[jillybean]

NZ Bridge


North-South are straight out of the lessons (which they have learnt very well)


The bidding goes (neither vulnerable)

North: 1NT (12-14) East: Pass

South: 2C (not alerted) all pass

The contract goes down 3 for EW +150



EW claim damage because 2C wasn’t alerted (it was a (very) weak takeout (as in the lessons)



West had a 4432 13 count (and would have doubled if knew 2C wasn’t Stayman)

East had a 2434 11 count including clubs KQxx (and would have passed if West had doubled (for EW +500) and was aware 2C was probably a weak takeout, but saw no reason to bid here.



Other EW results were all either:
+170 for a heart part-score making 4
+200 for 1NT down 4
+420 for 4H making 4


If you adjust what do you say to the beginners if they ask what they did wrong?

[blackshoe]

Assuming that NZB regulations require an alert of 2♣ if the meaning is "weak takeout" you tell them that what they did wrong was to fail to alert 2!C.

If there is no requirement to alert 2♣ then there has been no infraction, so there is no cause to adjust the score.

[mycroft]

Well, in this case we shall see. When was the Director called?

1. Let's assume that 2♣ weak takeout is Alertable absent a double. Then they were in fact misinformed.
- but we have the same problem as before. "Of course you would have doubled" if you knew that it was a 3 count. If it turned out to be KQxxxx and a card and E-W's best score is -50 or -100 in 2♥, then "of course" they would have doubled. And "of course" East would pass the double rather than bid the major fit, because West won't have a 4450 11 count and South Jxxxxx. Or even because it goes down 1 for 100 into 2♥=.
- if the director was called after the result, I'm definitely asking people who don't know the correct answer. If the director was called at the end of the auction, fine.
- I wonder how many would double 1NT-p-2♥ "to play" for takeout with a 4243 13-count. I'm betting, at least here, that many don't have a takeout double; and many that do won't.
2. I'm still not sure that I agree with this, but if East does what my tutors tell me I had to, back in the "weak jump shift is Alertable" days, and call the Director because "either we have a failure to Alert, or they've passed a forcing bid. Doesn't matter if I don't care which one it is", then we get to wrap it back to West who can put his red card where his mouth is. Or his 2♠ "balance", of course. You had your opportunity when you thought that North passed a forcing bid, so that must be good for you; now that it's not, is that my problem?
3. The lessons really don't teach Stayman? And don't make it *very clear* that this is unusual to the point of needing to do things? I bet not, but the novices forgot that clubs is the suit they can't bail out into. In which case, it's a misbid. It's a *bad* misbid, and definitely one we want to educate them on how big a problem it is; but a misbid nonetheless. Score stands.
- of course, if they are in fact teaching 4-suit takeouts and no Stayman, then I'll adjust the score (however much of the double I give them), explain to them that the opponents are entitled to their agreement, and their teacher has taught them an agreement that is so unusual you have to tell them about it. And then go after the teacher, who has to fix this. I don't care if it's "too confusing", it's worse when "what we were taught" is now "illegal" somehow.

[sfi]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-03, 01:46, said:

Assuming that NZB regulations require an alert of 2♣ if the meaning is "weak takeout" ...

It does - the NZ regulations are explicit on this point. It's one of the few substantive differences between Australia and New Zealand's regs.

[sfi]

mycroft, on 2023-July-03, 09:49, said:

- of course, if they are in fact teaching 4-suit takeouts and no Stayman, then I'll adjust the score (however much of the double I give them), explain to them that the opponents are entitled to their agreement, and their teacher has taught them an agreement that is so unusual you have to tell them about it. And then go after the teacher, who has to fix this. I don't care if it's "too confusing", it's worse when "what we were taught" is now "illegal" somehow.

One additional consideration is whether others in the clubs know that this is what novices are being taught. If so, then I would expect better players to protect themselves and would be less inclined to adjust.

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies, I'm seeking more clarification

[sanst]

What did EW know about NZ? Did they know that this was a pair that has just learned to play bridge. Is this agreement about 2♣ taught in NZ and could therefore have been known to EW - the fact that E was aware that it probably was a weak takeout is an indication of this. Is 2♣ as Stayman also alertable or announced?
The most important part of this has nothing to do with the missing alert, but with the necessary very subtle handling of NS. The best way to make them quit bridge forever, is to throw the book at them. Don’t just give an AS and tell them to elert properly in the future. Just explain quietly why, if necessary, you have to change the score. After the game take some time to tell them about the why and how of alerting (and explaining) and, if this is done down under, announcing.
I’m curious about the way EW handled the situation. If they new this was a pair of complete newbees, I hope that they handled it in kind manner, not calling loudly for a director and making an angry fuss. If they did, they would get a stern warning if I was directing.

BTW: I can’t reach nzbridge.co.nz, so it’s impossible to look for the regulations of our antipodes.

[sfi]

sanst, on 2023-July-04, 04:43, said:

Is 2♣ as Stayman also alertable or announced?

The relevant section of the NZB regulations (appendix D, p. 59) is:

Quote

In addition to the above, the following bids are in such common use that they are deemed to be self-alerting:

• 2♣ game force opening bids (and 2♦ negative responses); alert other uses;
  
• simple Stayman 2♣ responses to 1NT opening bids and the 2♦ response denying a 4-card major (alert all other uses including a natural 2♣ and responses). Stayman after an opponent’s double should be alerted.

Their site looks like it's working again - if you want the full regulations go to Directing & Regulations -> NZ Bridge Manual and download the latest version.

[jillybean]

The "official" NZ Teaching system is 2C is a weak take out to clubs but teachers do teach stayman and some also teach transfers.
The problem appears to be a new teacher who is teaching the 2C weak take out and the ensuing problems when these bids are not alerted.
It sounds like NZB needs to update their teaching material.

