[barmar]

johnu, on 2017-May-04, 14:40, said:

To be honest, I've never heard of a 3/4/5 level opening preempt described like that. IMO, hearing that a hand showed a 7 card suit with 6-9 points would mean 6-9 HCP to me. At the 2 level, suppose somebody opens a weak 2 and when asked, says 5-10 points. I would expect 5-10 HCP (certainly not 2 HCP plus 3 distribution points).

True, distributional values are already implied from the fact that you have a long suit. While 7321 shape is obviously preferable over 7222 for a 3-level preempt, players don't typically upgrade this by several points.

[olegru]

Something in that thread made me uncomfortable. I’ll try to explain.
1♥ reply was a 100% natural bid, required no alert. Was it alerted? My guess it was not. Why somebody decided to ask for meaning of non-alerted bid?
Answer is obvious. 1 ♣ was alerted and explain as a Polish club, so opponents decided to ask about meanings of other bids just in case. It is OK, they clearly entitled.
But they certainly would not ask about meaning of un-alerted 1♥ bid in the 1♣ (no alert) – double – 1♥ bidding.
As it happened at this particular case, player who bid 1♥ decided to deviate from their system. You can classify his bid as bluff or as a bad bid … doesn’t matter. It presents his opponent the opportunity to build “misinformation case.” They probably even sincerely believe they were misinformed and entitle to redress. Obviously bad explanation of 1♥ bidder (was he pressed to explain his bid?) and absence of protests from his partner made a case looks stronger.

Now imagine bidding of the same board on another table. It went exactly the same with exception that 1 ♣ opening was natural. "Sayc", "2/1", "can be short" … whatever. Would anybody ask about meaning of non-alerted 1♥? Would anybody complain about it being too weak? We are clearly in the “just bridge” land. By the way, in a standard bidding it is well known "standard bluff situation". It is a much better chance for “standard bidders” to have undisclosed understanding that 1♥ bid could be psych. As I wrote earlier, it is much more dangerous to bluff after partner’s 1♣ opening in the Polish club.

[barmar]

I think what's different here is this part:

Quote

It appears from his partner's reaction that their agreement is to be fairly free with compensating distribution for missing points and this hand was not a surprise to her.

Had the partner been surprised, we would recognize this as a typical bluff or psych, and it apparently worked. The actual reaction suggests that there may be an implicit agreement to bid with hands like this.

I'd like to think that the opponents would have a similar complaint with or without the explanation.

[olegru]

barmar, on 2017-May-05, 08:49, said:

I think what's different here is this part:

"It appears from his partner's reaction that their agreement is to be fairly free with compensating distribution for missing points and this hand was not a surprise to her."

Had the partner been surprised, we would recognize this as a typical bluff or psych, and it apparently worked. The actual reaction suggests that there may be an implicit agreement to bid with hands like this.

I'd like to think that the opponents would have a similar complaint with or without the explanation.

1. Demonstrated by opponents emotions (and especially absence of emotions) is not reliable source to judge about their agreements. She could be not an emotional person; or she could try to keep peace in partnership and do not question decision and explanations of partner in presents of opponents; or she could temporary accept that partners idea about bidding they never discussed before because she needs some time to digest it.
In each of that cases there were no prior agreement or discussions, our assumptions is wrong.

Also do not forget that idiotic efforts to criminalize bluffs made many not very experienced people not willing to accept that bid was bluff. They are avoiding to say they psyched by any cost. In order to hide they did something perfectly legal (psyched), they happy to pretend they did something illegal (bid was a part of the system ... not disclosed and sometimes not even legal in ACBL land). Funny, ah..

2. Never heard about complains that bid in that position (in natural bidding) was too weak.

[mycroft]

There are always two, a master and a student Misinformation and Unauthorized Information. Or, as here, Misinformation and Undisclosed Agreement.

Yes, many people don't ask about boring bids like this in common auctions, where they do against unusual openings (strong club, Polish Club, FanTunes 1♣, canape openers, ...) It's just one of those things that the weird system players have to put up with - because they play a weird system, and the opponents can't "count on" understanding auctions the way they can if we play their system. Does that mean the the odd-system players have more opportunity to get into system description UI/MI locks? Sure - but "you are required to know your system, especially in common auctions", so it should never happen anyway, right?

