[Coelacanth]

---

I was called to the table by South at his 2nd turn to call.

East's 2♣ was natural and limited and was alerted as such. North bid 2♠ without enquiring about the redouble.

South, at his turn, asked about the XX and received a response which began with something like "I think it means...". Not being satisfied with this answer, he called me to the table. The actual meaning of the redouble, as clearly indicated on EW's convention cards, is that it indicates a desire to play 2♣XX. This was established to South's satsifaction.

South, however, was very insistent that pairs playing an unusual system (EW is the only pair in our club that plays any kind of big club) have an extra responsibility to be sure of all actions and explanations, particularly on the first round of a not-uncommon auction. I think his whole purpose in calling me to the table was to have me lecture EW on this point. He kept restating his position and I kept agreeing with him that yes, they should have firm agreements in place on this auction.

I didn't feel like there was anything I could add at this point. South had received a correct explanation, so there was no MI. West had UI from the explanation and all the discussion, but he would have had UI anyway after a concise explanation. So I told them to carry on with the auction, but I wanted to throw the book at all four of them:

South for his attempt to badger me into badgering EW about their agreements
East for her momentary indecision in explaining what should have been a straightforward call
North for bidding 2♠ on a fairly nondescript hand without making any attempt to find out what redouble was
West for redoubling 2♣ "to play" holding ♣Kx and a balanced 5-count

When I stopped by the table at the end of the hand to make sure there were no further issues, South reiterated his point about EW needing to have firm agreements because they were playing an unusual system.

Any thoughts? Suggestions for dealing with similar Souths?

[blackshoe]

I would tell South, about the second time he brings it up, that he's made his point and I don't want to hear it again. If he brings it up again, I'll issue a PP (Law 90B8). If he argues further, I'll start issuing disciplinary penalties.

I would tell East this is a "bread and butter" auction, and she needs to be sure of her agreements. If she's not sure, she should review them on her own time (i.e., not during the session, unless she has a sitout) until she is sure.

As for North and West, I'm not about to giving bidding lessons to players. Not part of my job description.

[Trinidad]

Against such a South player I would always start my explanations with a disclaimer like "I think". Suppose that my explanation is one syllable different from the explanation that can be found in my system book. South will shoot me!

Rik

[Bbradley62]

If North knew what the redouble meant, wouldn't he be expected to bid 2 of his best non-club suit if he had "a fairly nondescript hand"?

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-31, 13:25, said:

Against such a South player I would alway start my explanations with a disclaimer like "I think". Suppose that my explanation is one syllable different from the explanation that can be found in my system book. South will shoot me!

Rik

If he does, I'll have him do the Danny Deever. Small consolation, I know.

[FrancesHinden]

You could point out that strong club is not an unusual system. Worldwide a very large number of people play it (probably more than play standard american). Plus a lot more who also play 2C as natural and limited in the context of some other system.

That's just the sort of answer that will irritate South, which makes it even more tempting.

[bluejak]

To summarise, we are tempted to deal with South, but no-one else.

[mycroft]

"I've heard you. Was there damage from the Unauthorized Information?"
"I said, I understand that. Please answer my question."
"No? Thank you."

And if South *still* doesn't think I've done enough to "badger" E-W into knowing their agreements (I did agree with him, to all 4 players, the first time, right?), he can talk to me at a later time, or he can talk to me at a later time with a 1/4 board PP.

If he disagrees with my handling of this situation, he can talk to the club owner/CTD, or me later and try to convince me that I should do something else next time. But not here, and not now. *I* make the rulings; not the players. When I'm a player, the TD makes the rulings, not me - so we're even.

Yes, E-W should know what 2♣-X-XX means off the top of their head; but how many people playing standard aren't *sure* what 1♣-X-1♥-X means? Or whether 1NT-(2♣ DONT - clubs and another) is "artificial, so systems on" or "natural, so systems off"?

I'll be *very happy* to hold South to the requirements he expects of his opponents, though. Just let me know who he is.

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-October-31, 18:22, said:

You could point out that strong club is not an unusual system. Worldwide a very large number of people play it (probably more than play standard american). Plus a lot more who also play 2C as natural and limited in the context of some other system.

That's just the sort of answer that will irritate South, which makes it even more tempting.

I don't think that's relevant. It doesn't matter how common it is worldwide, it's presumably unusual in his club. By your logic, they could also give their explanations in Chinese, since it's the most common first language in the world.

[sfi]

barmar, on 2011-November-01, 15:40, said:

I don't think that's relevant. It doesn't matter how common it is worldwide, it's presumably unusual in his club. By your logic, they could also give their explanations in Chinese, since it's the most common first language in the world.

