[Coelacanth]

ACBL

There is a pair in our club who plays an opening 1NT as 12-14 in the context of an otherwise "standard" system (ie. no big club). This is fairly unusual for Flight B club players, at least in this part of the world.

A consequence of this NT range is that opener's 1NT rebid (as after 1X-(P)-1Y-(P)-?) shows 15-16 HCP. They tend to go out of their way to use this sequence, thus avoiding some otherwise awkward rebids. They generally alert the 1NT rebid, and when asked simply describe the expected strength.

During a recent game, opener held ♠void ♥AQxxx ♦Kxx ♣AKxxx. He opened 1♥, and responded 1NT over partner's 1♠ response. This right-sided the notrump, and they reached a cold (from this side of the table) 3NT.

At the end of the hand, opener's RHO called me to the table and complained that he had not been alerted to the fact that the 1NT rebid could be any shape. Upon questioning, the pair in question acknowledged that they make this rebid with pretty much any hand of the appropriate strength. Opener's RHO (holding a weak hand with long spades) complained that, had he known opener could be void of spades, he could have interjected a spade overcall and thus attracted a spade lead from partner.

Questions:
(1) Is this style (rebidding 1NT on hands of almost any shape, including a void in responder's suit) typical among those who play a weak NT?
(2) Given that this pair do bid this way by agreement (both thought that responding 1NT with a 0535 16-count was the normal action in their system), should this be disclosed? If nobody asks about the alerted 1NT call, would this be something to bring up before the opening lead (assuming they are the declaring side)?
(3) On this particular hand, there was no possibility of damage (3NT was cold for 10 tricks on any lead). If, on some other hand, a spade lead would set the contract, would an answer of "15-16 HCP" with no mention of possible shapes constitute sufficient MI to consider an adjusted score?

Thanks.

[jeffford76]

Coelacanth, on 2012-November-28, 11:08, said:

Questions:
(1) Is this style (rebidding 1NT on hands of almost any shape, including a void in responder's suit) typical among those who play a weak NT?

No. We have lots of 12-14 players around here (Seattle area) and I don't know any of them that would bid like this.

Quote

(2) Given that this pair do bid this way by agreement (both thought that responding 1NT with a 0535 16-count was the normal action in their system), should this be disclosed? If nobody asks about the alerted 1NT call, would this be something to bring up before the opening lead (assuming they are the declaring side)?

They should definitely alert 1NT and their explanation should include both size and shape information. On the other hand if the opponents never ask, there is not an obligation to say anything. Many players would anyway.

Quote

(3) On this particular hand, there was no possibility of damage (3NT was cold for 10 tricks on any lead). If, on some other hand, a spade lead would set the contract, would an answer of "15-16 HCP" with no mention of possible shapes constitute sufficient MI to consider an adjusted score?

This depends on the specific hand, and how plausible you think it is that with a correct explanation someone on the other side would have bid spades or led spades. In general with MI you have to decide what would potentially have happened with correct information, giving the benefit of the doubt to the side that was misinformed.

[blackshoe]

---

Really? I think South is dreaming. Maybe double 3NT, if that's lead directing for spades, and if it looks like there's a chance a spade lead will defeat 3NT.

1. AFAIK, this style is not just uncommon. I'd call it very rare.
2. Technically, this 1NT rebid is artificial, so it should be alerted. I think the alert meets the side's disclosure obligations during the auction, so I wouldn't think they should be required to offer more later. Whether they should pre-alert is a more interesting question.
3. As Jefford says, this is a judgement matter and depends on the specific situation. There is no general rule.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-28, 12:40, said:

---

Really? I think South is dreaming. Maybe double 3NT, if that's lead directing for spades, and if it looks like there's a chance a spade lead will defeat 3NT.

Who said that East jumped to 3NT? Maybe he bid something forcing at the 2-level, eventually ending in 3NT. This would leave South a possibility to bid 2♠.

That doesn't mean that I automatically will believe that South will bid spades. Most people, except for a former partner of mine, are not so eager to bid an opponent's suit naturally. But it certainly is possible.

Rik

[blackshoe]

yes, it's possible. Doesn't make it likely.

[mycroft]

Playing weak NT myself, I've never heard of this. I've heard of the "standard stuff" where 1=5=(43) bids 1NT "balanced", just like many strong NT players would do it with the same hand and three fewer HCP (if 1♥ auctions aren't "range-limiting", like they aren't for me playing K/S, make it 1♦ and 1=x=5=x). But zero? Wow. I'd love to try to solve these auctions, especially if they won't raise on 3.

