[Shugart23]

This should be an easy question, but I am getting conflicting responses at my local clubs...If someone knows definitively, please let me know.

I open 1C (precision) and the LHO bids 2C.....sometimes the LHO might mean it to be natural and other times another LHO might mean it to be Michaels.....The advice some directors are giving me is 'we should ask', which I do not want to do... (why help my opponents out).

so my question is, does RHO need to alert the 2C bid if it is Michaels or does he need to alert it if it is natural or does he not need to alert it at all.....Assume that LHO and RHO do have a partnership agreement and are not confused

[helene_t]

ACBL I suppose?

The ACBL alert procedure defines a cuebid as "a bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards."

This is not a cuebid. So they should alert if they have the agreement that it is artificial.

[Zelandakh]

What Helene wrote is proper. In reality it is natural if they ask about the 1♣ opening and the majors if they do not ask.

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on 2015-July-09, 07:56, said:

ACBL I suppose?

This is not a cuebid. So they should alert if they have the agreement that it is artificial.

Accurate. Also, they should alert if they have the agreement that it shows clubs and also says something about another suit. I don't know whether these two-suited type bids are technically "artificial". If they are, Helene already covered it in her reply.

[Phil]

They should alert, however, you should have some default rules when its *not* alerted. Assume that 2♣ is 'x', even if its not clubs. Sometimes even when you ask you'll get 'no agreement' or 'deer in the headlights'.

Don't expect to win this one with a ruling, especially when you don't ask, or with most club directors, or generally are more interested in keeping the peace versus enforcing the laws.

[Shugart23]

Thanks all....I really primarily just want to know what the rule is and in fact I sent a note off to the ACBL Rules people for official confirmation.....I'll educate all my local club directors...where this really could be more of an issue will be at a Tournament where, if not alerted, I will need to assume it is Clubs and if it turns out it wasn't, sue for damages.

[Vampyr]

Shugart23, on 2015-July-09, 12:08, said:

Thanks all....I really primarily just want to know what the rule is and in fact I sent a note off to the ACBL Rules people for official confirmation.....I'll educate all my local club directors...where this really could be more of an issue will be at a Tournament where, if not alerted, I will need to assume it is Clubs and if it turns out it wasn't, sue for damages.

Or you could ask.

[mycroft]

As a Precision player, (1♣!)-X and (1♣!)-2♣ are the bugbears. Over and above the "majors if they don't ask, clubs if they do" defence, you also get "their agreement is 'what agreement'" and "we play Mathe so double is majors. 2♣ is Michaels, of course" from explainer (the 2♣ bidder, of course, actually knows the system).

You Just Have To Ask, and you have to be suspicious - just like the people who play Landy/NT, or the people who play natural/weak NT (but something artificial/"real" NT). Oddly enough, you also need a defence to (1♣!)-2♣ "I have no clue what that means". Especially because at least half the time, they really do have no agreement...

[Shugart23]

mycroft, on 2015-July-09, 16:11, said:

As a Precision player, (1♣!)-X and (1♣!)-2♣ are the bugbears. Over and above the "majors if they don't ask, clubs if they do" defence, you also get "their agreement is 'what agreement'" and "we play Mathe so double is majors. 2♣ is Michaels, of course" from explainer (the 2♣ bidder, of course, actually knows the system).

You Just Have To Ask, and you have to be suspicious - just like the people who play Landy/NT, or the people who play natural/weak NT (but something artificial/NT). Oddly enough, you also need a defence to (1♣!)-2♣ "I have no clue what that means". Especially because at least half the time, they really do have no agreement...

Yeah, I got into a discussion with this with the director last night and he also suggested asking...I guess my problem with asking is that it allows the opponents to communicate unauthorized information to one another during the bidding auction ( it's hard to believe that opponents will use the UI). I question why is it my obligation to do that which serves to help their defense? If I am damaged because the opponents failed to alert, don't the rules give me redress at the end of the play ?

[blackshoe]

Shugart23, on 2015-July-10, 07:23, said:

Yeah, I got into a discussion with this with the director last night and he also suggested asking...I guess my problem with asking is that it allows the opponents to communicate unauthorized information to one another during the bidding auction ( it's hard to believe that opponents will use the UI). I question why is it my obligation to do that which serves to help their defense? If I am damaged because the opponents failed to alert, don't the rules give me redress at the end of the play ?

Not sure I understand your point. If you don't believe your opponents will use the UI, why should you care if they transmit any?

[Shugart23]

blackshoe, on 2015-July-10, 07:40, said:

Not sure I understand your point. If you don't believe your opponents will use the UI, why should you care if they transmit any?

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.....of course they will use the UI...They will either use it during the bidding auction or upon opening lead

[Vampyr]

Shugart23, on 2015-July-10, 07:53, said:

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.....of course they will use the UI...They will either use it during the bidding auction or upon opening lead

Well, you should get redress, but anyway solution that seems to fit all of your criteria is to ask the opponents at the beginning of the round.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-10, 08:31, said:

Well, you should get redress, but anyway solution that seems to fit all of your criteria is to ask the opponents at the beginning of the round.

That is a good plan. But, I don't think at the beginning of the round it would occur to me to ask the opponents whether they make artificial bids in the same suit over an artificial bid.

[Shugart23]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-10, 08:45, said:

That is a good plan. But, I don't think at the beginning of the round it would occur to me to ask the opponents whether they make artificial bids in the same suit over an artificial bid.

