[pescetom]

Behind screens, IMPs.

---

1♣ was alerted to N and explained as "1+ clubs", attempts to obtain better explanation only elicted "any strength" and "1♦ is 5+".
1NT was not alerted (WBF-like rules) and E took a long and furious pause without requesting explanation before doubling.
W called the TD in indignation at not finding a delayed 1NT overcall on the CC of NS, even though EW had no such card and were playing a more artificial system.

Your thoughts about whether there is a hand where the delayed 1NT overcall makes sense?

[NS are a regular pair, but S does not discuss much and N would not pull (say) delayed Unusual out of the hat.
They have a rule to treat a semi-artificial 1♣ as natural, but might disagree about whether it applies here]

[sfi]

Sure, I can see bidding 1NT on a balanced 10-11 count where you don't feel like letting them play 1C. I'm not sure why West should be so indignant about this.

[mikeh]

I think it’s obvious that a natural balancing 1N is possible but I’m not sure I’d ever bid it…depends on the vulnerability and opposition style

I’d ask the opps what their responding style is. I play 1C is 2+ and we almost never pass it….it’s not forcing, but we definitely do not like to pass holding short clubs….the fact that we use transfer responses makes it a bit safer than for standard bidders, since we can transfer and pass.

Given the apparent level of (profound) ignorance displayed by opener, I’m not sure I’ll get an intelligible or honest answer

My thinking is that partner has values yet didn’t bid. So unless they usually run with weakness and short clubs, I’d be worried that we’re saving them from disaster by bidding, given that partner didn’t overcall 1N so we don’t rate to have game. I’d seriously consider passing any time they’re red. And may when they’re white, depending on my hand.

But for anyone to argue that 1N can’t be a natural balance….they’re idiots.

Now…if partner broke tempo in any way over 1C, I take it back, but ironically a break in tempo might well suggest passing as opposed to bidding.

[Gilithin]

People are focusing on the 1NT overcall but I look at this and am far more interested in seeing a hand where West's action, passing over a 1+ 1♣ opening and doubling back in, makes sense.

[pescetom]

Gilithin, on 2024-February-12, 21:53, said:

People are focusing on the 1NT overcall but I look at this and am far more interested in seeing a hand where West's action, passing over a 1+ 1♣ opening and doubling back in, makes sense.

You're right and OP has the auction wrong, it was East that doubled, sorry: will correct to avoid confusion.

[Gilithin]

pescetom, on 2024-February-13, 03:43, said:

You're right and OP has the auction wrong, it was East that doubled, sorry: will correct to avoid confusion.

Sorry but we still need to focus on West. They described the 1♣ call as "any strength" but were still willing to pass? What if partner turns up with 30hcp? I think the TD needs to have a word with E-W about ethics. If you don't explain your agreements when asked, you don't have much of a case in claiming UI because an opponent was forced to ask several questions to elicit some response. That there is prima facie evidence here that E-W still did not disclose their agreement even after these questions counts directly against them. If it turns out after the hand that North has bid 1NT on a 2-suited hand rather than a maximum balanced or semi-balanced Pass then the TD will have to investigate what the real agreement is and whether there was damage. Otherwise, any ruling here is going against E-W. And if they fail to disclose 1♣ properly in a subsequent round, they are for sure receiving a penalty for it.

Pairs who play complex methods with poor disclose to obtain an advantage through confusion are an absolute scourge on lower-level bridge. They are essentially the ones imposing draconian system regulations on the rest of us, since it would be far easier to open up the field to a wider array of options if full disclosure was universally forthcoming. No doubt Nigel would have a few things to say about this if he were still here. Obviously this is a one-sided account and we need to hear the defence but if things really went down as described here, I have very little sympathy or patience for the E-W pair.

[mycroft]

Oh, come on. Yes, their explanation is poor, because they can't understand why nobody can not understand how they play, because it's so obvious given their system. Not the first pair - not even the first pair playing at National Championships.

And people of expert level are "oh my god, this is so hard to work out, they must be trying to hide what they're doing" here?

