[barmar]

JoAnne understands. Players who bid like this are generally poor players, and their partners are usually pretty clueless, too.

It's like players who make minimum, off-shape takeout doubles, because they think "I have opening-bid strength, I have to show it". The ACBL CC has a check-box for this, but no one ever checks it. Not because they're trying to hide something, but because they don't know any better. Any time I've asked "Does your partner usually make unusual takeout doubles like that?", I get blank stares because they don't understand what's unusual about it.

Since many of the alert rules are based on what's considered "proper" bidding, it's hard to correct these players' alerting without giving them bridge lessons.

[mtvesuvius]

The ACBL could fix that problem easily, Barry.

There should be a small checkbox in the "General Approach" black box, players should be able to place a small checkmark in the box stating "Clueless".

... After all, it is full disclosure, right?

[helene_t]

 mtvesuvius, on 2011-March-07, 17:45, said:

players should be able to place a small checkmark in the box stating "Clueless".

Seriously, I wonder if it is something I should disclose if I play with a clueless partner.

I don't do it because it would be insulting to partner (and because nobody else do it) but obviously if I know that partner's vulnerable two-level overcalls could be Jxxxx then I will be inclined to raise them a little more cautiously than otherwise. Even if I "in principle" try to trust partner for didactic reasons. And then opps are entitled to know as well.

I do pre-alert when playing with a real noob. I don't think it's insulting to tell opps that my p just started playing duplicate last week if that is the case. But if playing with someone who has played at the club every week for a couple of decade it seems odd to tell opps that p is a beginner.

[bluejak]

I play with a client. He is reasonable enough, but he has one or two strange ideas, one of which is to overcall with a five card suit. What is wrong with that, do I hear you ask?

---

Double would not occur to him.



I wonder about the checkbox on the ACBL card. Psychologically they have it wrong: how about:

Double shows any opening [check here]

[mycroft]

JoAnne understands, sure. But whether we rule against them or not, we as club owners and TDs need to talk to them, away from the table, either after the game or the next time before the game, and tell them two things:

- this is not the standard set of a "strong" 2C opener; it implies defence by default (you're not going to be uncomfortable when partner doubles a game "sacrifice" with nothing)
- while you can play what you like as "strong", if it's not standard, you have the same enhanced obligations to disclose that those "evil complicated" Precision (replace with whatever super-science or foreign standard system is played by "that pair" in your club) players do. Therefore, you have to mark your card <this way> and explain it <this way>.

Yeah, 90% of the time, their "odd approach to bidding" will bite them, either in the game or in their inability to declare or defend. The 10% of the time that the opponents get fixed with these weirdies, well, fixes happen; but agreements have obligations, in other words. Don't tell them "they can't do that" or "we're going to punish you for doing that", but "because it's a different agreement, you have to be careful - it's fair to win by playing something different; it's not fair to hide, even without trying, what you're playing."

If I catch them away from the table, and spend time explaining the issues, I almost never have a problem from the "weaker pairs" - it's the experienced, but non-expert Flight A players who vehemently can't believe that "yes, sometimes you are required to hang yourself", or "if you play X, but if you do Y after it means Z, then you're playing 'X or Z', and that agreement is illegal. That's even though it's obvious to everybody after Y."

[barmar]

 mycroft, on 2011-March-08, 10:25, said:

- this is not the standard set of a "strong" 2C opener; it implies defence by default (you're not going to be uncomfortable when partner doubles a game "sacrifice" with nothing)

I've seen many arguments about this in different forums (BBO and rec.games.bridge). Many players defend these no-defense 2♣ openers by simply saying that they plan to keep rebidding their suit and pull partner's penalty double. This makes it clear to everyone that the opening was based mostly on a long, solid suit, and some extra values, but not the monster that most players expect from a 2♣ opener.

I think it's bad bridge, but ACBL is unwilling to disallow bad judgement, so they have their Humpty Dumpty rule about strong openings. And enough players write "8 1/2 tricks" in that section of the CC that many players are convinced it's standard and doesn't need to be alerted.