[helene_t]

paulg, on 2016-August-30, 12:10, said:

In such an imprecise world, everything is natural and general bridge knowledge.

What exactly is it that GBP tells you? That 2♦ may be intended as 6-7 with longer diamonds and interpreted as 8-9 with longer spades or v/v?

I think some pairs actually do have some kind of partnership understanding. In theory, Nigel is entitled to know if this particular pair has some understanding or not.

Maybe they really don't have any understanding beyond "natural". That's fine. But the problem is that when they answer the query with "natural", it is hard to know if they have any understanding and if so which.

[wank]

helene_t, on 2016-August-30, 13:38, said:

What exactly is it that GBP tells you? That 2♦ may be intended as 6-7 with longer diamonds and interpreted as 8-9 with longer spades or v/v?

I think some pairs actually do have some kind of partnership understanding. In theory, Nigel is entitled to know if this particular pair has some understanding or not.

Maybe they really don't have any understanding beyond "natural". That's fine. But the problem is that when they answer the query with "natural", it is hard to know if they have any understanding and if so which.

they could ask more questions. this stuff about 'full disclosure' is for good players. most players wouldn't even realise it was an issue. what response should they give, "it's natural and we're too bad to have any further understanding of the matter"?

[paulg]

General bridge knowledge is that Acol is very poorly defined and that this is a typical sequence that many will not have explicitly discussed, especially when they are not system geeks like Nigel.

Of course Nigel is entitled to know their partnership agreements and you'd hope that everyone reveals them rather than try to hide behind 'natural'. But we all know people who like to be obtuse and try to gain advantage, but I don't see this as the case here: West's description of his 2♦ bid as 'obvious' suggests it is someone who bids what is in front of them rather than someone playing a deep systematic game and trying to confuse.

I also think that the number of people who try to hide their methods is reducing, at least in my limited experience.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2016-August-30, 09:14, said:

Gordon casts doubt on my veracity. Instead, why not just ask the table-director and the director(s) consulted who confirmed I could not appeal.

I said "I would be surprised..." I have investigated and find it to be the case that the director said this. I shall investigate further.

[lamford]

paulg, on 2016-August-30, 12:10, said:

I feel that Nigel is really railing against the lack of precision in Acol

And the lack of Acol in Precision ...

[PeterAlan]

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. I don't propose to address the question of the director's actions, but I have little sympathy with the rest of Nigel's complaints (or with his claim of naivete).

How is West supposed to respond to East's opening 1♥? The choices are between 1♠, 1NT and 2♦, and with an 8-count with both a singleton and a doubleton J and such a thin ♦ suit it's hardly surprising that W rejected the latter, and preferred 1♠ to 1NT. As it happens, I play regularly but infrequently (1st and 5th Wednesdays) with S, playing an Acol-ish system, and, although we haven't discussed specifically this kind of position, 1♠ is both the response I would make on the W hand and also the response I would expect from her, and I see it as about as GBKish as one is ever going to get. It is also the response my (regular) partner on the evening made, whereupon we comfortably reached 3NT after a checkback sequence (we were allowed to make +3, the one highlight in an otherwise bad evening, as it happens). I see that Nigel's score is recorded as 2NT+3 (not +2), but nevertheless it was worth 56%, and I'd be pretty happy that my opponents didn't bid game.

This was the summer meeting Mixed Pairs, where there are many scratch partnerships. Indeed, I understand that N/S themselves were only paired through the partner-wanted list, and, whilst I don't know whether or not E/W are regular partners, it would hardly be surprising if they too were scratch. Many of the pairs in the field will not have begun to address such sequences, let alone have any established partnership agreement. Some adjustment of expectations is necessary.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2016-August-30, 10:05, said:

In tournaments I generally ask opps if they play majors before minors.

Does this really apply if bidding the minor first would require making a 2/1 bid, which requires more strength?

That's the whole problem I have with this incident. Why would anyone assume that the bidding sequence implies longer spades than diamonds when it simply wasn't possible to bid them in the natural order because of his strength?

[helene_t]

barmar, on 2016-August-31, 09:40, said:

Does this really apply if bidding the minor first would require making a 2/1 bid, which requires more strength?

No, the question I ask is about opening style. Whether they open 1M or 1m with 4432-hands.

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2016-August-31, 10:48, said:

No, the question I ask is about opening style. Whether they open 1M or 1m with 4432-hands.

I've never played 4-card majors myself, and haven't played against it very much, either, but I always assumed that it meant you preferred major openings. Is there really much variation on that side of the pond?

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2016-August-31, 01:08, said:

I said "I would be surprised..." I have investigated and find it to be the case that the director said this. I shall investigate further.

In your position I would be not merely surprised but horrified.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2016-August-31, 13:12, said:

I've never played 4-card majors myself, and haven't played against it very much, either, but I always assumed that it meant you preferred major openings. Is there really much variation on that side of the pond?

Absolutely. One of the first things I asked was the local style of opening these hands and sadly I still do not really understand the various styles. In general UK Acol prefers opening 1M with a 4M4m(32) whereas Swiss Acol is 1m. Inbetween are various alternatives such as Culbertson and (apparently) the Acol of Bavaria. Canapé 4 card majors adds another twist where again various openings are possible. It really is just something you have to ask about if it matters to you and you also often have to accept not getting a usable response when playing at club level.