If I said when you asked about my 1♣ opener "3+, any strength", what would you expect? We don't have a strong opener and it could be 28? Or that we're playing ACBL's Correct Bidding Lessons 2/1, and I mean "11-21; if balanced, outside the NT range(s)"?

"1♦ is 5+". Make a pretty basic assumption, given that statement (or check the bloody card) that they're playing 5cM as well, then we know exactly what "1+ clubs, any strength" means. It means that they're playing a standard or 2/1 system, with a strong 2♣ opener and (probably, again, check the card) default NT ranges, and 4441s get opened 1♣ instead of 1♦.

As well as the 4342s and other hands that the "transfers/1♣" players stick in their "obvious" "clubs or balanced" bids. And the 4432s that the LOLs do, that are considered "Natural" by the ACBL. And the 3433s that 90% of North Americans do.

Yes, they should be able to explain that more clearly, but "it's a normal opener, but since 1♦ is 5+, we open 4441s 1♣. And the ACBL (for instance) requires us to announce 'Could be 1', so we did. When you asked, we explained why." See how they can't understand why you can't understand? It's Obvious.

"They play something weird, so I get to turn my brain off"/"their disclosure has to be 100% and IOTTMCO or there's an 'ethics problem'" is a scourge on the face of bridge, and is the biggest way experienced players turn off new players of the "explore"/"system freak" variety - or players trying out something new/strange for the first time. Who tend to be younger, not even the "new retired" ones - and also tend to have earning potentials that lead to having "free money to spend doing cool things" - once they also have free time for them, at least. For those wondering where all the bridge players to replace the ones dying off are going to come from...

And yes, I am well known for playing unusual conventions/systems, have been my whole life, and probably never will truly shift to homogenous(*) ACBL 2/1. And I also am well known for stating that people who play something strange have a higher disclosure requirement than "standard" (even though they shouldn't. But there are shortcuts "standard" players get away with that "weird players" can't. In fact, see above). But, seriously?

For all the much more experienced than I players in this thread and elsewhere, I offer a suggestion I normally offer to the B players (frequently when playing against that one Precision pair whose explanations I've had to adapt for them to be understandable "for normies" three or four times already). Call the [-]ing director, and tell them that you've been given <this> explanation and you still don't understand. It's just possible that the director, looking at things from their twisted direction and not locked into the "can't understand" loop that the table is, will get it. And will be able to explain it in "flight A". And will be able to assist the "1+ club" pair with an explanation that will avoid this confusion in future. And won't lead to "ethics problems" - either the disclosure kind or the accusation kind.

Having said that, disclosure like E/W and being "upset" that the opponents don't know what their 1NT in balance by a passed hand is - in general (probably) or specifically against a 1+ club - is a bit rich. "They have no agreement in this situation. They aren't required to tell you what they meant it as. They should tell you what they play if it were a 3+ 1♣, if they know it, or what they know their local clubs play it as, if they know that. But they don't have to even have discussed this auction, never mind come to an agreement."

Of course, I played a midnight in Penticton with a strong novice one year, and in the finals against two fellow directors, pulled out a "passed hand balancing 1NT(**)". Which partner totally didn't read and raised to 2. And I made (because at 0130, playing against people who really don't care, and after 12 hours of thinking bridge, I Am A God™. Of course we lost, why do you ask?) My fault, I hoped she'd know.

(*)"As you know, you always have to start with a homogenous chorus. I know a lot of people are going to say that isn't homogenous, that's homogeneous. But that isn't what I mean: I mean homogenous, as in milk." - Anna Russell, "How to Write Your Own Gilbert & Sullivan"

(**)Well, actually, I pulled out a "passed hand balancing '1 No Hope'". I'd gaffed my bidding box during the evening session and nobody ever noticed when I swapped boxes.

[Gilithin]

mycroft, on 2024-February-13, 10:36, said:

If I said when you asked about my 1♣ opener "3+, any strength", what would you expect?

I would expect that you were playing a modified version of Fantunes. You are an experienced player - why do you find it impossible to tell the opps what your agreements really are rather than making something up?

[mycroft]

And why do you think 28 is a possibility and not 7? "Any strength", after all.

