[Cyberyeti]

EBU land

Based on something in another thread.

You play 5 card majors, you agree to raise 1M to 2 routinely on a doubleton some of the time both in competition and unopposed (xx, xx, AKJxxx, xxx is an example), does this make the bid alertable by virtue of it being natural but unexpected ? and is there any difference if this is over p/x/overcall ?

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-May-11, 05:48, said:

EBU land

Based on something in another thread.

You play 5 card majors, you agree to raise 1M to 2 routinely on a doubleton some of the time both in competition and unopposed (xx, xx, AKJxxx, xxx is an example), does this make the bid alertable by virtue of it being natural but unexpected ? and is there any difference if this is over p/x/overcall ?

It seems to me that this would be alertable, especially as you say “some of the time” so you must at least reveal your criteria.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-May-11, 05:48, said:

EBU land

Based on something in another thread.

You play 5 card majors, you agree to raise 1M to 2 routinely on a doubleton some of the time both in competition and unopposed (xx, xx, AKJxxx, xxx is an example), does this make the bid alertable by virtue of it being natural but unexpected ? and is there any difference if this is over p/x/overcall ?

I used to play with John Probst that an immediate raise was worse than going through a forcing NT, so could be on a doubleton and would only have three if minimal. We did always alert it.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2020-May-11, 06:19, said:

It seems to me that this would be alertable, especially as you say “some of the time” so you must at least reveal your criteria.

What if there's no objective criteria, just "when you think it's best"?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2020-May-12, 09:42, said:

What if there's no objective criteria, just "when you think it's best"?

But with no reason for being “best”? Ridiculous. When it’s best must mean something.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2020-May-12, 10:48, said:

But with no reason for being “best”? Ridiculous. When it’s best must mean something.

I suspect it means when there's nothing else sensible to bid, not 4♠, and 1N looks unattractive for some reason.

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, if a partnership has an agreement that they will frequently raise on two card trump support this should be alerted.

As a practical example, playing MOSCITO a raise to 2M typically denies 4 card support
I also believe that this should be alertable

[pescetom]

hrothgar, on 2020-May-12, 11:50, said:

From my perspective, if a partnership has an agreement that they will frequently raise on two card trump support this should be alerted.

From my perspective, if a partnership has an agreement that they will *ever* raise a nominal five card suit on two card support (in absence of interference) this should be alerted.
But then it is already well established that my interpretation of natural is not on the same wavelength as some other forum members.

[mycroft]

I think you have an (at least implied) agreement to do this (and therefore the opponents are entitled to that information) if the frequency is higher than "My partner is likely to throw up if I put this hand down as dummy. On the other hand, I'm going to throw up if I do anything else." I also think that agreement is unusual enough to be Alertable (if HU&U raises are Alertable in your jurisdiction).

I also note that often, the ones who complain when the opponents do this "when it's best" are the ones that freak out when the opponents complain that their 12-14 NT was done on a "married honours in long suits" 11, or their 11-15 1♦ opener is on 9 in third seat "because you want me to pass this?", or their 1♥ response is on 3 because "1NT is revolting on the 1=3=3=6", or who play "we rarely signal, but when we do, we tell partner what he needs to know", or...

"Oh I get it, it's one of those irregular verbs":

• I use my best judgment. It's Just Bridge;
  
• You should really Alert that "agreement";
  
• She's cheating, trying to hide their partnership understanding.

ISTR a thread about "both majors" being misleading because it was a 4=4=4=1 somewhere...

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2020-May-12, 10:48, said:

But with no reason for being “best”? Ridiculous. When it’s best must mean something.

It's called judgement, perhaps augmented by "table feel".

Lots of times you have hands that are on the borderline of two actions, and you just go with your gut. It's quite possible that if you'd eaten something different for lunch, or had a better night's sleep, etc. you would have made a different decision.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2020-May-18, 18:22, said:

It's called judgement, perhaps augmented by "table feel".

Lots of times you have hands that are on the borderline of two actions, and you just go with your gut. It's quite possible that if you'd eaten something different for lunch, or had a better night's sleep, etc. you would have made a different decision.

Or not. “Judgment” is going to be based on something. I would be astonished if no pattern emerges, and it might be one that neither partner is consciously aware of.

I think it would be beneficial for the LPA and partner to look at a lot of old hand records and decide on which hands they would support on a doubleton and why or why not.

“Some of the time” is not good enough.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2020-May-18, 18:22, said:

It's called judgement, perhaps augmented by "table feel".

