suspicion.

[aguahombre]

Are we assuming that dummy will not be the one who might have bypassed? The explanation before the opening lead should be given by the partner of the one whose bid inference needs disclosing, whether that person will be dummy or declarer. Good disclosure might be needed regarding what dummy will produce..not just what the hidden hand might hold.

And, because the information might be useful to the opponents during the auction, we come back around to simply alerting when it happens.

So, that could be why Blackshoe doesn't see how the recommendation works ---because it doesn't.

[CSGibson]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-04, 12:14, said:

Are we assuming that dummy will not be the one who might have bypassed? The explanation before the opening lead should be given by the partner of the one whose bid inference needs disclosing, whether that person will be dummy or declarer. Good disclosure might be needed regarding what dummy will produce..not just what the hidden hand might hold.

And, because the information might be useful to the opponents during the auction, we come back around to simply alerting when it happens.

So, that could be why Blackshoe doesn't see how the recommendation works ---because it doesn't.

Alerting non-alertable things is not encouraged. Explaining unconventional treatments/negative inferences after the auction when you are declaring is encouraged.

Having the person explain treatments employed by his partner (and yes, I made the assumption that it was declarer's treatments that needed explaining) is safer to the disclosing side, and avoids some of the risk Jeff mentioned earlier. I understand how my lack of precision in my earlier statement might have caused confusion, I am just glad that Jeff was apparently able to understand what I meant.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-02, 07:43, said:

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

Well, I had and have the same reaction as gnasher upon reading wyman's post.

blackshoe, on 2012-June-03, 16:21, said:

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.

Not in this case, because strong NTs are very common here, and 5-card majors even more so, but still spades (and sometimes hearts as well) are normally bypassed if the hand is balanced.

[FrancesHinden]

aguahombre, on 2012-June-03, 20:31, said:

Undoubtedly, that would be the case, with regard to the norms of the jurisdictions. I am not an expert on who is from where and what they think is expected. So, we alert and disclose; and they can decide whether they already guessed/assumed our style. Maybe they know we are from North America, but don't know our style is not. :rolleyes:Again, to be clear...I am sure these alerts we choose to make are not required.

The problem with doing 'extra' alerting is that the alert procedure is already a very blunt weapon: a call is either alerted or it isn't. If you start alerting lots of these inferences, then you get to the point where you are alerting virtually everything and it starts to lose its force.

Hence

CSGibson, on 2012-June-04, 13:41, said:

Alerting non-alertable things is not encouraged.

My view is that it is best to do the following when considering whether or not to alert:
- alert anything the regulations say must be alerted
- do not alert things the regulations are specific about not alerting
- for the many, many ambiguous cases, (i) alert if the opponents might need to know during the auction, but (ii) add any explanations systemic negative inferences etc before the opening lead if you are the declaring side

As we have seen in another thread, it's impossible (in my opinion) to write an alert procedure that is both useful and unambiguous. One or the other is easy.

[bluejak]

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.

One thing that we have asked many times is that OPs post where they are. This is because Regulations, interpretations, and normal bridge inferences differ from place to place. Walsh rebids are not alertable in certain jurisdictions. That does not mean they are not alertable, and it would be unfortunate if a reader who is in a jurisdiction where they are alertable now believes they are not alertable.

They are not alertable in the ACBL [which is, I believe, where the OP is from] and the EBU/WBU.

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

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?

Let us make clear that there are really three things here.

• Legal requirements. There is no legal requirement to explain this unless your jurisdiction requires it. The ACBL and EBU/WBU do not.
  
• Ethical requirements. If it was required ethically then it would be required legally.
  
• Personal ethics, also known as Active ethics. This has been discussed in the thread. But Personal ethics are not a requirement, just what players feel adds to the game.

Does the caliber of opponent matter? Definitely: if opponents are likely to be aware of this leave it to them to ask questions. But if not because of their level, their expertise, their knowledge, their geographical position and so forth then explain at the end of the auction if you are declarer/dummy.

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

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?

Depends on the jurisdiction. Not in the ACBL/EBU/WBU.

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.

Now that shows the extent of the problem. In most places I play it is perfectly normal for it to be a balanced hand.

jeffford76, on 2012-June-04, 10:28, said:

The point is that if dummy explains what the agreements are about declarer's hand, then it is obvious to opponents that declarer is not doing anything untoward based on the contents of the hand.

For example, it would be highly unethical to only say that a 1NT rebid might contain 4 spades exactly when you don't have 4 spades, and if the declarer is doing the disclosure there's no way to tell if declarer is behaving this way. Having dummy do the disclosing avoids any suspicion.

Often a difficulty. I overcalled 2♥ over 1NT last night playing with a client, she alerted and explained it as showing hearts and another suit. It was passed out. The problem is that since we play Asptro it actually denies a second suit - unless with a 6-4 I decide not to show the second suit. Of course I had a second suit so was now in a bit of a quandary!

Vampyr, on 2012-June-04, 17:31, said:

Not in this case, because strong NTs are very common here, and 5-card majors even more so, but still spades (and sometimes hearts as well) are normally bypassed if the hand is balanced.

She may be right if by "here" she means in the London area, but not the UK generally.

FrancesHinden, on 2012-June-05, 02:39, said:

My view is that it is best to do the following when considering whether or not to alert:
- alert anything the regulations say must be alerted
- do not alert things the regulations are specific about not alerting
- for the many, many ambiguous cases, (i) alert if the opponents might need to know during the auction, but (ii) add any explanations systemic negative inferences etc before the opening lead if you are the declaring side

As we have seen in another thread, it's impossible (in my opinion) to write an alert procedure that is both useful and unambiguous. One or the other is easy.

A perfect answer.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-June-12, 08:25, said:

Often a difficulty. I overcalled 2♥ over 1NT last night playing with a client, she alerted and explained it as showing hearts and another suit. It was passed out. The problem is that since we play Asptro it actually denies a second suit - unless with a 6-4 I decide not to show the second suit. Of course I had a second suit so was now in a bit of a quandary!

You're only required to describe your agreements, not your actual holding.

And I doubt you're alone in treating 6-4 hands as one-suited, actually I suspect it's pretty common. It's an unfortunate coincidence that your partner's misexplanation could be viewed as describing your actual hand.

If you want to assuage your guilt, when you correct his explanation, you could say "It just shows hearts, and if it's 6+ I might or might not hold side 4-card suit". The only problem with this is that the opponents might get stuck in a game of "bluff or double bluff", trying to interpret why you felt the need to throw in the qualifier (it's probably not something you would normally offer if partner had correctly explained the bid as showing a single-suiter).

[aguahombre]

Not directly on topic, but when we make an accurate reply to a question about non-alerted natural overcalls:

"Natural; if partner has another suit, she didn't choose to show it."