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-August-31, 13:12, said:

I've never played 4-card majors myself, and haven't played against it very much, either, but I always assumed that it meant you preferred major openings. Is there really much variation on that side of the pond?

A rather common style in Norway is to bid 4-card suits bottom up, so with more than one 4-card suit we open with the lowest ranking.
An alternate common style within the "natural" system classes is 5-card major and either "best minor" or at least 4 diamonds (implying that an opening bid in Clubs show at lest two cards in that suit).

[helene_t]

paulg, on 2016-August-30, 14:19, said:

General bridge knowledge is that Acol is very poorly defined

Maybe you are being sarcastic but .... is it really general bridge knowledge that if a pair call their system "Acol" it implies that there are lots of basic sequences they haven't discussed?

[nige1]

paulg, on 2016-August-30, 12:10, said:

I feel that Nigel is really railing against the lack of precision in Acol and the fact that his opponents have not souped it up with gadgets that most tournament players use to improve it. This auction is typical of a club auction, where the players just bid what is in front of them. They don't have specific agreements and probably bid the same way with 5-5, 5-4, 4-5, 4-6 but have just never discussed it. In such an imprecise world, everything is natural and general bridge knowledge. It's not an offence to have fewer agreements than you would have in this situation and, overall, this looks to be just the rub of the green.

wank, on 2016-August-30, 13:34, said:

i suspect the opps had no idea what you're talking about and would have no idea which suit was supposed to be longer if you asked. your bad result was down to your partner's awful lead. that's all.

I agree with Paul that there's no obligation to play complex methods. I disagree with Paul and Wank about disclosure.

My controversial contention is that, In a National Competition, when asked, you have an obligation to disclose understandings; whether they are explicit or implicit; no matter how crude they are; even when playing Acol.

Until directors rule that way, players, who divulge their agreements, will continue to suffer a disadvantage.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2016-August-31, 01:08, said:

I said "I would be surprised..." I have investigated and find it to be the case that the director said this. I shall investigate further.

Thank you Gordon but it's not worth pursuing. The director investigated my concerns assiduously, was impeccably polite, and, judging from comments here, was kindly preventing me from losing my deposit.

I always enjoy the EBU Summer Congress (including the excellent direction). I think Eastbourne is even better than Brighton

[nige1]

barmar, on 2016-August-31, 09:40, said:

That's the whole problem I have with this incident. Why would anyone assume that the bidding sequence implies longer spades than diamonds when it simply wasn't possible to bid them in the natural order because of his strength?

I played Acol for a long time. After the 1♥ opener, the 1♠ reply is standard, with a weak hand. Then after opener's 1N rebid:

• AFIK, in standard Acol, with 4♠s and longer ♦s, you would pass 1N, rather than rebid 2♦.
• We are told that Canapé is an alternative non-alertable treatment.
• Apparently, for some players, either suit could be longer.

Whichever your understanding, I think that you should divulge it, when asked.

helene_t, on 2016-August-31, 10:48, said:

No, the question I ask is about opening style. Whether they open 1M or 1m with 4432-hands.

barmar, on 2016-August-31, 13:12, said:

I've never played 4-card majors myself, and haven't played against it very much, either, but I always assumed that it meant you preferred major openings. Is there really much variation on that side of the pond?

Some modern Acol players prefer to open minors first.; but when playing Acol with a weak no-trump, I open

• A 4-card major ahead of a 4-card minor;
• 1♥; with 44 in majors,
• Some exceptions with (1444)

When asked, I admit to all this

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-August-31, 16:30, said:

A rather common style in Norway is to bid 4-card suits bottom up, so with more than one 4-card suit we open with the lowest ranking.

So they only open a 4-card major when they're 4=4=3-2 and outside their NT range?

Quote

An alternate common style within the "natural" system classes is 5-card major and either "best minor" or at least 4 diamonds (implying that an opening bid in Clubs show at lest two cards in that suit).

That's not 4-card majors, so not really pertinent to my question.

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-August-31, 22:02, said:

So they only open a 4-card major when they're 4=4=3-2 and outside their NT range?

Yes.
A rebid in a lower ranked suit (M or m) always promises 5+ cards in the opened suit.

(And with 5 cards in a major suit that suit is usually preferred for the opening bid even with a longer minor suit. Such situations can be clarified if needed by re-bidding the minor suit.)

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2016-August-31, 18:24, said:

Thank you Gordon but it's not worth pursuing. The director investigated my concerns assiduously, was impeccably polite, and, judging from comments here, was kindly preventing me from losing my deposit.

I always enjoy the EBU Summer Congress (including the excellent direction). I think Eastbourne is even better than Brighton

Thanks for the kind comments. Let's say this case has been a "learning experience" for us too.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2016-August-31, 22:02, said:

So they only open a 4-card major when they're 4=4=3-2 and outside their NT range?

Or presumably 3=4=3=3 and outside of NT range. In Swiss Acol you open 4=3=3=3 (outside of range) 1♣ but it sounds like pran's system will open that 1♠. Otherwise the two appear to be the same. Swiss Acol makes more sense to me here as the advantage of a 5 card major spade opening seems to me to be superior to mentioning your 4 card spade suit on the 4=3=3=3 hand.