Sorry Barry but "what's best", "by feel", "just bridge", "normal stuff", "simple bridge", "kitchen bridge" and all of the other members of this family are synonyms for "we want to get round the disclosure rules". There are far too many smart players around using this strategy and it is long past time that authorities clamped down on the practice. The worst part is that, currently, questioning such pairs further tends to draw ire from other members and involving a TD means complete ostracism.

Not that the problem exists only in clubs. Just today on BBO it took me over 10 minutes to get a regular pair to tell me that they play their 1NT overcall as 12-14. Now I would agree they were doing this primarily because they are clueless...but I have met many players who were obviously using these terms deliberately and deceitfully to avoid full disclosure and, quite frankly, it stinks.

[Povratnik]

I see two groups here: 'intuitive' and 'mechanical'. I'm with 'mechanicals' when it concerns the final answer to OP's question, but tend to disagree with them generally.

I'll support partner's major with two cards if_and_only_if I think every other speech is worse. Is there a pattern? I'm not sufficiently interested to even try to find out; when it concerns my bridge improving, there are many topics that are significantly more important...
And I'm a (self proclaimed) expert. Why would co called improving players have an obligation to waste time and energy on such unrewarding* subject? If they never thought themselves about the subject, why would they even think of alerting?

* I mechanically agree with Vampyr that putting some time and effort in this subject would be beneficial, but putting the same time and effort in another subject would be much more beneficial

IF a partnership has some explicit agreements, alerting (and explaining when requested) is of course mandatory
If the frequency of such flawed supporting is UNUSUALLY high, THEN the partners are obligated to study the subject, to make some agreements and proceed as in previous line...

Until I hear something new and convincing, I'm with barmar in spirit. However:

Cyberyeti, on 2020-May-11, 05:48, said:

You play 5 card majors, you agree to raise 1M to 2 routinely on a doubleton some of the time both in competition and unopposed (xx, xx, AKJxxx, xxx is an example), does this make the bid alertable by virtue of it being natural but unexpected ?

Because of the red words, I think you're obligated to put the time and effort the way Vampyr recommends. This is my answer to your question that I see as shallow, literal truth. The rest of my post is significantly more important and I consider it deeper, real truth.

[barmar]

Is this different from the judgement used to decide whether to make a 3-card raise of partner's major response to a minor opening?

If I'm choosing between the 3-card raise and NT, I look for NT flaws like a side singleton or small doubleton. OTOH, some I have partners who are more liberal with their 3-card raises, and will do it with hands where I would have bid NT. I think I've even seen them do it when they had six cards in their minor, so could easily rebid it.

In my experience, these things are personal style and judgement, not generally a matter of partnership experience.

[mycroft]

You use judgement.
I use (different) judgement, at least partly because I've got 16 high and everyone else has already opened this 1NT.
C always does it with a weak outside doubleton, or Qx or worse in overcaller's suit.
For K, 2M promises 4, and she will yell at you if you put down A87 xx (or A87 x) in dummy.

You really think that K isn't entitled to know your (partner's) style? or you, K's? or mine? And tell me that you won't in fact know at least "never - sometimes - routinely - always", and almost certainly "what kind of sometimes" within 10 sessions, even if you never mention it.

I agree with you, it's the same thing as "how often would you raise your partner's 5-card suit on 2?" The answer to that could range from "what?" to "Kx and real problems" to "can't bid 1NT" to "partner's limited to 15, so when we think we can win the auction in 2M" to (somebody has to think this) "Oh yeah, that's common". I think "highly unusual" is past "huh?" and "okay, I can think of a hand, but no, we don't" and well before "commonly".

Difference is, that 1♠-p-2♠ on 2 is something that, should I find the people at Penticton who would do it past "yeah, that hand, maybe", I wouldn't be able to make a team game out of. People that will 1m-1M; 2M on 3 (or 1m-1H (1S); 2H on 3) are a dime a dozen.

While "Highly Unusual and Unexpected" treatments remain Alertable (which is probably forever online with self-alerts), I think one is HU&U, and the other - isn't, in the last 20 years, in flight A at least.

[helene_t]

If you play 5-card major, opps will think that your raise establishes an 8-card fit and that they therefore have some degree of LOTT license to balance, especially if you have hearts.

So it is highly relevant that you can raise on two, and something which they wouldn't suspect if it wasn't disclosed.

So it seems pretty obvious to me that it should be alerted unless the regulations explicitly say that it shouldn't.

It might be different in contested auctions where 2-card raises are a bit less unusual. Probably you should alert it if you do it significantly more often than what is mainstream in your area.

[TMorris]

You have an agreement. It is not a common agreement. Why would you not tell your opponents about it.