[Ant590]

Hi all,

I've returned to England for a while after being away, and I was wondering if there is any more clarity on a situation that caused issues the last time I played.

When a 1♣ opening could be various balanced hands, as well as normal club hands, what is the preferred announcement? This opening also may have any 5-card suit in a 5332 pattern.

"May be 2" seems the letter of the law, but after several opponents were upset about lead implications of a undisclosed 5-card major, we began to alert, then after opps presumed it was a strong opening, we moved to a alert/announce hybrid. Now more time has passed, I wondered if any pairs with similar methods have found a way to deal with such an opening?

Of course, I appreciate that a pre-alert is the best way forward here.

Thanks,
Ant.

[helene_t]

Definetely pre-alert since they may need to discuss whether they treat it as natural or as Polish.

But yes, alert is better than anouncement. I think "natural or 12-14 balanced or 18-19 balanced" is too complex for an announcement.

[campboy]

By regulation, the correct thing to do is announce as "may be two". I think alerting is a bad idea, because an opponent who is familiar with the regulation may assume the bid is forcing. Of course a pre-alert will be helpful.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2014-November-25, 14:57, said:

By regulation, the correct thing to do is announce as "may be two".

The regulation obviously needs to be improved; there is of course a big difference between "clubs or balanced", "clubs or balanced or strong", "could be two only when 4432" etc.

Quote

Of course a pre-alert will be helpful.

Sure, but will people remember to do this before every two-board round? And this will not normally be listed with the "aspects opponents should note" either.

EDIT: Polish Club, at least, is forcing.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-25, 15:07, said:

Sure, but will people remember to do this before every two-board round? And this will not normally be listed with the "aspects opponents should note" either.

Why not?

[mycroft]

I would expect that a 1♣ opener that is bid on (among other hands) *any* 5332 outside of opening NT range (in particular, 53M32m) would be first on the list of "aspects of the system opponents should note". I would also expect that the difference between this and normal "clubs or balanced" would be clear in the description in the "aspects" box.

Doesn't help if they don't read...but the EBU reads. ACBL notification of this definitely falls into "Pre-Alert, there's no other place or manner to explain this one..." territory.

Again, Announcements are a type of Alert, not Full Disclosure. If you need to know which of the many "could be 2" hands it is, you need to ask.

[helene_t]

If opps play a strong diamond I would expect their 1c opening to be nebulous. Same with an unbalanced diamond. But the ebu cc does not list opening bids on the front page.
I think ebu needs to make clear what exactly the announcements mean.

[akwoo]

If the problem is just lead implications, you could pre-alert, then announce, then say something when the final pass comes down.

However, declarer's inferences when you are defending is probably also a problem. This is outside the rules, but I've never heard anyone object to "I have a reminder on our bidding agreements" by partner of opener (elaborating only if opponents ask) after the opening lead has been put face down. (Playing weak NT in a strong NT land, I did this regularly when partner opened 1 of a minor and never got a chance to rebid 1N or otherwise show the 15-17 balanced hand. The followup explanation is "Remember we open 1N with 12-14, so partner cannot have 12-14 balanced but can have 15-17 balanced.")

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2014-November-26, 02:16, said:

I think ebu needs to make clear what exactly the announcements mean.

The announcement "could be as short as x" is new, and has a little of a tail-wagging-the-dog character about it, the EBU having codified what people were already doing. I don't think that the authors of the Blue Book have clearly thought out what announcements there are and what they could mean.

[Vampyr]

akwoo, on 2014-November-26, 03:38, said:

(Playing weak NT in a strong NT land, I did this regularly when partner opened 1 of a minor and never got a chance to rebid 1N or otherwise show the 15-17 balanced hand. The followup explanation is "Remember we open 1N with 12-14, so partner cannot have 12-14 balanced but can have 15-17 balanced.")

