David Stevenson
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If you try Stan’s link it will not work because of the final dot! Try this:
One thing that you have to realise, John, is that systems just cover a general approach and different pairs play differently within that approach. This applies to Acol: while there is an excellent Acol system taught by Bernard and Julian and there is the Standard English of the EBU there are many many players who play Acol with vast differences from these basic approaches. In fact all Acol really means is four card majors and light 2/1 responses.
So similarly there is no absolute description of SAYC (the new name for Standard American) nor for 2/1 and different pairs will have different agreements within the framework.Your first hand, for example, I might bid
(1D) 1H – 1S
– 1N – 3C
– 3D – 3S
– 4S – –
–
The 1N bid is because I have extra values for my overcall.
The second and third hands are a real problem since the suit is not good enough. I would probably pass 1H.
In theory my methods can miss a game, but in practice it does not seem to happen.
If you wish to do that, fine. But they have no basic right to do that. Naturally anything their opponents permit is allowed within reason.
I did not look at the full hand, what is the fun in that?
West has SK, and since partner would not lead the 2 from x2 or xx2 as he says he has a Singleton so we can forget the spades. Incidentally if I thought he could have a doubleton or a tripleton I would have played the Queen at trick one not the ace.
So the possible defences are a red queen – but it is difficult to think of a reason for that – the SQ as a passive defence, a small red card or the CT. I could imagine declarer being short in clubs – I have often seen bidding among a certain level of player where the double with a shortness and then bid 3N even on a minimum when partner bids the shortage! If declarer has a Singleton he might have difficulties on a club return but if clubs are not running passive might be best – especially if he has a void.
If partner has a good red suit he might have bid it or led it, especially with a Singleton spade. Ok, I shall go passive, SQ. Pairs or teams.
Now I shall have a look at the whole hand.
I play 2S as a fit jump and 1S as non-forcing but constructive. I have no forcing bid in a new suit without a fit and have not run into a bad hand because of this in the last several years. Like any bits of system all of which have holes in them it will happen one day but I reckon the gain outweighs the potential loss.
Something went wrong when I was editing the last paragraph in the reply above. The last paragraph should read:
What alternatives are suggested over other alternatives by the UI? Well, since partner was thinking of something other than passing this suggests bidding 2S or doubling rather than passing, but we have decided that pass was not a logical alternative. I do not think the UI suggests either one of 2S or double rather than the other. So 2S and double are both legal calls. Of course since pass is neither a logical alternative nor suggested by the UI it is a legal call as well.
When your partner does something that gives an indication about his hand, whether it be a very quick call, a very slow call (often called a hesitation), a frown, a shrug, a look of distaste, a smile or anything else that is unauthorised information (let me refer to it as UI) to partner. Some people seem to think that UI is cancelled if the information is available by legal means. That is not correct. When you have seen partner do one of these things (or even if he did one of these things and you did not notice or see it) that is UI whether you can get the idea of his hand from the auction or not and the laws that cover UI apply whether you have seen it or got other information or not.
The deductions that you mentioned from the auction are not as reliable as you think. In third seat pre-emptive bids are often made with hands that are stronger or weaker than the normal range. As for dealer, it is not unheard-of for people to pass bad 12 counts. So on a really bad day the opponents here could have 24 points between them. Not that this matters: you cannot bid always with a completely pessimistic view of life.
The two questions that matter when there is UI available are:
1 What logical alternatives are possible
2 Which alternatives are suggested over other alternatives by the UI
In this case I believe the only calls that anyone would even consider are 2S, double and pass. So which of these are “logical alternatives”? According to the laws a logical alternative is one that at least one player in five would consider and that some players would actually choose. Usually the best way to decide is to poll a few people and ask them what calls they consider and what call they would actually choose.
I thought it would be interesting to have a poll in the Bernard Magee Bridge section of Facebook. I decided to only ask what people would choose and the results were as follows:
Double 43 votes
2S 6 votes
Pass 2 votes
I think it is fairly clear from this and one or two comments made with the poll that very few people considered passing, probably less than the one in five quoted in the laws. Thus pass is not a logical alternative. Also clearly 2S was considered a viable option so I think this shows that the logical alternatives were double and 2S.