In the ACBL, the 1NT rebid must be Alerted: "A 1NT rebid if strong (may have 16 or more HCP) requires an Alert." On request - no matter how the question is phrased - information about the unusual lack of distributional requiements must be presented as well as just the range: "all relevant disclosure should be given." Even if not asked, an Actively Ethical declarer will "often" volunteer this information before the opening lead. [all quotes in this paragraph from the ACBL Alert Procedure/Code of Active Ethics]

If lack of full disclosure has misled the opponents, and the are not sufficiently expert to realize that lack at the time, and damage results from that misinformation, then absolutely a case is there for an adjusted score. If there is any thought that the pair in question is not providing that information in hope that they will gain an advantage, a PP is in order in addition. Flight B players, in particular, facing an unfamiliar system, will frequently be damaged by minimal disclosure methods, so this pair needs to know that a) we welcome them playing something different, but b) they must be especially careful about their disclosure, or it will be reflected in their score.

[Coelacanth]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-28, 12:40, said:

---

This wasn't the actual auction; South (in your diagram; at the table he was actually North) had the opportunity to overcall 2♠ at his 2nd turn. I think 3rd hand (who held five spades) bid some kind of artifical 2m checkback over 1NT. Or maybe he bid 2♥ with KT tight.

The player who claimed to be talked out of his 2♠ overcall held ♠QJxxxx ♥Jxx ♦Qx ♣Jxx. Not my idea of a 2-level overcall when the opponents are in a strongish auction, but it takes all sorts.

In the end, once it transpired that they were not damaged by any MI (in fact, declarer would make one MORE trick with a spade lead than he did on the actual diamond lead), this turned into one of those mildly-distasteful "I'm not asking for an adjustment but these guys need to know that they can't get away with this" director calls. Well, now they know.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2012-November-28, 14:42, said:

In the ACBL, the 1NT rebid must be Alerted: "A 1NT rebid if strong (may have 16 or more HCP) requires an Alert."

This is a pity, because the distributional information will be "concealed" in the alert. It doesn't seem entirely necessary for a strong NT rebid to be alerted; this can be assumed due to the fact that the pair are opening a weak NT.

[blackshoe]

One lady at a local club here a couple of years ago told her partner in a post mortem "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge". Unfortunately, she's not alone. Such people are not going to know their opponents are playing a weak NT unless one of them opened 1NT on the first board of the round — and maybe not even then.

In England (and other places) it seems people learn that an alert means "I can assume he has such-and-such", and a lack of alert means "I can assume he has some other such-and-such". In North America, we try to teach people, as it says on the back of the system card, to "ASK, DO NOT ASSUME" when there's an alert. Doesn't always work, but IMO it's one of the few things the ACBL does right.

[Zelandakh]

Coelacanth, on 2012-November-28, 11:08, said:

(1) Is this style (rebidding 1NT on hands of almost any shape, including a void in responder's suit) typical among those who play a weak NT?

No, it is extremely unusual. A 1NT rebid is typically a balanced 15-16 (or more often these days 15-17). A singleton in partner's suit would not be unexpected but a void is. This presumably has an impact on Responder's rebids too.

Coelacanth, on 2012-November-28, 11:08, said:

(2) Given that this pair do bid this way by agreement (both thought that responding 1NT with a 0535 16-count was the normal action in their system), should this be disclosed? If nobody asks about the alerted 1NT call, would this be something to bring up before the opening lead (assuming they are the declaring side)?

The 1NT rebid needs to be alerted. When asked they need to explain their agreement, simply saying 15-16 would be MI. I do not think they need to offer an explanation if not asked. For one thing, the opps might get the idea that Opener is suggesting they have an unusual hand and feel aggrieved when they turn up with a normal balanced hand. The real problem here is actually the ACBL alert regulation requiring an alert of a perfectly natural rebid. If the players simply told their opps at the start of the round that they play a weak NT then there would be no need to alert this as it should be obvious.

Coelacanth, on 2012-November-28, 11:08, said:

(3) On this particular hand, there was no possibility of damage (3NT was cold for 10 tricks on any lead). If, on some other hand, a spade lead would set the contract, would an answer of "15-16 HCP" with no mention of possible shapes constitute sufficient MI to consider an adjusted score?

Yes, if there was damage. There was a similar thread to this a while back concerning a 2NT rebid. However, just finding out that a spade lead sets the contract is not sufficient to rule damage. You have to judge each hand on its merits.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-29, 00:01, said:

One lady at a local club here a couple of years ago told her partner in a post mortem "I didn't come here to think, I came here to play bridge". Unfortunately, she's not alone. Such people are not going to know their opponents are playing a weak NT unless one of them opened 1NT on the first board of the round — and maybe not even then.

