[paulg]

nige1, on 2016-August-31, 17:50, said:

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.

I doubt that you disagree with either of us on disclosure, especially as both of us are overly generous when disclosing our own methods at the table.

Our contention is that there is almost certainly nothing to disclose here as they do not have an agreement and, as much as you bully the opponents metaphorically, this is not going to make them have one.

nige1, on 2016-August-31, 17:50, said:

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

Players who deliberately fail to divulge their agreements are cheating. This is quite simple and I think you need to be careful before, basically, accusing people of doing this especially when we can easily discover who you were playing.

[paulg]

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

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.

helene_t, on 2016-August-31, 17:01, said:

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?

Of course serious players will have discussed a lot of sequences, but there has never been a good and popular reference book for Acol (except for Crowhurst's two excellent tomes in the 1970s and I never saw Eric awash with royalties from these).

When you play club bridge around the UK you'll see that most areas have their own version of the system, with far greater variety than you'd see in (say) the USA with Standard American or 2/1. And I think there are a lot of sequences that people will be unsure on their precise meaning. One reason for this is that traditionally, when Nigel started playing, a lot of bids were non-forcing - even 1S-2C-2H. Nowadays this would be considered laughable but I can't tell you when it changed. Acol likes limit bids, less keen on defining bids as forcing So as the system has been updated, randomly around the country, to different modern versions.

[StevenG]

paulg, on 2016-September-01, 02:46, said:

One reason for this is that traditionally, when Nigel started playing, a lot of bids were non-forcing - even 1S-2C-2H. Nowadays this would be considered laughable

Still non-forcing in club bridge around here.

[paulg]

StevenG, on 2016-September-01, 03:52, said:

Still non-forcing in club bridge around here.

To be honest, there are many at my club who'd pass it too,especially if the 2H bid was made without visible distress. But few of them are tournament players.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2016-September-01, 02:16, said:

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.

Well, I didn't go into many details but according to agreements 4=3=3=3 with the proper strength should be opened 1♠
However, the player is allowed to treat a lousy 4-cards spade suit as equivalent to a 3-card suit and then open his (4)3=3=3=3 hand in the lowest 3-card suit i.e. in 1♣ .

[benlessard]

This sequence doesnt fit my definition of canape.

AFAIK canape is you open your 2nd best suit rather than your longest, you reply a 4 card suit before replying a longest suit at the same level.
You bid the 2nd suit rather than the longest when your replying and your GF.

Idk Acol enough for the ruling.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2016-September-01, 02:27, said:

Players who deliberately fail to divulge their agreements are cheating. This is quite simple and I think you need to be careful before, basically, accusing people of doing this especially when we can easily discover who you were playing.

Nobody implied anybody cheated. After the hand, the 2♦ bidder explained that he had no choice. He would always bid that way, whichever suit were longer. Opponents' interpretation of Acol and the law is closer to Paulg's than to mine. Their card didn't mention this auction. (Few do). They might have no discussed agreement They believed that they had nothing to disclose. Many here share that view. When an opponent asks about an auction. I still maintain that general "bridge knowledge" is no excuse for failure to disclose.

[paulg]

nige1, on 2016-September-01, 14:29, said:

When an opponent asks about an auction, I still maintain that "general bridge knowledge" is no excuse for failure to disclose.

We are in agreement on this, although laws and regulations may not always support us.

Our disagreement is our expectation of a pair necessarily having an agreement in this situation.

[helene_t]

paulg, on 2016-September-01, 16:41, said:

Our disagreement is our expectation of a pair necessarily having an agreement in this situation.

Nigel acknowledged that they might not have an agreement. I think we all agree on this. Maybe there's disagreement about whether the expression " just natural" suggests that they don't have agreements about it.

[PeterAlan]

nige1, on 2016-August-29, 19:09, said:

Before leading, defenders asked for an explanation of the auction and were told "Acol, Natural". When asked to explain the auction, bid by bid, the 1N rebid was explained as "15-17", all other bids "Natural". South led a diamond. North called the director. North claimed E-W should disclose that diamonds can be longer than spades.

nige1, on 2016-August-30, 09:52, said:

No bid was alerted. We asked out the auction. Opponents said "Natural". We asked opponents to explain each bid. Opponents explained them as natural. I was interested in 2♦. e.g. whether it shows 4 or more cards? whether it's forcing? But I didn't because we're not meant to badger opponents about individual calls. What more would you do, Helene? That's what I feel!

nige1, on 2016-September-01, 14:29, said:

They might have no discussed agreement ... When an opponent asks about an auction. I still maintain that general "bridge knowledge" is no excuser. for failure to disclose.