Sure, you're entitled to guess it of mycroft specifically (of course, you're not going to get that from me, for obvious reasons(*)), but any of the hundreds of players who are confused when you ask about their "could be short" 1♣ or 1♦ opener?

And, just in case "they don't have a strong artificial opener" is a massive possibility - and hey, it might be in your area, I don't know - "Any strength? Do you have a 'big hand' bid or could it be 25 or more?"

If you're confused by the explanation - or you are not gullible enough to believe these randoms - you can ask. Or, if you can't explain why you're confused in a way they can understand, maybe the director will understand and can explain it. But, really, on this one "1♦ is 5+" should clear it up to most that have seen the odd odd system.

(*) "Natural, 4+ unless no biddable 4-card suit, 13+, NF. We have no forcing opener." is more likely - from mycroft. For both explanation and system reasons.

[Gilithin]

mycroft, on 2024-February-13, 20:53, said:

And why do you think 28 is a possibility and not 7? "Any strength", after all.

Sure, you're entitled to guess<...>

Whether 7 is possible is going to depend on local regulations. Many jurisdictions disallow an artificial 1♣ opening below ~10hcp, or at least expect a pre-alert if they are allowed, so I would suggest that in general 28 is more likely than 7. As for guessing, if the opponents ask a question they should immediately receive FULL disclosure. No guessing required. Bridge bidding is not a mini-game of 20 Questions.

[mikeh]

Gilithin, on 2024-February-13, 06:42, said:

Sorry but we still need to focus on West. They described the 1♣ call as "any strength" but were still willing to pass? What if partner turns up with 30hcp? I think the TD needs to have a word with E-W about ethics. If you don't explain your agreements when asked, you don't have much of a case in claiming UI because an opponent was forced to ask several questions to elicit some response. That there is prima facie evidence here that E-W still did not disclose their agreement even after these questions counts directly against them. If it turns out after the hand that North has bid 1NT on a 2-suited hand rather than a maximum balanced or semi-balanced Pass then the TD will have to investigate what the real agreement is and whether there was damage. Otherwise, any ruling here is going against E-W. And if they fail to disclose 1♣ properly in a subsequent round, they are for sure receiving a penalty for it.

Pairs who play complex methods with poor disclose to obtain an advantage through confusion are an absolute scourge on lower-level bridge. They are essentially the ones imposing draconian system regulations on the rest of us, since it would be far easier to open up the field to a wider array of options if full disclosure was universally forthcoming. No doubt Nigel would have a few things to say about this if he were still here. Obviously this is a one-sided account and we need to hear the defence but if things really went down as described here, I have very little sympathy or patience for the E-W pair.

Why do you assume that EW play a complex system? Maybe they do but I suspect the 1C is simply a bad system choice caused by a desire to play that 1X (where x is a non club suit) shows 5. Ok, maybe they don’t have an artificial forcing bid but that makes no sense. Nobody with even a shred of bridge skill would play 1C could be as short as one, could be any strength from light opening to 30+ hcp, but it’s not forcing.

No, I suspect a homegrown sort of normal bidding with a silly kludge of 1D = 5+ so we have to bid 1C on 4=4=4=1.

I could be wrong, and I very much loathe inadequate disclosure (which I’ve encountered far too often from players from certain European countries when playing international events…funny…they claim language issues when answering questions yet have seemingly perfect comprehension when asking), but experience and lack of competence generally explain these things better than does inferring malicious intent

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

1NT is natural for me, I have made such a call.
I dont see, why West is calling, he passed the 1C opening, what explanation of 1NT would have an
influence of his decision to pass it out / bid on?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Gilithin]

mikeh, on 2024-February-13, 22:36, said:

Why do you assume that EW play a complex system? Maybe they do but I suspect the 1C is simply a bad system choice caused by a desire to play that 1X (where x is a non club suit) shows 5. Ok, maybe they don’t have an artificial forcing bid but that makes no sense. Nobody with even a shred of bridge skill would play 1C could be as short as one, could be any strength from light opening to 30+ hcp, but it’s not forcing.

No, I suspect a homegrown sort of normal bidding with a silly kludge of 1D = 5+ so we have to bid 1C on 4=4=4=1.

