[Chris3875]

---

I wasn't at bridge today when this hand was played. E/W complained that N/S did not pre-alert that they could open 1NT with a 5-card major, nor was it on their system card. 2SX was played by East making 6 tricks for -500. Their argument to the director was that if South had opened 1S East would not have bid 2S. They also queried why North would not answer partner's double at the 2-level, especially as they had a void in spades. N/S apparently told the director that they will not open 1S unless they have a re-bid, so instead opted to open a weak 1NT. My initial thoughts were that an infraction occurred when South opened 1NT and I believe that E/W were damaged - if I had been the director on the day I would have been tempted to adjust the score to 2NT by N/S making 9 tricks if I felt generous, or 8 tricks. Comments please.

[StevenG]

Isn't the infraction the failure to disclose properly? The question ought to be what East would have bid if he'd known that South could have a 5 card major.

[The_Badger]

East bidding 2♠ is a bit stupid with his point count. Not a tournament director or a tournament player these days, but do players have to describe their hands in infinite detail before every bid? 1NT with a 5 card major, whether weak or strong no trump, has been around for more than a few years now.

However, whatever way the bidding pans out by another route, except if South opens 1♠, I still think East will say something in ♠s at some point.

[Tramticket]

StevenG, on 2019-January-04, 03:12, said:

Isn't the infraction the failure to disclose properly? The question ought to be what East would have bid if he'd known that South could have a 5 card major.

Is there even a failure to disclose? What Jurisdiction is this? [Edit: I see from your profile that you Australian?]. In England the announcement of the NT range may include "May contain a Singleton", but there is no requirement to announce that it "may contain a Five-card Major". Opening 1NT with a five-card major is hardly unusual and I am surprised that no one at your club has encountered this before.

[nige1]

Depends on local regulations. In the UK, a 1N opener that could have a 5-card M is not (pre-)alertable.

[Chris3875]

Yes, agreed, it is becoming more common to open 1NT with a 5-card major - however it wasn't on the system card (there is a tick box to indicate that you may open with a 5-card major). Also agreed that even if it had been pre-alerted or even on the system card East may still have ended up in 2S. What do you think about North not answering her partner's double?

[Tramticket]

Chris3875, on 2019-January-04, 04:30, said:

however it wasn't on the system card (there is a tick box to indicate that you may open with a 5-card major).

Chris3875, on 2019-January-04, 03:07, said:

N/S apparently told the director that they will not open 1S unless they have a re-bid, so instead opted to open a weak 1NT.

From the two above statements it appears that North/South had a clear agreement to open 1NT with a five-card major and failed to adequately disclose their agreement on the convention card (as required in Australia) or pre-alert (also required in Australia?). From this, it appears that there was misinformation. The director should try and establish the parameters for the 2♠ over-call to ascertain whether it was a likely bid, even with the knowledge that the 1NT bid might include a five-card major. The director should inquire about other bids considered and what they would show (e.g. double?). It can be difficult to establish what might have happened without the MI and after the fact. A 2♠ over-call with a 17-count is an unusual action for most pairs, so I would be particularly interested in hearing the player's reasoning.

Chris3875, on 2019-January-04, 04:30, said:

What do you think about North not answering her partner's double?

Again, what is the regulation? North/South seem (from their actions) to be treating the double as penalty. Would a penalty double be alertable in Australia (it would in England)? If so, we have a second case of Mis-information. But would East/West do anything different if properly informed? (I am not convinced that they would escape to, say, 2NT or that 2NT would not be doubled?).

[Cyberyeti]

No adjustment, what is going to be different if it is pre-announced ? I really don't believe the knowledge that S may have 5M (which when you have 5-2 in the majors is much more likely to be hearts) changes anything.

There is misinformation, and you could award a PP for failing to correctly fill out the card if the checkbox is there for that.

[Tramticket]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-January-04, 05:18, said:

No adjustment, what is going to be different if it is pre-announced ? I really don't believe the knowledge that S may have 5M (which when you have 5-2 in the majors is much more likely to be hearts) changes anything.