Nigel, I've already said I think you're overdoing this. Let's suppose, as seems highly likely for the reasons already given, that your opponents do not have any specific agreements or understandings about the 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦ sequence, and look at exactly what you're complaining about.

• "North claimed E-W should disclose that diamonds can be longer than spades": If they have no specific understanding, on what basis is E supposed to disclose this about W's bid? Only on the basis of general bridge knowledge, the same as is available to you. W clearly hasn't got a hand he regarded as strong enough to push on to game even after the 1NT [15-17]/ 2NT rebid sequence from his partner, so won't have the values for a 2-over-1 initial response. A player of your experience - far greater than mine - is surely aware, if they think about it, that the ♦s might be longer than the ♠s in a weak hand on that sequence, especially as W had the opportunity to pass 1NT instead of introducing the ♦s on the next round. You have to have reasonable expectations. You're entitled to the opponents' agreements and understandings, but you can't expect to be given at the table every possible ramification of their sequence that they've never previously considered, and, as Paul has already pointed out, it would take forever if they tried to do this. There is a line do be drawn between disclosure (there's a hint in the meaning of the word) and being spoonfed analysis that you should be doing for yourself.
  
  
• "I was interested in 2♦...": Maybe you were, but according to your narrative S hasn't made that specific enquiry before selecting her opening lead. You don't get to ask until she has done so and dummy is about to be faced, so what difference does it make?

Finally, whilst the opening ♦ lead made declarer's task a little easier, it did not directly cost a trick and the defence still had time to establish and take all the tricks available to them.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2016-September-01, 14:29, said:

When an opponent asks about an auction. I still maintain that general "bridge knowledge" is no excuser. for failure to disclose.

But how much detail do you have to offer spontaneously?

When asked a general question about a bid or auction, I'll disclose everything I think is pertinent, but I might not realilze that some details are not obvious or implicit. In the given auction, it seems obvious that diamonds could be longer than spades, because there's no other way to bid such hands. If they ask "Could diamonds be longer than spades" I'll answer, but should I really be penalized for not realizing that I needed to mention this specifically when I explain that the bid was natural? When someone asks about the 2♦ bid, it just seems like they're trying to find out whether it was natural versus some kind of checkback (perhaps I forgot to alert), and it wouldn't occur to me that what they really need to know is what its maximum length is.

[nige1]

PeterAlan, on 2016-September-02, 07:55, said:

Nigel, I've already said I think you're overdoing this. Let's suppose, as seems highly likely for the reasons already given, that your opponents do not have any specific agreements or understandings about the 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦ sequence, and look at exactly what you're complaining about.

• "North claimed E-W should disclose that diamonds can be longer than spades": If they have no specific understanding, on what basis is E supposed to disclose this about W's bid? Only on the basis of general bridge knowledge, the same as is available to you. W clearly hasn't got a hand he regarded as strong enough to push on to game even after the 1NT [15-17]/ 2NT rebid sequence from his partner, so won't have the values for a 2-over-1 initial response. A player of your experience - far greater than mine - is surely aware, if they think about it, that the ♦s might be longer than the ♠s in a weak hand on that sequence, especially as W had the opportunity to pass 1NT instead of introducing the ♦s on the next round. You have to have reasonable expectations. You're entitled to the opponents' agreements and understandings, but you can't expect to be given at the table every possible ramification of their sequence that they've never previously considered, and, as Paul has already pointed out, it would take forever if they tried to do this.
• "I was interested in 2♦...": Maybe you were, but according to your narrative S hasn't made that specific enquiry before selecting her opening lead. You don't get to ask until she has done so and dummy is about to be faced, so what difference does it make?

Finally, whilst the opening ♦ lead made declarer's task a little easier, it did not directly cost a trick and the defence still had time to establish and take all the tricks available to them.

We asked for an explanation of the auction, bid by bid but neither of us asked about any specific call.. Barmar and Peter Alan think that it's standard Acol to rebid 2♦ with 5+ ♦s and 4♠s. Many other contributors agree with them. It's news to me and (presumably) to my partner. IMO we're entitled to this information, when we ask.

But if opponents have no agreement, explicit or implicit, then they can say so.

I don't think I'm overdoing this but I agree that I might be flogging a dead horse. IMO, the standard of disclosure is poor but we've learnt to condone it, Earlier this year, I made a lead against 3N, predicated on declarer's explanation of a bid by dummy. When dummy came down it appeared that dummy had misbid and the contract made. On my alternative lead, we would have taken the first five tricks. After the match, I was passing opponent's table and overheard a loud argument. Dummy alleged that he bid correctly but declarer misexplained his bid. It seemed opponents had no agreement or there had been a misexplanation. Both opponents are honest players who take pride in their ethics but neither had felt obliged to tell the director. NO Paul, there's no question of cheating -- opponents were just conforming with prevailing disclosure standards.

