Blue Book 4H3(d)
I've just read this and I don't get it.
It states:
_Players should not alert a bid of two of a suit when partner’s natural 1NT has been doubled, if it is ostensibly natural but there is a possibility that responder will remove or redouble for take-out: this is considered general bridge knowledge.
_
Is this where partner opens 1NT, or overcalls 1NT, or rebids 1NT, or responds 1NT, or some combination of? It doesn't seem to say.
If I'm "not alerting", then the two of a suit must be my partners bid, after they've opened / bid 1NT. That seems unusual.
Also, who is responder? If partner has opened 1NT, I am responder which doesn't make sense (to me).
Can someone please give an example sequence that this would apply to?
Thanks!
Jeremy
Comments
So (say) South opens 1NT, West doubles and North bids 2C.
I don't understand how North can intend to redouble next - that would require the opponents to double the 2C, and anyway if North doesn't have clubs, playing in clubs would be (redoubled or otherwise) would be suicide.
Also, if "partner’s natural 1NT has been doubled", then I'm North and that would mean alerting my own bid.
It's a manouvre that is fairly well-known, which is why it is not alertable: you bid your short suit expecting to get doubled, after which you will redouble to scramble to a better place. If you are not doubled, you may well get a good result anyway - 8 off NV is only -400 and in that case they would be likely to make a better score in game.
I think the sense is clear, despite your final objection. Of course self-alerts do exist online.
OK I understand now, although I'm not sure I'd call that common bridge knowledge. I've certainly never heard of it (which means nothing), and I'm willing to bet that most players in my club have not. I feel a poll coming on!
As an aside, most people nowadays would play 2C as Stayman in that sequence (whilst employing some sort of wriggle). Is this an old technique?
I agree that the sense is clear IF you know what it's on about, but a little bit of rewording wouldn't hurt.
I think THAT is the assertion that needs a poll: I have never come across weak-NT players who play 2C as Stayman after a NT is doubled for penalties.
Does this mean that by agreement the 2C shows clubs?
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Except where it doesn't, as far as I can see.
Fascinating!
We obviously play in vastly different arenas, because I come aross it all the time. I can also see no benefit in not doing so (if you have a wriggle).
With one of my partners 2C here would be Stayman (as redouble would be clubs)...
I too have not come across 2C being either natural showing clubs, or potentially a shortage wanting to redouble as a take out later. I would have expected a 2C bid here showing a singleton/void 10% of the time (and by agreement) to be alerted.
Whenever I've played redouble as clubs, I've played 2C as diamonds.
> Whenever I've played redouble as clubs, I've played 2C as diamonds.
I do that with another partner, playing a standard exit transfer system.
However, with the partner where 2C is Stayman, we play a forcing pass (alerted) where the 1NT bidder is forced to redouble. Responder either passes 1NTxx or bids suits up the line (which may be 4 card suits). Means you can xx for 2C, 2D for 2H, 2H for 2S, 2S for 3C (stronger) or 2NT for 3D. It has the benefit of finding 4-4 or 4-3 fits in majors and the disadvantage of not being able to play in 2D via a transfer (you can pass, force the XX then bid 2D which could be marginally worse than transferring, on average)
I know of a few systems after 1NT - X, but not this one, but I would expect a bid that systematically shows either clubs or a shortage in C to be alerted. If you do not know of that system then:
1NT - X - 2C - P
P - X - XX
The second double should be alerted if this is for penalties... Presumably the redouble is now alerted as showing a singleton or void in C and is for take out?
What does that make this:
1NT - X - 2C - X
Is that 4th seat double takeout and so not alerted, or penalty so should be alerted? Would it make a difference if the 4th seat asked the meaning of the 2C bid before doubling? Can a player sat with 6 clubs ask that question without potentially generating UI?
