What is "Common Bridge Knowledge"
Most of you know that I've been scurrying down this particular rabbit hole, prompted by Blue Book 4H3(d):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.
I'd never heard of it. so set out to see who had. Some had, but it certainly wasn't everyone.
First a bridgewinners poll. 23% (of 114) said they would never expect this, which us equivalent to 23% not having this "general bridge knowledge". Of the 77%, a significant number commented that they would expect it to be alerted (although of course not all respondents will be under the aupsices of the Blue Book).
Now a club poll (members of Exeter Bridge Club). Of the 10 replies, not one had heard of this possibility.
It's clear to me that this isn't "general bridge knowledge", and that the Blue Book needs changing.
But then I started wondering what is general bridge knowledge? I struggled to come up with anything, although I did decide that whatever it was should be obvious to (nearly) all players, irrespective of ability or experience.
The White Book suggests that General bridge inferences are "like those a new partner could make when there had been no
discussion beforehand". This seems highly dependent on the bidding system(s) generally played within the club or bridge community that the players inhabit.
The things I did come up with are:
Double of a suit is for penalties
If I bid a second suit, then my first suit will have 5 cards in it (except where it doesn't)
3 level opening suit bids are weak.
Comments?
Comments
Even the 3 level opening bids can lead to controversy sometimes – I was criticised by an opponent recently for opening 3C, white versus red, with only six clubs. I assumed (and continue to assume) that this doesn't need an alert, but it seems that not everyone thinks that that's an expected meaning for the call. (My system card did list six as a possible length for the call.)
Double of a suit being for penalties is also far from universal – to the extent that at the 1, 2, and 3 levels, it's even alertable. (Doubles of notrump contracts are much more likely to be penalties – I would definitely consider an undiscussed double of 2NT to show strength, more or less regardless of what the 2NT call meant.)
(And as you mentioned, there are plenty of exceptions to "bidding a second suit show 5 cards in the first suit", especially in cases where both suits are bid at the 1 level. In particular, sequences like 1D, 1H, 1S might have three diamonds and four spades, when playing a 5-card major system – although some 5-card major pairs rebid 1NT with that hand, not all of them do.)
I think general bridge knowledge is much more likely to apply in competitive auctions, e.g. "1H, (1S), 3H is usually not an invite, it's just looking to make it harder for the opponents to compete". I'd expect the majority of players to know that one (although there are some weaker club players who don't).
Maybe it would be a good idea for the EBU editors of the blue and white book to have some input from the average/ below average player. What may be 'general bridge knowledge' to Frances, David, Gordon and Robin may not be "general bridge knowledge" to the majority of bridge players.
Even I (at a lower level) sometimes feel amazed at the amount of lack of knowledge there is in the game for the average player.
TIC - maybe we should have examinations to confer bridge standards: you could take a specific examination (for a fee) to have conferred on you an EBU rank - fast-tracking masterpoint promotions, which to be honest are a function of time and money as well as ability.
Of course I meant takeout!
I think the remit of general bridge knowledge will sometimes refer to how players use a bid rather than agreements, in the case of 2C, if you're playing it as natural, you might sometimes use it as a general runout in the hope of improving your score, that's the specific bit of 'common bridge knowledge'. But if 2C isn't natural it won't come up much. These things can be quite specific to regions or specific clubs depending on the style of bidding in those clubs.
As ais alludes to, competitive sequences are more likely to rely on general knowledge and table feel than specific situations, and I think they can vary with vulnerability and position and could be shaded for tactical reasons are likely to be 'common bridge knowledge'.
Examples I can think of are that a rebid in a minor (1H-1S-2C, say), might be 3 cards, that a cue bid might just be a one round force, maybe that a 1NT bid could be off centre or lack a stopper if it's the most convenient bid. Maybe that a takeout double might be off-shape in some situations.
You might summarize these as players making the 'least worst bid' even if it doesn't fit the system notes.
Hmm, in terms of non-competitive bidding, what about "the shape requirements for an opening 2NT are looser than the shape requirements for an opening 1NT" (assuming that both bids are played as natural). (Even that is something that not every bridge player knows.)
I don't think that the requirement is "every bridge player knows". Every true bridge player might do, but there is a significant minority that don't. I don't think we can quantify it, but I would say that if you would expect an NGS player of rank 9 to know it, then it is general bridge knowledge.
Going back to the original posting, this method is general bridge knowledge at rubber bridge.Victor Mollo uses it in at least one Menagerie story where the Rabbit misplays the contract successfully because he thinks the wrong player has length in the suit. (The player (ChCh I think) bids the suit and RR/TT end up playing in the suit)
I like the idea that "general bridge knowledge" is that which we would expect NGS 9 to know... the problem comes when that determines what should be alerted/announced.
Newer/less skilled players may well feel tricked or hard done by. Consider a new player of an NGS 4 say, sat with a bucket full of clubs and it goes 1NT from LHO, double from partner, 2C from RHO (not alerted)... Maybe they double, LHO passes, partner bids 2H and they are in disaster zone now... Maybe instead of doubling, they pass, LHO passes, partner doubles, RHO re-doubles and end in 2S. Dummy comes down with a 4441 shape - what was 2C perhaps they ask and get the answer of "this is general bridge knowledge that 2C here is either natural or short in clubs with a view to takeout if doubled".... letting 2S play for -1 when their side could make 3 or 4 clubs (maybe even 3NT with a running C suit) when nothing was alerted as it was all "general Bridge Knowledge" would not sit right with a lot of players.
This is one of the reasons that I think that rules should be different for competitive play and club play. For club play a simple rule set of "announce NT open bid ranges, transfers, Stayman and weak/strong 2's.. alert everything else that is not natural" would work fine. For congresses tournament play, then the "general bridge knowledge" rule might be fine.
Agreed
Clubs already have this option - they don't have to follow the blue book. I think most do in principle but not in practice, which causes issues at times. Perhaps we should be offering them an alternative "simple blue book"?
It always strikes me as odd that clubs (and other sponsoring organisations) don't have to follow the EBU "add on" rules (blue book, white book) yet are allowed to award Masterpoints.