Over the years, there have been many occasions, when I've accidentally discovered blatant misexplanation (usually "No agreement") I guess these incidents are the tip of a iceberg. If my experience is atypical, I'm delighted.

[PeterAlan]

nige1, on 2016-September-02, 09:27, said:

Barmar and Peter Alan think that it's standard Acol to rebid 2♦ with 5+ ♦s and 4♠s. Many other contributors agree with them. It's news to me and (presumably) to my partner.

You are misrepresenting me - I have said that with a hand too weak for a 2/1 response then it's normal to respond 1♠ to 1♥ with (as here) ♠KQxx despite having a longer weak ♦ suit. I'm not speaking for her, but I'd be surprised if this is news to your partner. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that this much appears to be news to you. I have said nothing about whether it's then normal to bid the ♦ suit after partner's 1NT rebid.

However, if, with a hand that's not prepared to accept a game invitation, one then chooses to do so instead of passing partner's 15-17 1NT rebid then it's suggestive that the ♦s could be longer than the ♠s: why is one considering the minor suit contract when 7 tricks in NT scores the same as 8 in 2♦, and 8 tricks beats 2♦+1? This seems to me to be true of any natural bidding system, not just Acol, which anyway is more a bidding approach than a single "system".

[nige1]

PeterAlan, on 2016-September-02, 10:26, said:

You are misrepresenting me - I have said that with a hand too weak for a 2/1 response then it's normal to respond 1♠ to 1♥ with (as here) ♠KQxx despite having a longer weak ♦ suit. I'm not speaking for her, but I'd be surprised if this is news to your partner. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that this much appears to be news to you. I have said nothing about whether it's then normal to bid the ♦ suit after partner's 1NT rebid.
However, if, with a hand that's not prepared to accept a game invitation, one then chooses to do so instead of passing partner's 15-17 1NT rebid then it's suggestive that the ♦s could be longer than the ♠s: why is one considering the minor suit contract when 7 tricks in NT scores the same as 8 in 2♦, and 8 tricks beats 2♦+1? This seems to me to be true of any natural bidding system, not just Acol, which anyway is more a bidding approach than a single "system".

We agree that with a weak hand, 4[ SP]s and a longer minor, the normal Acol reply to 1♥ is 1♠. I (and others) said this earlier in this thread.

[wank]

imo it's not the most relevant issue to the thread, but 2D in basic methods does indeed show diamonds at least as long as spades. so yes, your general bridge knowledge is lacking.

'most basic methods' in this case means english rubber bridge where the only conventions are blackwood and stayman.

[nige1]

wank, on 2016-September-02, 18:07, said:

imo it's not the most relevant issue to the thread, but 2D in basic methods does indeed show diamonds at least as long as spades. so yes, your general bridge knowledge is lacking.

That's why we ask about some unalerted auctions.

[PeterAlan]

Nigel, what I was objecting to was your assertion that I "think that it's standard Acol to rebid 2♦ with 5+ ♦s and 4♠s": I don't, and I have never said anything like it.

You now (and in an earlier post) agree that "with a weak hand, 4♠ and a longer minor, the normal Acol reply to 1♥ is 1♠", so you presumably were aware (despite the impression given by your OP) that there could be a longer minor when the initial response of 1♠ was given (and also accept that it's GBK). However, the whole thrust of your OP is that after the second-round bid of 2♦ this possibility completely left your head - it was then a "revelation to [you]" - and all I have been saying is that it shouldn't have done so.

[nige1]

PeterAlan, on 2016-September-02, 18:39, said:

so you presumably were aware (despite the impression given by your OP) that there could be a longer minor when the initial response of 1♠ was given (and also accept that it's GBK). However, the whole thrust of your OP is that after the second-round bid of 2♦ this possibility completely left your head - it was then a "revelation to [you]" - and all I have been saying is that it shouldn't have done so.

I've consistently said my concern is the 2♦ bid. For me, the Acol auction 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♦ shows 5+ ♠s. I didn't realize there are other interpretations in standard Acol. If I could phrase that more simply, I would.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2016-September-02, 20:10, said:

I've consistently said my concern is the 2♦ bid. For me, the Acol auction 1♥ - 1♠ - 1N - 2♦ shows 5+ ♠s. I didn't realize there are other interpretations in standard Acol. If I could phrase that more simply, I would.

So how would you have bid the given hand if we took away two jacks from it? Presumably you too would have responded 1S? And would you have passed 1NT?

[helene_t]

With 4162 there is a case for responding 1nt to anticipate a 2c rebid.