OK. I had assumed that such basic system information would be exchanged verbally at the start of the round. Plus if weak NT is rare, it seems courteous to at least notify the opponents you are playing it.

Quote

In England (and other places) it seems people learn that an alert means "I can assume he has such-and-such", and a lack of alert means "I can assume he has some other such-and-such". In North America, we try to teach people, as it says on the back of the system card, to "ASK, DO NOT ASSUME" when there's an alert. Doesn't always work, but IMO it's one of the few things the ACBL does right.

Not quite a correct characterisation of the English approach. There are no particular assumptions one can make when a bid is alerted. On the other hand, the principle in force here is that there is at most one unalerted and unannounced meaning for a call -- indeed sometimes there are zero, such as two-of-a-suit opening bids. So there is no onus on opponents to ask about unalerted calls. I think it is the EBU who do this right.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-28, 20:01, said:

This is a pity, because the distributional information will be "concealed" in the alert. It doesn't seem entirely necessary for a strong NT rebid to be alerted; this can be assumed due to the fact that the pair are opening a weak NT.

But unless weak NT is made pre-alertable, or we require an alert of the initial suit opening bid as "could be concealing a strong NT", the opponents don't necessarily know that you're playing weak NT.

At some point in the auction 1m-1M-1NT, there needs to be an alert so that the opponents can figure out that the 1NT rebid is not the normal 12-14 they might be expecting.

[campboy]

In England the normal strength of a 1NT rebid is 15-17 or 15-16. If the range is instead 12-14 or so, but the bid is natural, no alert is required. This doesn't seem to cause a problem. If it was made alertable then probably 99% of alerted 1NT rebids would be alerted for that reason, so it is understandable that some people would assume that's what it meant.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-November-29, 09:16, said:

But unless weak NT is made pre-alertable, or we require an alert of the initial suit opening bid as "could be concealing a

Yes, well in some countries that don't have pre-alerts at all, this basic information is still conveyed to the opponents at the beginning of the round.

campboy, on 2012-November-29, 09:30, said:

In England the normal strength of a 1NT rebid is 15-17 or 15-16. If the range is instead 12-14 or so, but the bid is natural, no alert is required. This doesn't seem to cause a problem.

Right, because in some countries...

But also, since strong and "medium" NT openings are commonplace, a person who needed to know would ask.

Quote

If it was made alertable then probably 99% of alerted 1NT rebids would be alerted for that reason, so it is understandable that some people would assume that's what it meant.

Yes. This is where announcements come in. Probably announcing the strength of the NT rebid is the right approach for the ACBL.

LOL recently I was playing with my regular partner. When I put down the dummy, it was a strong NT (which I had had the opportunity to open but did not).
Opponent, for some reason surprised: You don't play strong NT?
Me: No.
Opponent: You play weak NT?
Me: No, the bid is actually idle in our system...

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 08:44, said:

OK. I had assumed that such basic system information would be exchanged verbally at the start of the round. Plus if weak NT is rare, it seems courteous to at least notify the opponents you are playing it.

Indeed, but it doesn't always happen.

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 08:44, said:

Not quite a correct characterisation of the English approach. There are no particular assumptions one can make when a bid is alerted. On the other hand, the principle in force here is that there is at most one unalerted and unannounced meaning for a call -- indeed sometimes there are zero, such as two-of-a-suit opening bids. So there is no onus on opponents to ask about unalerted calls. I think it is the EBU who do this right.

Okay, fair enough. It seems I was a bit unclear, and that the EBU and ACBL positions are closer than I thought. Here, "ask, do not assume" applies to alerted calls (and, I suppose, some announced calls, like a "may be short" 1♣), not to unalerted calls (although perhaps a double or redouble might require a question, since many of them do not require an alert, whatever they mean).

Hm. The ACBL CC I have in front of me doesn't say "ask do not assume" - where I remember that being, it says "when attention is called to an irregularity — CALL THE DIRECTOR."
"Ask do not assume" is part of the alert regulation, though, where it says "When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME."

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-29, 09:54, said:

LOL recently I was playing with my regular partner. When I put down the dummy, it was a strong NT (which I had had the opportunity to open but did not).
Opponent, for some reason surprised: You don't play strong NT?
Me: No.
Opponent: You play weak NT?
Me: No, the bid is actually idle in our system...

Sounds like an interesting system.