[blml] L9A vs L73B1

[Herman De Wael]

Konrad Ciborowski wrote:
>> Konrad Ciborowski wrote:
>>>> East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a
>>>> 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. Against this opening, NS
>>>> play an artificial defence, based on transfers.
>>>>
>>>> South, who knows about the possible doubleton C, holds:
>>>>
>>>> K9
>>>> 62
>>>> QJ8
>>>> AKQ942
>>>>
>>>> He would like to bid 1S (=transfer to clubs OR showing diamonds and
>>>> hearts). 
>>>> Over a 'natural' 1C (min. 3crd)  he would have bid 1NT.
>>>>
>>>> South does not know what will happen: 
>>>> a) If he bids 1S, partner may not alert and jump to 3S. 
>>>> b) If he bids 1NT, partner may alert, explain spades and diamonds OR
>>>> hearts and clubs, and jump to 3H.
>>>>
>>>> Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the
>>>> alertability of 1C?
>>> NO!!! Emphatically NO!!! That would be like telling partner
>>> "watch out: my next bid is going to be artificial!".
>>> That would be blatant transmission of the UI to partner.
>>>
>> See how different the replies could be?
>> In reaction to Conrad I would offer the following:
>> Don't you believe that they know that they are playing different 
>> systems over different 1Cl? 
> 
> I believe that this is a very legitimate possibility. Recently
> I had a very similar experience with my own regular partner.
> And I have seen situations like that that many times at the table.
> This happens especially when they adopted this new defense
> recently or when one partner forced the other to
> play something the other doesn't like - the latter scenario is the most 
> frequent.
> This is even more probable when they don't face "short club"
> pairs very often and don't get to test their artificial defense very often. 
> People forget their artificial treatments quite frequently. 
> 
>> I see where Conrad is coming from. I prefer to correct my opponents' 
>> small mistakes 
> 
> The problem is that you are practically guaranteeing that partner
> will wake up if he doesn't remember that defense.
> 
> Consider this scenario:
> 
> - 1C
> - ALERT!
> - What does it mean?
> - Just can be short with 4=4=3=2, otherwise normal
> - OK, thank you, 1S
> 
> It is quite possible for North to fail to remember (inquiry about 
> an alerted call is pretty much automatic)
> 
> Now take this:
> 
> - 1C
> Pause.
> - What does it mean?
> - Oh, sorry, I should have alerted, can be short with 4=4=3=2, otherwise normal.
> - 1S
> 
> The second scenario (partner asking about the meaning of an unalerted
> call when he failed to do so on the previous 25 deals)
> would wake up a dead man.
> 

No Conrad, you are treating non-offenders like offenders.
I have seen many cases where a player claimed he had been misinformed, 
when his own system depended very heavily on a slight change of 
meaning of the opponents' bidding. It feels wrong in such case not to 
impose on the side that needs to know some more responsability about 
the asking of the system.

After all, the one pair are showing either 2 or 3 clubs, but quite 
often they have 4 or more. The other pair are wishing their 1S 
overcall to show either spades or diamonds and hearts. If they don't 
ask (and even be certain both get the same answer) then it is up to 
them to have the misunderstanding.

> Of course after the hand they will claim that "obviously we know
> our system" but my experience tells me that weird treatments
> and defenses are _often_ forgotten. When you ask a player away
> from the table he will tell you "ah, this sequence means
> ..." but at the table it too easy to lose concentration for
> a while and simply let your thoughts wander. People do it all
> the time. It is the "hand was faster than mind" case.
> 
>     As an indirect proof how all this unauthorized information
> transmitted by alerts and questions is, in effect, used by
> players you just check what happens when you make people
> play with screens. The number of bidding accidents in simple
> sequences increases by a truely big margin. Just because
> players lose all this non-verbal information they get -
> they don't have confirmation whether partner alerted their
> bids, they can't see their partners ask questions about
> meanings of certain bids etc. 
> 
>     When you put people behind screens you'll realize
> how big the impact of those "wake-up questions" is.
> That's why I believe players should go out of their way
> to avoid trasmitting UI when playing without screens.
> 

I guess it all depends on the level they play at. It seemed to me that 
in the original question, there was no question of the opponents not 
knowing their system, while it seemed to me that the 1Cl bidder was 
more distracted.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be