SO, just hypothetically speaking, let's say I open 1C and LHO bids 2C (meaning Majors) but is not alerted. I, perhaps foolishly, don't ask and assume it's a natural Club bid and eventually wind up in 4S doubled down 2 for 500..

I wonder what the rules specifically say should happen ( I already can hear the director telling me I should have asked, but I don't think I would find that in the rule book)

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-10, 08:45, said:

That is a good plan. But, I don't think at the beginning of the round it would occur to me to ask the opponents whether they make artificial bids in the same suit over an artificial bid.

Well, you would have already told them that you play a strong club; how hard is it to add "What's your defense to that?"

[aguahombre]

Shugart23, on 2015-July-10, 09:15, said:

SO, just hypothetically speaking, let's say I open 1C and LHO bids 2C (meaning Majors) but is not alerted. I, perhaps foolishly, don't ask and assume it's a natural Club bid and eventually wind up in 4S doubled down 2 for 500..

I wonder what the rules specifically say should happen ( I already can hear the director telling me I should have asked, but I don't think I would find that in the rule book)

Yes, my comment was about asking what 2c would mean before the start of the round. Your concerns assume I didn't do that, which I probably wouldn't have -- and are valid.

I believe we have a right to assume, and should be protected by assuming, that a known experienced pair will comply with the alert procedure. But, there are many problems with that.

We have chosen to pay off when our question might wake the opponents up or reassure them about their own agreements in this type of situation. We ask consistently in early doubtful competitive auctions, so that whether we ask or not will not itself be construed as UI. We have documented this policy.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-10, 09:39, said:

Yes, my comment was about asking what 2c would mean before the start of the round. Your concerns assume I didn't do that, which I probably wouldn't have -- and are valid.

I confess I don't see the problem. My regular partner usually volunteers (at the beginning of the round) our defense against a strong club when our opponents are playing it. This kind of annoys me, but it seems pretty simple for them to ask. If the OP can't be bothered to do that I have zero sympathy for him. Of course the defense should be on the CC, but not everyone fills in their CC as thoroughly as they might.

Maybe the OP prefers to assume the opponents are cheating, and to get an adjustment every time he opens a strong club, but that seems, to me anyway, not a lot of fun.

[Shugart23]

Vampyr, on 2015-July-10, 11:41, said:

I confess I don't see the problem. My regular partner usually volunteers (at the beginning of the round) our defense against a strong club when our opponents are playing it. This kind of annoys me, but it seems pretty simple for them to ask. If the OP can't be bothered to do that I have zero sympathy for him. Of course the defense should be on the CC, but not everyone fills in their CC as thoroughly as they might.

Maybe the OP prefers to assume the opponents are cheating, and to get an adjustment every time he opens a strong club, but that seems, to me anyway, not a lot of fun.

Blimey, I am just asking a rules question, not looking for your sympathy. ( I don't assume everybody is cheating. I just don't feel like helping my opponents out.)

The first thing I do when I sit down at the table is announce that I play Precision and weak NT and give them every opportunity to discuss what they want to do before bidding starts.

Then we all bid and Bob's your uncle

[mycroft]

You have the choice: either you can settle them so they know their defence (and so do you, and you can almost trust their bids) or you can let them try to remember it on their own, and play the guessing game (and potentially run into rub-of-the-brown situations, knowing that it's odds-on, but not certain, to help you). It's a Hobson's choice, sure; but it's the choice you have.

The relevant regulations from the Alert procedure (for your side):

• Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.
  
• Adjustments for violations are not automatic.
  
• There must have been misinformation.
  
• An adjustment will be made only when the misinformation was a direct cause of the damage. Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.

I bet that no more than 10% of ACBL players would be able to work out what is the alertable meaning for double and/or 2♣ over a strong club (and fewer over a Polish or Swedish club); take out those that actually *play* one, and you may not even make it into what the curling world calls "crooked numbers" (you know, 2, 3, ...)

I bet that no more than 30% of ACBL partnerships know their methods against a strong club. By know, I mean not just "it's on the card", but "if they open 1♣ and my partner makes a call, I can explain what it means and be sure that both I'm right and that partner got it right".

You know that, I know that, most Precision players (and weak NTers) figure it out pretty quickly. Frustrating I grant.

I also note that, like my bugbear of "forget transfers", (1♣)-2♣ "clubs or majors" (with or without "depending on whether he forgot again") is a legal agreement over a Precision club. Perhaps the right thing to do is create a counter-defence to that agreement and play it over all meanings, the same way my defence to 1NT-X is the same no matter what they claim it means. I don't really know.

[blackshoe]

My preference is to make sure, at the beginning of a round, that we have whatever information we need to contend with their agreements during the round. I don't worry about contending with their "forgets", or whether my asking questions at the beginning of the round wakes them up. If they screw up, I'll take advantage of that if I can, but I'd rather just play bridge. I like to settle these things before any cards are pulled from the first board, but some folks around here have their cards out of the board before their ass is in the seat. These are the same folks who usually finish the previous round with five minutes to go, come to my table, reach in, move the top board, and grab the rest to give to their old table. Without asking, and even if there's a board there we haven't played yet. Once upon a time, I looked at one of these... persons and said, quietly, "you are very rude." He called the director and complained, and the director chastised me for calling him rude. The following week, when he (the player) did the same thing again, I called the director and complained about it. She chastised me for "wasting her time". You can't win.