In one partnership we played XX to play in C or D, and system on (2C stayman, red-suit transfers) - all for an easy life and against my better judgement
I knew about the "if you have a S+H+D three-suiter and partner's weak NT gets doubled, use whatever method your system has to play in 2C and then redouble if you get doubled" trick, but I've never used it myself nor seen any of my opponents use it (and I probably wouldn't use it if the situation came up at the table – a weak notrump getting doubled is no guarantee that the opponents have a game, so you might end up in 2C going down when 2 of some other suit is making). There are other ways to handle that sort of hand, e.g. you can combine S+D and S+H+D hand types into the same sequence without losing very much accuracy and without having to rely on a double by the opponents to be able to show the hand type.
For what it's worth, 1NT, (X), 2C in my primary partnership asks partner to pick a minor. This is standard in my local area, but I think it's less common across the country as a whole. (I see the goal, after a 12-14 notrump gets doubled for penalty, as "try to find our best 2-level contract and don't worry about getting doubled there" – usually one of the 2-level suit contracts will make, and when it doesn't, the opponents usually have a game that's worth more than the penalty. The "try to escape undoubled" escapes are probably more useful over a 10-12 notrump, where the risk that you have no sensible contract is much higher.)
The differences in experiences depending on where one lives and the fields in which one plays or directs are interesting.
I do not find it unusual that players play Stayman and red suit transfers when partner's opening 1NT has been doubled by RHO, even though it is not something I would recommend or consider playing.
On the other hand, I can’t remember ever coming across players in this situation bidding 2C either as "either clubs or the other three suits" or as natural but having psyched with a 4=4=4=1.
If my opponents were to have a sequence where my side had doubled their opening 1NT and responder bid 2C and after my side had doubled it, responder bid 2D, I would normally expect, unless strong opponents, they had had a misunderstanding on what defence they were playing, and the 2C had been intended as a transfer to diamonds.
Anyway ....
There appears to me to be a conflict between Blue Book 4H3(d) and White Book 1.4.1 4th paragraph, which says:
"Players are required to disclose their agreements, both explicit and implicit. If a player believes, from partnership experience, that partner may have deviated from the system this must be disclosed to the opponents."
I would welcome advice.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
That the Blue Book says it should not be alerted does not mean it should not be disclosed.
How does not alerting the 2C bid fit with:
4 B 1 Passes and bids
Unless it is announceable (see 4D, 4E, 4F and 4G), a pass or bid must be alerted if it:
(a) is not natural; or
(b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning
The 2C being described here is either natural or not natural - should potentially unnatural bids not be alerted as there is some potential natural meaning with some hands?
Based on my own experiences and other people's comments on here, it certainly seems to at least fit into (b), where there is a potentially an unexpected meaning?
Considering the prevalence of club players not having system cards, does this mean that it should be alerted if there is no system card? Even with a system card, why would an unsuspecting opposition check for the meaning of 2C that has not been alerted?
It just seems to me to one of those peculiar inconsistencies within the rules that confuses new players and old players alike, but probably makes a lot of sense to those that play in a particular region or within certain congress environments where this sort of thing happens most.
In order to avoid giving UI, there are certain bidding sequences that I always ask about, regardless of whether it's alerted or what my hand is. One of them is 1NT, (2C) – in my experience, this is more often a case of the opponents forgetting to alert (or not knowing that their artificial overcall system over 1NT is alertable (!)) than it is a case of 2C actually being natural. I don't have such a policy for (1NT), X, (2C), but only because our X is artificial and thus I wouldn't expect most opponents to know what their own 2C means in that situation anyway.
In fact, I'm increasingly coming to the view that if either side opens 1NT, it makes sense to ask about the opponents' next call in almost any situation where a) it isn't a pass and b) it isn't announced. (The primary exceptions here are jumps to game, and 1NT-2NT; although many pairs play 2NT as artificial, at least those pairs are likely to alert it.) Artificial sequences over 1NT are the norm, not the exception, with even most beginners playing Stayman and transfers nowadays – and this extends to the sequences in competition. The actual rate of compliance with alerting the alertable bids seems pretty low, though (and unalertable/unannouncable bids are so rare in this situation that they can normally be assumed to be a missed alert).