There is misinformation, and you could award a PP for failing to correctly fill out the card if the checkbox is there for that.

I tend to agree with this - but I think that you have to go through the motions to understand East's reasoning first.

[sfi]

Tramticket, on 2019-January-04, 05:18, said:

From the two above statements it appears that North/South had a clear agreement to open 1NT with a five-card major and failed to adequately disclose their agreement on the convention card (as required in Australia) or pre-alert (also required in Australia?).

Opening 1NT with a five-card major requires neither a pre-alert nor an alert in Australia. However, the system card should be marked appropriately if it is their agreement. The NT range does need to be announced, but no other information should be volunteered as part of this announcement.

(re. doubles)

Quote

Again, what is the regulation? North/South seem (from their actions) to be treating the double as penalty. Would a penalty double be alertable in Australia (it would in England)?

No doubles, redoubles or cue-bids are alertable. Additionally, the regulations state that "Takeout/negative-type doubles and penalty doubles do not require a delayed alert."

So the only infraction in evidence is N-S not completely marking the card. Even if East had checked the system card (which it sounds like they did), I'm far from convinced they would have not bid 2S with the correct information. It looks clear to me that the table score stands.

[Tramticket]

sfi, on 2019-January-04, 06:54, said:

Opening 1NT with a five-card major requires neither a pre-alert nor an alert in Australia. However, the system card should be marked appropriately if it is their agreement. The NT range does need to be announced, but no other information should be volunteered as part of this announcement.

(re. doubles)


No doubles, redoubles or cue-bids are alertable. Additionally, the regulations state that "Takeout/negative-type doubles and penalty doubles do not require a delayed alert."

So the only infraction in evidence is N-S not completely marking the card. Even if East had checked the system card (which it sounds like they did), I'm far from convinced they would have not bid 2S with the correct information. It looks clear to me that the table score stands.

Thanks for local info.

[barmar]

What is the actual wording of the checkbox on the system card? In ACBL it's "5-card Major Common" -- it's checked if you regularly open 1NT with a 5-card major (as most experts have recommended for years, to avoid misrepresenting your strength on your rebid). But it sounds like this pair treats it as an exceptional situation: "they will not open 1S unless they have a re-bid". If the Australian system card wording is similar to ours, I'm not sure this agreement qualifies.

OTOH, if the checkbox says something like "May have 5-card Major", then there is indeed misinformation.

But I agree with the others that I don't think that the MI was responsible for the damage. Just because someone may have something, you don't automatically assume they do. If I have 5 spades, it's pretty unlikely that the NT opener also does.

To look at it differently, suppose East's suit had been a minor. Obviously the NT opener can have a 5-card minor (and 6 cards are not unheard of), it's probably even more likely than a 5-card major, and no special warning needs to be made about that. Yet I doubt he'd have any hesitation overcalling with it.

And the argument that if South had opened 1♠ he wouldn't have overcalled is irrelevant. What matters is what would have happened if he'd been given full disclosure. Would he really not have overcalled if that checkbox had been ticked? Even if he makes such a claim, would you really believe him after the fact? Unfortunately, there's no real way to know, although maybe his someone can remember times when he did overcall a major against opponents who had the box checked.

[DozyDom]

S being unable to open without a 5-cm wouldn't make the overcall any better; I would choose to believe that E's misbidding wouldn't be affected by the possibility. As for not running from the double... who plays that double as anything but penalty?

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-January-04, 09:29, said:

What is the actual wording of the checkbox on the system card? In ACBL it's "5-card Major Common" -- it's checked if you regularly open 1NT with a 5-card major (as most experts have recommended for years, to avoid misrepresenting your strength on your rebid). But it sounds like this pair treats it as an exceptional situation: "they will not open 1S unless they have a re-bid". If the Australian system card wording is similar to ours, I'm not sure this agreement qualifies.

Disclosure of agreements about distribution of a NT opening are a problem in other RAs too.