What alternatives are suggested over other alternatives by the UI? Well, since partner was thinking of something other than passing this suggests bidding 2S or doubling rather than passing, but we have decided to pass was not a logical alternative. I do not think the UI suggests either one of 2S or double rather than the other. So 2S and double are both legal calls.
No, in any game of bridge, live or online, casual or organised, you may never ask what your partner’s bid means. It is sad that some people do not want to just do the best but seem to need help above and beyond what is legal. Of course having said this it is rather different in games aimed at novices or beginners but in other games it is just not done.
When you asked opener to explain her bid she had no right to refuse. Assuming that this was some sort of event with a director I would immediately have summoned the director who would have explained her responsibilities to her. If you were playing in some sort of casual game with no director then there is really very little you can do but of course this has always been the case in casual games whether live or online. Even if you try the EBU social games there is usually a director available although one is not guaranteed.
A bid (or call) becomes illegal when the authorities do not permit it. Overcalling on four cards is natural and legal though it may be uncommon. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who assume that their method of bidding is the only method and they tend to be fairly intolerant of other methods even to the extent of calling them illegal. You should never assume anything is illegal unless told so by a tournament director. Asking the question here is fair enough because I am very experienced tournament director. I have noticed that when you asked on Facebook while most people agreed that it was not illegal some thought it was which shows the danger of asking questions of people not qualified to answer them. In fact this is a common theme in this forum and in its predecessor in Mr Bridge’s magazine. I have answered many queries where somebody has made a bid and the opposition do not like it because they would not have made it.
If you regularly overcall on four card suits then that needs to be disclosed. However it is not alertable so the only way is to disclose it is on a convention card or in answer to a question. However I suspect from the way you have written this that you normally have a five card suit and that you have just decided to do this as a one off because you felt like it and that it does not follow your agreed methods. This is also legal, known as a deviation or a psyche (the difference between the two is one of a degree, a deviation is a sort of mini psyche).
It is legal to open hands with at least eight points, and at least 18 Opening Points, also known as Rule of 18, which means that when you add the points to the lengths of the two longest suits it comes to at least 18. This hand has 9 points and 19 Opening points so is legal and would be even if the HJ was a small heart.
One of the queries that I have answered many times in this forum and in its predecessor in Mr Bridge’s magazine is from players who object that opponents bid differently from them. This is a competitive game and you cannot expect opponents to try to help you. If they think a different way of bidding is a good idea, so long as it is legal, so be it.
As regards the description Acol it has always included pretty light openings. Many Acol players would consider this a normal opening. The fact that you have learnt to play in a way where you would not treat this as an opening bid does not mean they are not playing Acol: the system covers a very wide range of players playing a wide variety of different things. All Acol really means is that you play 4 card majors (even possibly 4 card hearts and 5 card spades), and a response of 2 of a lower suit is not very strong so opener must prepare a sensible rebid before opening. Not much else is Acol.
Whether Bernard would open this hand and whether it is a good idea for you is not suitable for this forum: I suggest you try Ask Julian for that.
In the United Kingdom the term Truscott generally refers to a defence to a strong 1♣️ as Julian said. Alan Truscott was always very annoyed about this since he said that he neither invented nor played that convention ????!
If as I suspect John is referring to a 2N response to one of a suit opening when it has been doubled then Alan Truscott always said that that was the convention he invented and was proud of and was always disappointed most people did not call it the Truscott 2N ????!
It is always dangerous to use names for all but the commonest conventions because they often mean different things to different people. There have been a number of threads in my forum and its predecessor in Mr Bridge’s magazine based on problems arising from people’s use of names and subsequent misunderstandings.
I did not mean to suggest nor really looking back at what I wrote I do not think I did suggest that friendly bridge is unfriendly because in practice there are very few disputes ever. But of course when you have a dispute you should have some idea of what to do.
However I do not want people not to claim because of Brian’s ideas. I am not worried about difficulties in typing your explanation but the real annoyance is someone who does not claim when his hand is all winners, or he has lots of obvious winners between the two hands. If a claim relies on an explanation, fair enough, don’t claim if you have difficulty. Please claim when it is all winners!
Let me give you an example from a duplicate session where I was directing. On one hand East-West had 39 points between the two hands and at a conservative estimate had 17 sure tricks. At no fewer than eight tables they ran out of time because they were playing the hand very slowly and had played four, five or six tricks!