It's not even unusual in the ACBL - you can play strong club in games using the Limited Convention Chart (for under 20 masterpoints). And I remember something in the regulations that specifically stated that opponents are expected to be able to face Precision-ish systems, although it has been some time since I played there regularly.

[blackshoe]

Quote

ACBL Alert Procedure, under "Systems that may be fundamentally unfamiliar to the opponents":

Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include either strong or weak notrumps with or without five-card majors. The forcing opening bid will most often be an artificial forcing opening of 1♣ or 2♣.

When you play a system structured along different agreements than these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canapé system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction begins (a 10-12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the opponents.

I should add that Romex is legal on the GCC, and fits the description in the first paragraph.

[barmar]

That Alert Procedure quote is talking about systems that are unusual enough to require pre-alerts. No one in this thread is suggesting that this strong club system requires that.

But the fact remains that players are supposed to be able to explain their agreements. And the auction in the OP is certainly a basic one that the strong clubbers should know; there's little excuse for being unsure about the redouble.

I've played against many strong clubbers, but I have no idea how most of them treat that redouble. It's one thing to know that in a strong club system, 2♣ is natural (although there's variation in the details, like whether it shows 5 or 6), it's a different thing to know about all their followups. I still consider myself "prepared for the vast majority of systems" without knowing these details. I expect the opponents to alert and explain fully.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-November-02, 00:58, said:

That Alert Procedure quote is talking about systems that are unusual enough to require pre-alerts. No one in this thread is suggesting that this strong club system requires that.

The point I was trying to make is in the first sentence of the quote ("Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table"), and was in reply to sfi's post #10 in this thread. The rest was included for completeness' sake.

[mycroft]

Yeah, well, except for the (other) strong forcing opening that isn't 1♣ or 2♣, Romex fits in there :-)

I do tell people playing odd systems (and yes, Precision counts as "odd" generally) that they need to be extra-careful to be both able to explain their calls and to be full and complete with them, partly because "it's wrong to be lazy, but it's okay because everybody knows it" applies much less often when not "everybody" knows it, but mostly because "there are [expletive]s out there who gripe any time they're taken out of their comfort zone, and especially use the dogwhistle 'they just play that weird [expletive] because they want to get an advantage from confusing their opponents'" (and if you *aren't* doing that, going the extra mile to avoid confusion is just a general good thing).

Sure looks like South is in that camp, and is trying another way to social-pressure those "weird systems" out of his game. I have no sympathy for that, nor for the way he seems to be trying to coopt the TD role. But that doesn't mean that although they shouldn't *have to* be more careful, the odd-system types should *be* more careful, for all our sakes.

Note that most of them *are*, just because they understand why they're bidding what they're bidding better than the "average" standard player.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2011-November-02, 11:48, said:

Yeah, well, except for the (other) strong forcing opening that isn't 1♣ or 2♣, Romex fits in there :-)

Hm. Did you mean 1NT or 2♦ or 2NT? All of them are forcing in Romex. 1NT is the only forcing opening that isn't forcing to game.

Pre-alert: "We play Romex. 1NT, 2♣, 2♦, and 2NT are all forcing openings; the last three are forcing to game. 1NT shows a balanced 19-20 or an unbalanced hand that would jump shift or reverse in Standard. 2♣ is much like Standard, 23+ HCP if balanced or unbalanced with at most 3 losers, except that 2♦ takes the balanced 21-22 and 27-28 hands and the unbalanced GF with primary diamonds, and 2NT is natural, balanced 25-26".

I suspect opponents will stop listening after "all forcing openings".

[mycroft]

I meant 1NT (I have an old book).

And I'll trade that with "Hello. Our 1NT is 10-12, all seats, all vulnerabilities, our preempts are very light, and our 2 bids are highly variable in playing strength (though limited to 6-12 HCP)." Your opponents stop listening. Mine start with the "that's not legal" before we're halfway through :-)

[blackshoe]

I would just say "You are mistaken" and leave it up to them what they want to do next.

[mrdct]

I have a bit of a problem with the ethics of North bidding 2♠ without enquiring about what the redouble means; essentially saying "I want to show my ♠ suit here irrespective of what redouble means" as opposed to asking about the redouble and then bidding 2♠ which says "depending on the meaning of the redouble, I may have taken an action other than 2♠ so read into that what you may as far as my general strength and ♠ quality is concerned".

[blackshoe]

Should we really want to question everybody's ethics at every possible opportunity, or should we just want to play bridge?

[gnasher]

An important part of playing bridge is avoiding converying UI unnecessarily. But that leads me to doubt North's competence, not his ethics.