Surely your 1NT opening range is one of the few things you volunteer at the start of a round, along with your opening 1-of-a-suit lengths and opening twos.

[weejonnie]

THE EBU Blue book has the following

"4 D 1 Prepared or short 1 and 1 openings (which may be made on two cards or fewer) are announced as “may be” followed by the minimum number e.g. "May be two". Strong and artificial 1 club and 1 diamond openings are alerted as are a two way 1 opening such as the Polish Club and any opening which may be short but is unconditionally forcing."

Since this IMHO appears to be a two way then the bid should be alerted.

If opponents think you are playing precision then that is their own fault. They can ask. Tough!

[akwoo]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-26, 11:20, said:

Surely your 1NT opening range is one of the few things you volunteer at the start of a round, along with your opening 1-of-a-suit lengths and opening twos.

Actually, it's not required here!

But, yes, I do volunteer my NT range at the beginning of a round. This is an additional reminder, in part because weak NT is so rare here that many fairly good players (good enough to routinely use inferences from the bidding to count opponent's points when declaring) have never thought of these kinds of implications. (I would not be surprised if there is no one other than me within 200 miles that has regularly played a 12-14 1N opening, though there is a local group of 10-12 folks.)

EDIT: There might be a Precision pair or two around here that plays 13-15 or even (11++)-15 (with some special continuations to handle the wide range). But that doesn't bring in the same kind of differing inferences on 1m openings.

[campboy]

weejonnie, on 2014-November-26, 13:18, said:

Since this IMHO appears to be a two way then the bid should be alerted.

As the EBU defines it, this is just a short club, so announcable. Two-way means something like Polish or Swedish club. Unfortunately (presumably in an effort to save space) the definitions have been removed, but they were in the Orange Book.

Orange Book 2012 said:

• Short (or Nebulous) Club:
  not forcing, possibly on two or fewer Clubs
  [...]
  
• Either/or (or Two-way) Club:
  forcing, artificial, showing a strong hand (like a Strong Club) or a weaker hand (such as a weak no trump or a minimum opening with Clubs)

[blackshoe]

akwoo, on 2014-November-26, 13:31, said:

Actually, it's not required here!

But, yes, I do volunteer my NT range at the beginning of a round. This is an additional reminder, in part because weak NT is so rare here that many fairly good players (good enough to routinely use inferences from the bidding to count opponent's points when declaring) have never thought of these kinds of implications. (I would not be surprised if there is no one other than me within 200 miles that has regularly played a 12-14 1N opening, though there is a local group of 10-12 folks.)

It would seem that "spirit of full disclosure" trumps the laws and regulations. I suppose that's probably a good thing. Usually.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-26, 11:17, said:

The announcement "could be as short as x" is new, and has a little of a tail-wagging-the-dog character about it, the EBU having codified what people were already doing. I don't think that the authors of the Blue Book have clearly thought out what announcements there are and what they could mean.

It does say somewhere in the Blue/Orange Book that announcements are not intended to provide a full explanation: the opponents can ask if they would like more details. The L&EC had a choice: either make announcements in a standard form or to encourage a more detailed description during the announcement stage. There are pros and cons of the two approaches. However, I'm sure that announcing short clubs in some way is better than the previous practice of alerting such calls. From the "bad old days" I recall several rulings, including one at your table, where confusion was caused when a player wrongly assumed he knew the meaning of an alerted 1♣ opening.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2014-November-27, 17:05, said:

However, I'm sure that announcing short clubs in some way is better than the previous practice of alerting such calls.

True. But maybe the procedure will be further refined so that 5-cd majors 4-cd diamonds is not announced the same way as "clubs or balanced".

[FrancesHinden]

mycroft, on 2014-November-25, 17:34, said:

I would expect that a 1♣ opener that is bid on (among other hands) *any* 5332 outside of opening NT range (in particular, 53M32m) would be first on the list of "aspects of the system opponents should note". I would also expect that the difference between this and normal "clubs or balanced" would be clear in the description in the "aspects" box.

