[Cyberyeti]

Your agreements are that 4♦ over 2M would be leaping Michaels, you never discussed 4♦ over a multi. You're playing with F2F alerting regs.

So partner produces 4♦ over LHO's multi:

1) do you alert this and what explanation do you give
2) what do you think the best use of this bid is
3) do your answers to 1 and 2 change if the multi has no strong options (so is more likely to be passed)
4) if 4♦ is natural, how good a hand does it show ?

[paulg]

• In England I definitely alert this as it may be an alertable call (I would in other jurisdictions too). When asked, I'd say that we have not discussed this sequence over multi, but over a weak two it is Leaping Michaels.
• I use this bid as Leaping Michaels, showing diamonds and a major.
• Makes no difference to me
• A fairly distributional hand with long diamonds that has no interest in 3NT. I can't ever remember holding such a hand!

[DavidKok]

I Agree with paul except on question 2, for me it shows diamonds and hearts specifically. The idea is that with spades you can afford to pass one round over a multi, though there are some risks to that approach.

[mikeh]

Surely the purpose of the alert rule is to let the opponents know that partner’s bid has an agreed upon systemic meaning?

The point is to let the opponents know that you and your partner have an agreement about the meaning of the bid (in particular but, given the oddities of alert procedures in various jurisdictions, not always) agreements that give the alerted call a meaning that the opponents may not expect.

When partner makes a call in respect of which you know that you have NO agreement, to alert, imo, abuses the purpose of the alert procedure


Say I do not alert and my opps don’t ask…I now bid 4H.

If partner intended 4D as a strong one suiter, absent the alert he may and maybe should take 4H as showing one’s own suit, 5+ in length at least.

But if you alert, partner will ALWAYs work out that you are announcing that you suspect and are taking 4D as diamonds and a major, thus 4H s pass or correct

While the intent of the alert might be to protect the opponents, the effect is to protect partner in case he, knowing that there is NO partnership agreement as to 4D, has guessed either way…if he has long diamonds, he knows not to pass or raise hearts. If he has spades and diamonds, he knows to correct to spades

In short, I think alerting is horrendous and, despite perhaps having a pure heart, highly unethical in effect.

The solution isn’t to warn partner that your 4H call is merely a preference, in case he has a two suiter. It’s to bid whatever you choose without warning partner

Further, if your RHO asks the meaning of 4D, the answer should be ‘undiscussed’. I may be wrong but I think it an error to volunteer information that over a weak 2M it would show the other major and diamonds’ because that also conveys information to partner and you are simply guessing. Don’t even hint to partner what you may be guessing


You get a terrible board? You earned it…or your partner did. Land on your feet? The opponents have no basis for an adjustment. When you have no agreement and your side guesses correctly, that’s the rub of the green.

Next time, presumably, you have an agreement.

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2022-September-27, 11:55, said:

Surely the purpose of the alert rule is to let the opponents know that partner’s bid has an agreed upon systemic meaning?

The point is to let the opponents know that you and your partner have an agreement about the meaning of the bid (in particular but, given the oddities of alert procedures in various jurisdictions, not always) agreements that give the alerted call a meaning that the opponents may not expect.

When partner makes a call in respect of which you know that you have NO agreement, to alert, imo, abuses the purpose of the alert procedure


Say I do not alert and my opps don’t ask…I now bid 4H.

If partner intended 4D as a strong one suiter, absent the alert he may and maybe should take 4H as showing one’s own suit, 5+ in length at least.

But if you alert, partner will ALWAYs work out that you are announcing that you suspect and are taking 4D as diamonds and a major, thus 4H s pass or correct

While the intent of the alert might be to protect the opponents, the effect is to protect partner in case he, knowing that there is NO partnership agreement as to 4D, has guessed either way…if he has long diamonds, he knows not to pass or raise hearts. If he has spades and diamonds, he knows to correct to spades

In short, I think alerting is horrendous and, despite perhaps having a pure heart, highly unethical in effect.

The solution isn’t to warn partner that your 4H call is merely a preference, in case he has a two suiter. It’s to bid whatever you choose without warning partner

Further, if your RHO asks the meaning of 4D, the answer should be ‘undiscussed’. I may be wrong but I think it an error to volunteer information that over a weak 2M it would show the other major and diamonds’ because that also conveys information to partner and you are simply guessing. Don’t even hint to partner what you may be guessing


You get a terrible board? You earned it…or your partner did. Land on your feet? The opponents have no basis for an adjustment. When you have no agreement and your side guesses correctly, that’s the rub of the green.