I know there's an argument (for a revision of the Alert Procedure, but arguably it's on the current one as well) that those that play 1♣ "clubs or balanced" (esp. with transfer responses) as "non-forcing but almost never passed, even with 0-3" should Pre-Alert this tendency. That's "natural", but still disclosable as being Highly Unusual.

On the case itself. Either their agreement is as described, in which case this is a deviation, or their agreement is "6-9, but we'll frequently bid weak long majors" (or "6-9, but if we have the "immediate run" hand where we'd bid 2M drop-dead to a weak 1NT opener, we'll do that here, too") through discussion or experience, in which case we have a concealed (potentially implicit) partnership understanding, and misinformation triggers.

"But everybody does this!" Sure, but no, not "everybody" does, and certainly, not "everybody" knows that this is a common deviation. And the "omitted" bit of the explanation, <sarcasm>somewhat conveniently</sarcasm>, makes it more effective, especially against the pairs who it is likely to work against anyway. I have a history of being less-than-thrilled with this.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2017-May-05, 09:56, said:

"But everybody does this!" Sure, but no, not "everybody" does, and certainly, not "everybody" knows that this is a common deviation. And the "omitted" bit of the explanation, <sarcasm>somewhat conveniently</sarcasm>, makes it more effective, especially against the pairs who it is likely to work against anyway. I have a history of being less-than-thrilled with this.

I agree
RHO opens 1N (15-17 HCP).
You ask
LHO admits "frequent upgrades" but no more.
What does this mean? Does it mean that they upgrade:

• Occasional good 14 HCP 5332 (tops and good intermediates).
• Any 14 HCP 5332
• Some 14 HCP 4432s as well
• Also some 13 HOP 6322s
• Any 13 HCP 6332 and some 13 HCP 5332s.
• Whatever, depending on scoring, vulnerability and position at the table.

Unless opponents divulge such understandings (and they rarely do), it is hard to compete sensibly or defend effectively. For most players and directors this is normal "GBK". Hence fully compliant with their interpretation of current rules.

IMO, however, "GBK" is often a euphemism for prevarication. As a result, in situations like this, you suffer a disadvantage. Especially if you truthfully declare the HCP range for your calls and divulge other requirements.

IMO the law should be changed to encourage more honest and complete disclosure.

[mycroft]

I don't know, either. Luckily, we can ask.

My answer? "12-14. We'll upgrade very good to excellent 11s, mycroft more than partner. Usually AAK, or connecting honours in 5-card minors."

Others? "Oh, whatever looks right." "So, what looks right?" I can keep that up all day, or at least until they call the TD and accuse me of badgering. At which point I'll explain what I learned to her, and ask if that's sufficient.

Part of the problem is that they haven't thought about it, just like my question about weak 2 style. They *know*, but they haven't actually actualized it, so they can't answer. This is one of the things we should be teaching people to think about doing.

I do agree that we should build some examples of GBK, and it should encompass much much less than many people attempt to have it, because it's "convenient" to not have to disclose GBK.

[NickRW]

The problem with "GBK" is everyone has different ideas. What about whether this 13 count is worth a strong NT:

Tx
ATx
ATx
AJT9x

On the basis that any four aces and tens is worth a point, 7 of them must be worth nearly 2, then there is the 5 card minor and the possibly useful club 9. Arguably this is closer to a 15 count than many a poor "actual" 15. Yet there are many who would say that upgrading this is "taking the p*ss" and not see the funny side when partner turns up in defence with a queen that "he couldn't possibly have"

[blackshoe]

Per Bergen's methods, this hand has 17 starting points so should be opened 1NT playing strong (14+ to 18-) NT.

[NickRW]

blackshoe, on 2017-May-09, 22:11, said:

Per Bergen's methods, this hand has 17 starting points so should be opened 1NT playing strong (14+ to 18-) NT.

Yes, You certainly won't find any argument with me on that. But there are those who would (and not just poor players either).

I remember an, err, difference of opinion in these forums between myself and a very well known and respected person about downgrading a 16 count into a "weak" NT (announced as a decent 12 to a bad 15; rightly or wrongly we were in habit of passing crappy, balanced 12 counts). I forget the hand exactly but it was something like

AJxx
KQ
KQ
Jxxxx

It was my partner who downgraded it and I personally have no problem with calling it a 14 or bad 15 (on the grounds of 2 doubleton honours, lack of intermediates and the long suit being of poor quality). But this other person, who most certainly does not lack "GBK", took a different view.