Doesn't help if they don't read...but the EBU reads. ACBL notification of this definitely falls into "Pre-Alert, there's no other place or manner to explain this one..." territory.

Again, Announcements are a type of Alert, not Full Disclosure. If you need to know which of the many "could be 2" hands it is, you need to ask.

Yes, so would I. In fact, the EBU specifically requires that "partnerships who play a 1♣ opening that may be made on a doubleton should indicate on the system card in which circumstances the 1♣ opening may be short, particularly when a four card diamond suit is also held"

As the section on 'aspects...' is supposed to include '...brief details of any non-standard understandings..' that seems exactly the place to include that a 1C opening might include a 5-card major. No-one has suggested that is yet standard.

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-26, 13:55, said:

It would seem that "spirit of full disclosure" trumps the laws and regulations. I suppose that's probably a good thing. Usually.

Yes. The EBU even tell you that .."at the end of the auction the declaring side may offer to explain the auction, particularly any non-alerted bids of whose meaning the defending side may be unaware"

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-26, 11:17, said:

The announcement "could be as short as x" is new, and has a little of a tail-wagging-the-dog character about it, the EBU having codified what people were already doing. I don't think that the authors of the Blue Book have clearly thought out what announcements there are and what they could mean.

I can't control what you think, but there has been a huge amount of discussion about the 'could be short' announcement and what it should cover. The decision was that it should include all non-forcing 1m openings that are either 'natural, long in the other minor, or balanced' i.e. the short club type hands being discussed here and the nebulous openings such as Precision 1D.

The announcement tells the opponents that the opening isn't natural. It invites them, if it matters, to ask more. An announcement is not supposed to include all the available information about an opening bid. The rules on announcements are intended to be simple and easily memorable as well as prescriptive. If they aren't prescriptive, then people get to invent their own announcements which has the potential (i) to cause confusion and (ii) it provides an EBU-approved way to cheat.

When it comes to the auction, whether or not a short 1C opening can have 4 diamonds, or can be balanced with a 5-card major, rarely makes any difference.
Here are some of the alternative announcement that were considered:

- only announce 'could be two' if it is natural or 4432 exactly. Problem: hardly anyone in England actually plays this so it becomes a bit of a pointless regulation
- only announce (alert otherwise) if it is only short without 4 diamonds and without a 5-card major. Problems: This makes the alert of a 1C opening too common and wastes time. It means that a Precision 1D opening has to be alerted, even in the very old-fashioned form of Precision where 1D is basically natural but could be 3334. What if you have agreed to open 1C with 4-4 in the minors?
- have different announcements depending on the nature of the short club. Fine is theory, but percentage chance of success in the real world: zero. A lot of people can't cope with the current set of announcements never mind making them more complicated. In practical terms, a regulation that people don't follow is worse than not having one.

Also, any distinction that comes to depend on partnership experience is a poor one. It has the potential to lead to stupid rulings or as a minimum wasting time. Many people who play 'open 1D with 4' would still open 1C looking at KQx xx xxxx AKQx. If that happens in a regular partnership sufficiently often to become a partnership agreement, do they now alert their 1C opening? Similar problem with the 'alert if you might have a 5-card major' rule. My partnership in theory opens 1H with a balanced hand with 5 hearts, but we've opened 1C often enough (2 or 3 times in the last year) with 5 bad hearts that we've added it to the convention card. So now should we alert the 1C opening, and people ask, and get a long explaining including 'but very rarely it might have five hearts' which hasn't really progress matters?

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-November-30, 05:30, said:

<snip>there has been a huge amount of discussion about the 'could be short' announcement and what it should cover.

I agree with you that it should not be more complicated or difficult to understand than it currently is. I would make it simpler still and have no announcement or alert if 1C or 1D are non-forcing and an alert if they are. But I am quite happy with the current method as well.