Next time, presumably, you have an agreement.

Unfortunately the correct procedure in England as explained above is that you alert, and say "no agreement, but might not be natural".

[Cyberyeti]

OK, partner's hand was something like

---

I interpreted it as leaping Michaels and it all went horribly wrong.

My contention was that this was not a 4♦ bid even if this was just diamonds

KQx, J109x, Kx, xxxx for example and 3N is the only possible game

[eagles123]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-27, 14:08, said:

OK, partner's hand was something like

---

I interpreted it as leaping Michaels and it all went horribly wrong.

My contention was that this was not a 4♦ bid even if this was just diamonds

KQx, J109x, Kx, xxxx for example and 3N is the only possible game

I agree that I don't like 4D, especially in an undiscussed sequence. 5 diamonds seems normal to me.

[Gilithin]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-27, 14:08, said:

OK, partner's hand was something like

Tell your partner to repeat to themselves 5 times before bed every night for a month "Don't preempt over a preempt". Then have a discussion about your Multi defence. If you decide to go for a Multi-X approach, there is generally a specific call for "competitive with diamonds".

[Cyberyeti]

 Gilithin, on 2022-September-27, 16:18, said:

Tell your partner to repeat to themselves 5 times before bed every night for a month "Don't preempt over a preempt". Then have a discussion about your Multi defence. If you decide to go for a Multi-X approach, there is generally a specific call for "competitive with diamonds".

His options were 3♦ or 5♦, I forget what I had but it had a fair few spades which made me assume after the next hand bid 4♥ partner also had. 5♦ would not be a success, 6♦x that we were in was even less of one, 4♥ wasn't making either.

[michel444]

Leaping Michael is a great tool for the defense biding .
multi is 1 of the problematic opening opening for the defense
IDK how many defense are to the multi but I think then more then 2...
the defensive biding is 1 of the most negleted subject in bridge .
the interference are also negleted ,
in short the main stream is
1 over call
2 t/o double
3 gadget
4 Natural NT at level 1
5 . Jump over call
with no agreement the situation is problamitic
i think that in general is bad idea to make a jump overcall over a weak opening
the weak opening is stealing you biding space dont help them.
with a long ♦ no risk they may pass hecould bid 3♦ or even pass
the idea at may be leaping michael is strange you dont knowwhat are there major
but every mistake is a lesson
today i overcalled 1 spade with 4 spade Axxx and got a good lesson 4s-3
but i will do it again
the problem was not the overcall the problen was not passing after there compttion
Michel

[Gilithin]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-27, 16:30, said:

His options were 3♦ or 5♦, I forget what I had but it had a fair few spades which made me assume after the next hand bid 4♥ partner also had. 5♦ would not be a success, 6♦x that we were in was even less of one, 4♥ wasn't making either.

In Dixon and many other Multi defences, you bid "competitive with a minor" by passing first and bidding on the second round. This does indeed mean that some questionable overcalls have to be made sometimes. That is why I specifically mentioned the Multi-X defence, since one of the bonuses of that approach is separating out that hand type immediately.

[Gilithin]

 michel444, on 2022-September-27, 16:32, said:

multi is 1 of the problematic opening opening for the defense
IDK how many defense are to the multi but I think then more then 2...

There are 3 Multi defences in the ACBL standard written defences alone. When you include all of the various regional and partnership-specific variations, that number goes up considerably.

[mycroft]

There is no such thing as "no agreement" with a regular partner.

Sure, there is "no agreement about this specific situation, but..." and there's always a "but".

And it's not fair to imply that it's natural when you know with 50+% confidence that it isn't, especially if you're going to use the information your knowledge of your agreements gives you to "rescue" yourself from the situation "in case".

And if it's "unsure, but one of the potential meanings is Alertable", then Alert and say so. "No agreement over Multi, but over a natural weak 2M, it would be Diamonds and the other major."

You might be in trouble anyway, but if you claim it's Natural by not Alerting, then bid to accomodate a conventional meaning, and you catch partner's "same page" guess, and the opponents call the director wondering how you managed to catch partner's 5 card side suit with your Kxx...

The ACBL's Alert Procedures aren't as specific as the EBUs on "we have no agreement here, but one of the possible meanings is Alertable". But it says the following (my emphasis):

Quote

If you are not sure whether to Alert a call, err on the side of Alerting it. You should Alert a call that requires (or may require) an Alert even if you do not remember its meaning. However, do not Alert any call that this document says not to Alert.