In Italy the system card doesn't have a checkbox for 5-card majors or any other deviation from traditional distributions. Until last week the regulations said NOT to alert a 1NT opening which is strong and shows willingness to play in NT. So no mention of particular distributions, although it was common practice to announce 5cM. Now they say to announce the point range but to alert if there may be anomalous distribution - still waiting to see if that includes 5cM, in 2019 I would hope not.

[sfi]

barmar, on 2019-January-04, 09:29, said:

What is the actual wording of the checkbox on the system card?

"may contain 5 card Major"

[sfi]

DozyDom, on 2019-January-04, 12:23, said:

As for not running from the double... who plays that double as anything but penalty?

My initial thought was who plays that double as penalty? The overwhelming standard among tournament players would be takeout - some maximum hand with a doubleton in overcaller's suit.

On the actual hand I would have expected South to pass and North to double for takeout, which leads to the same contract but East doesn't have the opportunity to run from the penalty pass.

[pgoddard]

sfi, on 2019-January-04, 06:54, said:

Opening 1NT with a five-card major requires neither a pre-alert nor an alert in Australia. However, the system card should be marked appropriately if it is their agreement. The NT range does need to be announced, but no other information should be volunteered as part of this announcement.

(re. doubles)


No doubles, redoubles or cue-bids are alertable. Additionally, the regulations state that "Takeout/negative-type doubles and penalty doubles do not require a delayed alert."

So the only infraction in evidence is N-S not completely marking the card. Even if East had checked the system card (which it sounds like they did), I'm far from convinced they would have not bid 2S with the correct information. It looks clear to me that the table score stands.

I raised this question in the Australian ABDA forum a few months ago, and got the response from Matthew McManus that:

Quote

Under the ABF Alerting Regulations (3.1.1), at the start of each round as part of their pre-alerts, each pair must advise the opponents of their system and the range and style of their 1NT opening. It is at this point that the opponents should be informed if a 1NT opening may contain a 5 card major. In the announcements, simply the HCP range is stated.

If 1NT may systemically include unbalanced hands, then no announcement is made. Instead a 1NT opening is alerted, as you would any other artificial bid. A system in which 1NT could systemically be unbalanced (eg. contain a singleton) is classified as Red and may be liable to restriction depending on the regulations in place for the event.

[sfi]

My reading of that section is that exchanging the system cards is sufficient to acquaint the opponents with the basics of your system, unless you need to tell them about something unusual as defined in section 3.1.2. You are right that this is in the pre-alert phase of the round, but I don't believe that you need to be verbally telling your opponents all the details covered in section 3.1.1 - I was being slack and referring to pre-alerts as the bits referred to in 3.1.2.

For reference:

Quote

3.1 Pre-alerts

3.1.1 At the start of a round or match, pairs should acquaint each other with their basic system, length of
their one-level openings and the strength and style of their opening 1NT. Subsequent questions about
these, whilst legal, may be regarded as unauthorised information.

3.1.2 This is the stage where the opponents’ attention should be drawn to any unusual agreement which
might surprise them, or to which they may need to arrange a defence. Examples: transfer pre-empts,
transfer responses to 1C, unusual two level openings, canapé style bidding, very unusual doubles, unusual
methods over the opponents’ 1NT or strong club openings, unusual cue bids of the opponents’ suit, etc.
Pay particular attention to unusual self-alerting calls. These should appear on the system card, but should
also be verbally pre-alerted.

3.1.3 Highly unusual carding (e.g. leading low from doubletons) should also be pre-alerted at this stage.

[mcphee]

E/W seem to be looking for redress when they did something dumb. I think we should hold a public hanging for them.Whats next, you opened NT with a 6 card suit, or you had a singleton. Stop looking to blame.

[Cyberyeti]

DozyDom, on 2019-January-04, 12:23, said:

As for not running from the double... who plays that double as anything but penalty?

Takeout for us, the chance of a WEAK NT containing a genuine penalty double is so minimal as to be disregarded, the chance of competing a partscore with a doubleton spade is much higher.