I am fairly sure that you call complex and what the little old ladies at the local club consider complex is rather different. I have been know to dabble in relays sometimes so by comparison, yes this is probably simple. My point is complexity in relation to the probable field. As far as the 5551 natural-ish method being silly, well I happen to know that one of the UK's supposedly (I am not convinced but it is his reputation) top bidding theorists, Peter Crouch, uses this method sometimes so it cannot be so terrible. Sadly I don't have a CC for it though, as he was using a Strong Club system when he played in the Euro and World championships in 2012 with Derek Patterson. As far as 1♣ being forcing goes, how does East know this at the time of their call? If someone describes a bid to me as "any strength", I am going to assume it is forcing unless they explicitly say it is not. And if it is not forcing, then they were surely lying about "any strength"! Finally, you assert that no artificial forcing bid does not make sense but I will throw you 2 counter-examples. One is Fantunes, where the floor is raised slightly; I can easily imagine a variant that uses a 1+ 1♣ opening here. The other idea that you occasionally see is that at MP scoring, there is a theory that does the rounds that an additional preempt is EV+ compared with being able to show the rare GF hands. While the Fantunes 1♣ is forcing, this one is not. Either of these would be compatible with 1♣ being "1+ any strength" and 1♦ being "5+".

[mikeh]

Gilithin, on 2024-February-14, 13:14, said:

I am fairly sure that you call complex and what the little old ladies at the local club consider complex is rather different. I have been know to dabble in relays sometimes so by comparison, yes this is probably simple. My point is complexity in relation to the probable field. As far as the 5551 natural-ish method being silly, well I happen to know that one of the UK's supposedly (I am not convinced but it is his reputation) top bidding theorists, Peter Crouch, uses this method sometimes so it cannot be so terrible. Sadly I don't have a CC for it though, as he was using a Strong Club system when he played in the Euro and World championships in 2012 with Derek Patterson. As far as 1♣ being forcing goes, how does East know this at the time of their call? If someone describes a bid to me as "any strength", I am going to assume it is forcing unless they explicitly say it is not. And if it is not forcing, then they were surely lying about "any strength"! Finally, you assert that no artificial forcing bid does not make sense but I will throw you 2 counter-examples. One is Fantunes, where the floor is raised slightly; I can easily imagine a variant that uses a 1+ 1♣ opening here. The other idea that you occasionally see is that at MP scoring, there is a theory that does the rounds that an additional preempt is EV+ compared with being able to show the rare GF hands. While the Fantunes 1♣ is forcing, this one is not. Either of these would be compatible with 1♣ being "1+ any strength" and 1♦ being "5+".

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying that having no artificial forcing bid makes no sense. I was saying that playing a possible singleton club 1C opening of ‘any strength including game force’ as non-forcing makes no sense. Imagine…dealt a 25 count 4=4=4=1 and playing in 1C.

[pescetom]

Thanks to all who replied.
I would love to get into an argureement with mycroft and others about the legitimacy of the complaints of both sides, but this is a real situation in a tournament and on reflection I probably already said too much about those aspects.

My primary interest was a reality check on whether there is a natural meaning for a delayed 1NT and if so what it is. I was reassured by the two posts below. N held something like Ax Axx xxx QJxxx, FWIW (and yes I know many here would open that).

sfi, on 2024-February-12, 17:27, said:

Sure, I can see bidding 1NT on a balanced 10-11 count where you don't feel like letting them play 1C. I'm not sure why West should be so indignant about this.

P_Marlowe, on 2024-February-14, 11:55, said:

Hi,

1NT is natural for me, I have made such a call.

[Gilithin]

mikeh, on 2024-February-14, 15:56, said:

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying that having no artificial forcing bid makes no sense. I was saying that playing a possible singleton club 1C opening of ‘any strength including game force’ as non-forcing makes no sense. Imagine…dealt a 25 count 4=4=4=1 and playing in 1C.

And, as I mentioned previously, how does East know the opening is non-forcing until South passes, if the explanation does not mention it?

[mycroft]

Sorry to take over your thread, pescetom. I think I gave my answer to the OP question (if it wasn't clear, I'm going to guess it's unusual without other comment - for what suits I don't know though. But not natural).