The Other Site is full of players who will tell the opponents they have "no agreement", but they guess right because...and who also are so surprised, on other hands, when their opponents "guess right". Surprised with a capital C, frequently. Obviously, it's because they have Excellent Bridge Judgement, and because their opponents (who don't) are - well, "could learn more about Full Disclosure".

[LBengtsson]

I do not know what the agreement rules are here, but over a multi 2 ♦ where the opps. partner does not know the major suit partner has, I do not understand the 5♦ bid with this hand with two aces. 3♦ seems normal. If the 2♦ bid showed both major suits like Ekren, then I agree there is some cause for 5♦.

As for the 4♦ bid with this hand, I am at a loss...

I can understand why confusion occurred.

[Tramticket]

We do have the agreement to play Leaping Michaels over a multi. I can't remember that it has ever come up in actual play and would happily do without it. I would assume the 4D bid to be natural in the absence of a specific agreement.

There is a fundamental difference in alerting regulations between the EBU and the ACBL. Mike states that the purpose of an alert is draw the opponents attention to a meaning that they wouldn't expect. Superficially, this might feel like the right approach until you realise that expectations can and do differ. A novice might have a different expectation than an experienced player. Expectations will differ geographically. Expectations should differ depending on the basic system being played. The EBU, by contrast seeks to make the alerting regulations more objective by starting from the basic principle that a bid is assumed to be natural unless it is alerted. The principle is that you alert artificial bids. Opponents are entitled to rely on the natural meaning, but if there is uncertainty about an agreement and the bid might not be natural then the opponents are entitled to know that it might not be natural - so you should alert.

[paulg]

 mikeh, on 2022-September-27, 11:55, said:

Surely the purpose of the alert rule is to let the opponents know that partner's bid has an agreed upon systemic meaning?

In England, the lack of an alert means that you definitely have an agreement and that the call is not alertable. This is subtly different but was adopted for situations like this where one partner may go off piste in the knowledge that you are more likely to pick it up than your opponents if they are never told your potentially relevant agreements.

It is fair to say that almost all English players struggle with this regulation.

[pescetom]

In Italy like several countries we follow the WBF alert policy almost literally, so alert if the agreement is not natural and do not alert if the agreement is natural: which of course begs the question. But there is a "nevertheless if in doubt, alert" clause which authorises (but does not oblige) alert and explanation along the lines of "undiscussed but...".

[Cyberyeti]

 Gilithin, on 2022-September-27, 17:24, said:

In Dixon and many other Multi defences, you bid "competitive with a minor" by passing first and bidding on the second round. This does indeed mean that some questionable overcalls have to be made sometimes. That is why I specifically mentioned the Multi-X defence, since one of the bonuses of that approach is separating out that hand type immediately.

No that's precisely what you can't do in the most common form of dixon. 2♦-P-2♥-P-P/2♠-3m shows that minor and the other major not good enough for LM if you play it.

This defence is clearly problematic against the weak only multi that can be passed.

[mycroft]

 Tramticket, on 2022-September-28, 01:18, said:

There is a fundamental difference in alerting regulations between the EBU and the ACBL. Mike states that the purpose of an alert is draw the opponents attention to a meaning that they wouldn't expect. Superficially, this might feel like the right approach until you realise that expectations can and do differ.

The quote from the ACBL Alert procedures that relates to this (I almost quoted it in my last):

Quote

The objective of an Alert is to indicate to the opponents that the meaning of a call is unexpected. In an ideal world we would just Alert “what the opponents don’t know.” In the real world, we don’t know what the opponents know, so we must use a set of rules instead.

Absolutely, I agree that the rules the ACBL has decided on and those in the EBU are very different, and have different priorities.

[Gilithin]

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-28, 02:45, said:

No that's precisely what you can't do in the most common form of dixon. 2♦-P-2♥-P-P/2♠-3m shows that minor and the other major not good enough for LM if you play it.

You are right in that proper Dixon does do it that way. Against that, the version that the vast majority of club players use and call Dixon does. It is wise never to assume the second round 2-suited overcalls when playing with a PUP.

 Cyberyeti, on 2022-September-28, 02:45, said:

This defence is clearly problematic against the weak only multi that can be passed.

That is presumably why the EBU banned the weak-only Multi for the majority of its lifetime. Fortunately allowing does not appear to have caused the end of the world, assuming that Putin's current mood was not caused by a bad bridge session.