[mycroft]

So this is my issue ("But everybody does this").

As usual, it's probably right to expand the acronym. The actual Lawful quote is "but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Sure, we refer to it as "general bridge knowledge" from antiquity, but that's the quote.

To my mind, it is GBK that AJ9xx is worth more, on average, than KQ tight, and that AJ9xx and a couple of aces could easily be worth more than KQ KQ AJxx. It is GBK that "if it looks like 15 balanced, people will open it 15 balanced". Would people look at your hand as dummy and say "that looks like 15 balanced?" Even though there are odd 16s that are worse than this 13? Would not treating that hand as a 15 count be a Logical Alternative (given that we don't poll straight Walruses)? If so, it's probably GBK that this hand will get upgraded. But I bet it's not. I bet it's something not drawn from experience "generally known to bridge players", but from experience "in the partnership" - and as evidence, I show the fact that having to ask this question - "what do you upgrade?" *is* in fact GBK - at least in Flight A (in flight C, they Walrus. Trust me, they Walrus. Most of the time, the Flight A players "get away with" their upgrades without question because the hand doesn't come down, and they also don't count the points!)

Upgrades of more than half a point (into NT - you'll get more leeway with "shape rules") are not normal - and hiding that is CPU, not GBK. Even if it were, a player "need not" disclose - that doesn't mean they "must not" disclose. It's intended to be a backstop to deal with people who don't realize that an opener opposite an opener, with a fit, is game, even if it's not 26 high (but not, for instance, that "since we open all 10s and many 9s, our 'limit raises' are 11-13, not good 9-12" - the "since" clause isn't necessarily known or remembered, and we tend not to require the opponents to work out the inferences from the opponents' unusual parts to their system), or that balancing against 1H-2H;p might not have full values.

IT IS NOT INTENDED to be a shield to hide knowledge gleaned from this particular partnership, or the knowledge you have of "general flight A tendencies in your area", or "we have no agreement, but I've seen him pass a bunch of nondescript 13s, 14s with his regular partner and come in again like this". I don't care how you upgrade (or use Ogust, or preempt, or whatever). I do care if you don't feel like explaining it to the opponents. I really care if you hide behind GBK, *knowing that* your partner will be less in the dark than the opponents. I care to the point of C&E, if that's *why* you hide behind GBK.

But, of course, nobody here - especially Nick - would do that.

[NickRW]

mycroft, on 2017-May-10, 11:57, said:

But, of course, nobody here - especially Nick - would do that.

You wouldn't believe the extent to which, in some partnerships, we've gone to explain our understandings (whether GBK or not). Most people either glaze over, or huffily explain how they "don't have time for all that". That or you announce your "decent 12 to a bad 15 NT" as 11 to 16 just to cover your arse and avoid holding the game up. However that, of course, leaves them none the wiser, but at least they can carry on counting cards in good old hcp.

[mycroft]

Oh, I'm sure I would - remember, I play EHAA, I play Keri, when we're being silly and the opponents allow I play Phantom Club. Our bidding of "normal" hands is very obscure, and our bidding of "tricky" hands is easy. And it's critical to bring them as much into the level playing field as you can without MEGO.

"13 to 15, we upgrade and downgrade a lot more than most" saving whatever part of that for the required Announcement and the rest for the explanation when asked, probably gets you 90% of the way there, 90% of the time. If you're in the ACBL, you have DISALLOWED, 7; issues, but you're not, so have fun.

I really really feel your frustration, and I really really do not think that the people here would try it, but the number of times I've had to rule when the explanation to me has been much closer to Full Disclosure than the one given the opponents, and when I point it out, they hide behind "but everybody knows that" or "general bridge knowledge" - and given that the number of times that elision hasn't been to the advantage of the explaining side approaches zero in the limit - means that we have to work on it.

My other issue is the one I just alluded to in the previous - "we have no agreement". Yeah, but you play against your current partner every week for years, and you can assume X from any random player in your group, at least locally - you have "no agreement", but you're going to get it right anyway. And you're not going to give your opponents the tools you're going to use to guess right, because it's just easier to hide behind "no agreement". Convenient, isn't it.

Again, I don't believe anybody on this thread would do that, because they know better and are interested in conforming to the rules. As Nigel is fond of saying, it could be easier for there to be more of us if the information was easier to get.