Yes, we should all expect better disclosure than we get. But internationally, at least, especially where there is a common national system (that is uncommon here in NA) I bet the "they deliberately try to hide their information" is a lot of the kind of "half-disclosure" which is okay in NA if you play "normal", but anchored to their national system (I'm looking at you, Polish Club is Green). I note that I frequently get these complaints from people whose carding description is "we don't signal often, but when we do, we tell what partner needs to know" (Note: very rarely does that nonsense include "and this is *how* we rarely signal") which they seem to consider adequate at National Championship level.

I am not including Mike or Gilithin in this - but I bet they do half-describe a bunch of stuff, like we all do. And, at least in the "not unusual" (for ACBL, or for Penticton Bracket 1 KO) part of their system, it's just fine to do that (and where their system is unusual, I assume their disclosure is more careful). And I bet that occasionally, the half-description catches someone (Life C, first time in USA Acol player, ...) and they feel the same way we do with the High Level European 'half description" - which again might be totally understandable and okay in their community, where it isn't an unusual treatment.

But the joy of being a bridge player who understands the game, and who understands where half-descriptions come from (and when they've got them), is that we can ask questions - intelligent questions, tailored to the opponents' level (and don't tell me "I don't know their level" - if you can't tell the fish in 4 hands...) that will get the answers to the confusion. Should that be necessary? No. Is it - because the opponents simply don't understand that there is a problem, never mind what it is? Yes.

And we have directors who, if asked over with "They've said <this> as a description, and after clarifying I still don't understand <that>" rather than "these people are trying to hide what they play", frequently can see both sides and are able to get the confusion clarified.

And I note we don't get the venom over "wants me to bid 2♦" or similar (even more useless) explanations. Because We Know What That Means, even if it is poor disclosure, it was good enough - because we've all seen it often enough. Therefore, it's one of those "not full disclosure"s that people can and do get away with. Funny, that.

[mikeh]

mycroft, on 2024-February-14, 19:52, said:

Sorry to take over your thread, pescetom. I think I gave my answer to the OP question (if it wasn't clear, I'm going to guess it's unusual without other comment - for what suits I don't know though. But not natural).

Yes, we should all expect better disclosure than we get. But internationally, at least, especially where there is a common national system (that is uncommon here in NA) I bet the "they deliberately try to hide their information" is a lot of the kind of "half-disclosure" which is okay in NA if you play "normal", but anchored to their national system (I'm looking at you, Polish Club is Green). I note that I frequently get these complaints from people whose carding description is "we don't signal often, but when we do, we tell what partner needs to know" (Note: very rarely does that nonsense include "and this is *how* we rarely signal") which they seem to consider adequate at National Championship level.

I am not including Mike or Gilithin in this - but I bet they do half-describe a bunch of stuff, like we all do. And, at least in the "not unusual" (for ACBL, or for Penticton Bracket 1 KO) part of their system, it's just fine to do that (and where their system is unusual, I assume their disclosure is more careful). And I bet that occasionally, the half-description catches someone (Life C, first time in USA Acol player, ...) and they feel the same way we do with the High Level European 'half description" - which again might be totally understandable and okay in their community, where it isn't an unusual treatment.

But the joy of being a bridge player who understands the game, and who understands where half-descriptions come from (and when they've got them), is that we can ask questions - intelligent questions, tailored to the opponents' level (and don't tell me "I don't know their level" - if you can't tell the fish in 4 hands...) that will get the answers to the confusion. Should that be necessary? No. Is it - because the opponents simply don't understand that there is a problem, never mind what it is? Yes.

And we have directors who, if asked over with "They've said <this> as a description, and after clarifying I still don't understand <that>" rather than "these people are trying to hide what they play", frequently can see both sides and are able to get the confusion clarified.

And I note we don't get the venom over "wants me to bid 2♦" or similar (even more useless) explanations. Because We Know What That Means, even if it is poor disclosure, it was good enough - because we've all seen it often enough. Therefore, it's one of those "not full disclosure"s that people can and do get away with. Funny, that.

Test