(Possibly the most extreme case of this: 1NT, (2H) and 1NT, (2S) make sense to play as natural, and many pairs do play it as natural – but in my experience, an unalerted 2M overcall over 1NT is nonetheless still artificial around half the time, usually showing some sort of two-suiter. I suspect that part of the reason for this is that the pairs who play it as artificial are more likely to have a suitable hand for the call than the pairs who play it as natural, so the fact of the call having been made increases the chance that the players who made the call play it as artificial.)
So I think it makes sense for players to ask about this sort of call as a matter of routine, unless they're hoping to take advantage of a misinformation adjustment if it transpires after the deal that the unalerted call was artificial – Law 20G2 bans asking a question for the purpose of eliciting an incorrect response from an opponent, but there doesn't seem to be a Law banning not asking a question in the hope of not cluing the opponents into the fact that they've missed an alert, in order to benefit from the resulting adjustment. Perhaps the purpose of BB 4H3(d) is to cut down on that sort of angle-shooting, by preventing players getting a benefit from not asking about 1NT, (X), 2C and then asking for an adjustment after the hand due to the "missed alert" (in cases where the 2C call is much more often natural than most pairs would play it).
There isn't such a Law but there is Blue Book guidance (BB 2A3):
"It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If they receive an implausible explanation, and can protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (e.g. by transmitting unauthorised information or alerting the opposition), failure to do so may prejudice their right to redress."
Note that the misinformation must be "obvious" and the players must be sufficiently "experienced" and their side's interests must not be "at risk" before we go this route.
I clearly play and direct in different circles to you. I find overall that players do adhere to the alerting and announcing regulations very well. Blue Book 2E2 says:
"Players sometimes say, ‘I always ask whether I intend to bid or not’. Players who do this must follow this approach strictly, since they otherwise risk transmitting UI."
I always recommend not adopting such an "always ask" approach as I don't believe that players can keep to this approach completely consistently.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
It's easier on BBO, where you can ask about calls even when it isn't your turn to call – in any "always ask" position, both you and your partner are immediately clicking on the call to ask, so it only remains unasked-about if both of you forget. It also isn't any harder than, e.g., remembering to wait after skip bids (BBO uses the ACBL rules for skip bids, where there's no Stop card but you have to wait 10 seconds anyway).
Of course, the ideal for online play would be for the site to ask automatically on your behalf – you could set up a list of commonly nonalerted calls (and bids that are commonly played with two different alertable meanings) and then there would be no risk of forgetting to ask and sending UI as a consequence.
Getting this right in in-person play is somewhat harder, although when you have the sort of hand which would normally never care to ask about anything, it isn't too hard to remember to ask because you don't have anything else to be concentrating on.
Meanwhile, I am very strongly opposed to the "ask only when interested" approach – the only viable approaches are "always ask" and "never ask", anything else spreads UI (and in many cases, the opponents won't be aware that the UI is relevant or even that it exists, so won't call the director). In general, the approach of having calls that are asked about sometimes and not other times puts all four players in an awkward situation:
All these problems can be solved simply by always asking. Then, no UI exists (except when you forget to ask – and if you get into the habit of always asking, forgets will be rare and won't have much correlation to your hand).
(In my main partnership, I play a system in which every 2-level overcall of 1NT is alertable anyway, and so is the double. In online competitions with self-alerting, this eliminates this sort of issue because you can give an explanation along with the alert, so the opponents don't know whether their partner would ask about it or not – it's rare to ask about a call that already has an explanation, unless the explanation is somehow defective. When playing in person, this reduces the problem to "do you call the Director if the opponents don't ask about the alerted call?" rather than introducing the additional problem of UI passed by not asking about non-alerted calls.)