[blackshoe]

I've been re-reading Dan Neill's excellent Standard Modern Precision lately. He does tell us what in the system needs to be alerted or announced. Unfortunately, he didn't say "in North America" so someone could get the impression that alerts are the same everywhere (they're not). Also unfortunate is that the book was published in 2017 and the ACBL's alerting regulations have changed significantly since then. Which may be why authors don't usually tell us what to alert. :-)

[mycroft]

For me, then, this is an education issue 90% and a legal issue 10%. Even for the ruling at the table, that's where I put it.(*)

Try to convince E/W that this is a "they didn't know, they weren't taught" issue, whatever that does to their score. If they are the kind of pair who Want To Win the club even by getting the TD to give the new new players 20% on the round instead of 40%, how you phrase this is important. And the prep you get is important as well. If they're the kind of people who you can convince to just let it go if it's clear you will also ensure that N/S know their responsibility, then try that. If it's something where you think there's something there, maybe the weighted score is appropriate - it will help the newer players understand that E/W weren't just hitting the roof for no reason, and if you just do this at the table (like your teacher should have told you), your game will be more pleasant...it's not like turning the 40% into 38 is going to be that different.

But most roads lead to polling this with the right information intending to give a 12C1c weighted score - especially if the director was only called after they took the 8th trick. Which might come as just as much of a shock to E/W ("look, I know you are certain you would double for takeout/pass for penalty, but only one person did, and when I asked the others about double, I was told...") as to N/S.

But I blame the teacher - and if not her, then the teaching tools. I don't think it's *wrong* to teach 4-suit to-play of a 12-14 NT to start; but the people writing the teaching materials know that they're setting up the newer players for this, and need to ensure that the teachers know to explain carefully. And I will make sure, whether or not there's a score change, that that's the way I phrase it to N/S when I explain that you have been hearing people Alert a bunch of things? Well, this is one of the things you play that has to be Alerted. That doesn't mean it's bad, just that it's unusual enough that the opponents need to know about it so they don't go all sideways after.

(*) Obviously at a tournament, the "right ruling" is paramount, and the education only a close second. But the new players aren't likely to be playing in open fields in tournaments quite yet - this situation is primarily "American tourists" (or given the minor differences and smaller distance, "Australian tourists"). I'm quite certain that were I to play in the EBU, even with the prep I would make, there would be an Alerting issue or two, whether not being clear or just finger memory. And those people are more understanding about "yeah, I know that's not what you do Back Home, but it's the rules here, so..."

[mycroft]

Per blackshoe and my conclusion: there's a difference between DJNeill (and coincidence, guess what I picked up in Penticton?) and the NZBA official teaching material. One expects that the NZBA can coördinate a little better on updates of their materials with changes to policy than Random Author. I know, there's some distance between "can" and "do" ...

Having said that, I'm sure everyone knows my opinion on "teaching, even novice teaching, needs to have one lesson on Disclosure and Propriety - if only so they know when the opponents aren't doing it".

[jillybean]

Interestingly, the ACBL July Bulletin, Ruling the Game says a natural, non forcing 2C response to 1nt is not alerted.

NA not NZ of course.

[blackshoe]

I had to confirm via the alert regulation, but this is correct. Neither a natural non-forcing 2♣ response nor an artificial 2♣ response that asks about major suit holding should be alerted. I guess you have to ask.

[sfi]

blackshoe, on 2023-July-05, 03:27, said:

I had to confirm via the alert regulation, but this is correct. Neither a natural non-forcing 2♣ response nor an artificial 2♣ response that asks about major suit holding should be alerted. I guess you have to ask.

It sounds like 2C is in effect self-alerting since that covers most options.

[mycroft]

Well, except for Keri, et al :-)

I'm guessing this is an unintended consequence that nobody plays, so it's okay. I certainly would have pointed it out if I had noticed it during the proofreading sessions; I'm pretty certain I didn't notice it. [Edit: Similarly to "Alert an opening Natural 2♣ of any strength" because 2♣ Strong Artificial and Forcing is the only not-Alertable Opening Bid.]

(I also didn't notice the Alertability of passed-hand Sandwich or Unusual 1NT, which has been raised as "stupid change". I also didn't notice the change in Alertability of the "could be 4522" 2♣ rebid after 1NT forcing. I'm still getting that one wrong (or, at least, late). I'm told that that one specifically was an intended change.)

[jillybean]

Not to worry, only the SB's and a few Directors will care.

[jillybean]

sfi, on 2023-July-05, 04:41, said:

It sounds like 2C is in effect self-alerting since that covers most options.

It's funny that you say this. A newer player and I were discussing 2C bids and came to the conclusion that it is rarely natural so best to ask, during the auction if you think you should be bidding and after the FDOL if you need to know.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-July-04, 23:25, said:

Interestingly, the ACBL July Bulletin, Ruling the Game says a natural, non forcing 2C response to 1nt is not alerted.

Yet again I find myself unexpectedly in line with ACBL. At least one of the two is wandering
Over here a 2C response to 1NT is a total mess:
- an enquiry for majors not promising a 4-card major is announced
- any other enquiry for majors no action
- any other agreement (including natural) is alerted.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2023-July-06, 14:58, said:

Yet again I find myself unexpectedly in line with ACBL. At least one of the two is wandering
Over here a 2C response to 1NT is a total mess:
- an enquiry for majors not promising a 4-card major is announced
- any other enquiry for majors no action
- any other agreement (including natural) is alerted.

In the ABF you never alert a 2C response to an opening 1NT, so we've just gone all the way down this particular path. Many times I've seen people just point at the 2C bid and look enquiringly to check no matter what their hand - it almost becomes a reflex once you get used to it.