[eagles123]

So I was playing in a BBO tourny tonight and my hand was:

♠6
♥KQ983
♦J762
♣972

I opened 2 hearts and simply alerted as "weak"

after the hand one of the opps said I should have said that it could be a 5 card suit as the standard weak 2 was 6 cards. This was only done via PM there was no official complaint or anything like that and it was very polite but just wondering if simply alerting as weak is acceptable or do I need to give more information?

Thanks

Eagles

[Lord Molyb]

You should probably alert it as could have 5.

[Cyberyeti]

 Lord Molyb, on 2013-March-21, 17:48, said:

You should probably alert it as could have 5.

No idea about BBO, EBU we don't technically have to tell people our weak 2s could be a 4 card suit and a yarborough in some positions as they are natural and weak but we do.

[wank]

i would never bother to alert that. if your opp has particular standards for a weak 2, that's his business. if he wants to know what your standards are, he can ask.

it's similar to complaining that you overcalled 1c with 1s on a 6 count and he plays that all overcalls have to be 8+.

[GreenMan]

 wank, on 2013-March-21, 19:44, said:

i would never bother to alert that. if your opp has particular standards for a weak 2, that's his business. if he wants to know what your standards are, he can ask.

it's similar to complaining that you overcalled 1c with 1s on a 6 count and he plays that all overcalls have to be 8+.

It's not about how one particular opponent plays a call, it's about general expectations. And in a BBO tournament I expect there are enough players who expect that a weak 2 will have six cards, that an alert of frequent 5-card weak 2s is preferred.

[blackshoe]

How do we know this was a "frequent" 5-card weak two? More importantly, how does the opponent who complained know?

There are times when I think people just want their opponents to show 'em their hands. Of course, they don't have to show their opponents their hands.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-March-21, 21:24, said:

How do we know this was a "frequent" 5-card weak two? More importantly, how does the opponent who complained know?

There are times when I think people just want their opponents to show 'em their hands. Of course, they don't have to show their opponents their hands.

That is the point, exactly. If we have an agreement (implicit or explicit) to vary from the norm, then we disclose. Otherwise, what we actually made the bid with is not alertable. When we are self alerting, we alert what partner should have alerted IRL without screens.

It is often tempting to explain that we might have deviated when we in-fact have deviated. But, that is not legally or ethically correct.

[barmar]

Was this a BBO ACBL tourney, a tourney run by some other organization, or a free tourney run by J Random User? If it's an ACBL tourney, GCC and ACBL alert procedures apply. ACBL alert procedures says that you don't have to alert "Five or more cards for a weak two-bid." However, you do have to alert if you have a systemic agreement to open weak 2 with bad 5-card suits.

[eagles123]

 barmar, on 2013-March-22, 02:16, said:

Was this a BBO ACBL tourney, a tourney run by some other organization, or a free tourney run by J Random User? If it's an ACBL tourney, GCC and ACBL alert procedures apply. ACBL alert procedures says that you don't have to alert "Five or more cards for a weak two-bid." However, you do have to alert if you have a systemic agreement to open weak 2 with bad 5-card suits.

It was an ACOL tourny.

[StevenG]

This particular tourney isn't played to a high standard (alas), and many of the players don't have a wide knowledge base. I'd recommend to the OP that overdisclosure does no harm bridgewise and leads to happy opponents.

(And I'd also like to congratulate him on doing so well last night.)

[barmar]

 StevenG, on 2013-March-22, 02:30, said:

This particular tourney isn't played to a high standard (alas), and many of the players don't have a wide knowledge base. I'd recommend to the OP that overdisclosure does no harm bridgewise and leads to happy opponents.

Over-alerting is often recommended on BBO. It's safe because partner doesn't see your alerts, so there's no UI as there typically is in f2f bridge.

[eagles123]

 barmar, on 2013-March-22, 02:42, said:

Over-alerting is often recommended on BBO. It's safe because partner doesn't see your alerts, so there's no UI as there typically is in f2f bridge.

my only issue is that if I put every single thing a 2 opening could be i'd be writing an essay

e.g. "weak 2 but sometimes 5 card suit sometimes 7 cards mostly 5-9 but sometimes less if vulnerability and position good etc etc etc"

[StevenG]

I think "weak 5+ cards" would be adequate.

[mycroft]

do make sure, of course, that if that is expected *in your partnership*, that you Alert all your weak 2s where this could apply as "could be 5" - especially your 6-baggers. If it is not expected in your partnership, and partner doesn't know, then they get the same information when you decide to deviate like that - but partners are smart, they pick up on things, and will notice after you do it two or three times. In a year.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-March-22, 02:16, said:

Was this a BBO ACBL tourney, a tourney run by some other organization, or a free tourney run by J Random User? If it's an ACBL tourney, GCC and ACBL alert procedures apply. ACBL alert procedures says that you don't have to alert "Five or more cards for a weak two-bid." However, you do have to alert if you have a systemic agreement to open weak 2 with bad 5-card suits.

 eagles123, on 2013-March-22, 02:21, said:

It was an ACOL tourny.

"Acol" is a proper name, not an acronym. Also, it is the name of a bidding system, not an organization.

[eagles123]

 StevenG, on 2013-March-22, 08:05, said:

I think "weak 5+ cards" would be adequate.

ok thanks

[billw55]

 eagles123, on 2013-March-21, 17:21, said:

after the hand one of the opps said I should have said that it could be a 5 card suit as the standard weak 2 was 6 cards.

I wonder what he would say if you held a six card suit and told him it could be five.

[zenko]

 eagles123, on 2013-March-22, 09:53, said:

ok thanks

Well it's not that simple, if you open with 5 card very rarely and/or in special conditions (for example, "occasionally 3rd seat favorable, almost never otherwise"), explaining it as 5+ (unless precisely in that position) would be more misleading than not.

Bear in mind this is very diffeent issue than say, do you have 6 or 7, when saying 6+, becuase 6 card suits are way more common that 7 carders, and 5 card suits are way more common than 6 card suits, so when you tell me you can have more than 6 cards suit I can almost ignore it, but if you say 5+ I have to adjust my bidding/play to cater for 5 card suit possibity.

[aguahombre]

1C (1H) 1S!. I wonder if frequent opponents on OKB have discovered my "tell".

I have a macro to self-explain "might only be 4;neg dbl would deny spades." I often get lazy and don't use the macro when I have 5+ spades.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-March-22, 09:18, said:

"Acol" is a proper name, not an acronym. Also, it is the name of a bidding system, not an organization.

You're right about the capitalization. But not about the organization:



Furthermore, isn't the Acol bidding system named after a real bridge club in London, where the system originated?