Pre-alerts and suggested defences
Playing in a 5A Swiss pairs event, with 9 board matches, our opps start off by pre-alerting their 1NT opening bid as being a weak 2 suiter.
I suggest a defence to this to my partner, he asks me one question to clarify this and we agree as to what we shall do if they open 1NT.
My RHO then picks up an air of getting on to his high horse and says "We have a suggested defence of blah blah blah blah blah blah."
The are not offering a written defence and the blah blah blah is coming in after my partner and I have agreed our methods over their 1NT opening.
Are they allowed to do this?
I am slightly interested in whether or not they are allowed this as an opening bid but I am content to play against it.
I am most strongly concerned about the question of their proffering of a suggested defence. It is not written down so we cannot refer to it during the auction and it has not been vetted as a sensible defence as is required of a written defence to an unusual method.
That is bad enough but to me, suggesting some alternative blah blah blah after my partner and I have agreed our methods seems to be a tactic specifically designed to sow confusion between us as to our methods. They should surely not be allowed to get away with this.
Is a procedural penalty appropriate or should they be bared from using this bid against us?
Latest Posts on this Thread
- NICK WHITTEN01 Apr 2019 at 12:09PM
Hi John
The easy bit to answer is
In an A-point event playing 8+ boards per round
All systems are allowedAnd
You may prepare your own defence against Yellow or Brown systems
And refer to it during the bidding (it is in effect part of the opponents system card)But
The grey area is "Is this bid yellow?"
I believe it should be on g(iii) near the bottom of D46 in the 2016 Manual
"1-level opening which may be made with as few as 7 points"As for the actions of your opponents I would say "TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE"
cheers
Nick - Dougal WATSON14 Jun 2019 at 03:14PM
Interesting question, with a number of ‘dimensions’ to it. I’ve not yet had to make a director’s call on such an issue but have come across similar as a player. To respond to you, I am wading through the Laws and Regulations and trying to work out what applies.
Their System
You describe their 1NT opener as a “weak 2-suiter”. That makes their system ‘red’ at least, if only because it is not green.
Is it yellow? Is that opening an HUM? Possibly; depending on how weak their 1NT opener can be. If it’s something like 9-11 then it probably does not meet the yellow system definition.
Is it brown sticker convention? Probably not.
Defences
If that 1NT is an HUM then regulation 24.6(h) applies if it’s an Open Teams Tournament, which yours (Swiss Pairs) was not.
Obligations.
They are required to make their partnership understandings available to you, their opponents (Law 40A1b). How this is done is deferred to the Regulating Authority. The NZB regulations accommodate this by:
- Stating an overall “principle of full disclosure …” “… to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensively as you can” (NZB regulation 30.1).
- A requirement for the carriage of completed NZB system cards … at least the outer two pages, but depending on tournament level (NZB regulations section 26).
- Including suggested defences, in written form, for certain conventions and in some situations.
- Providing some pre-alert obligations for the period at the start of around or match.
- Providing announcement and alerting obligations during the auction.
- Providing a requirement for unusual features to be (delayed) alerted by the declaring side (NZB Regulation 30.7).
Perhaps a tangent, but Law 74A1 requires that “A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times” … and is followed by a law about extraneous stuff that could cause annoyance or embarrassment.
So, it seems to me, that:
- Your opponents probably were not obliged to provide a written suggested defence against their 1NT opener.
- Your opponents did the right thing by having that bid pre-alerted.
- It could be argued that the oral explanation was entirely in the spirit of “as much” and “as comprehensively” as they could.
- From your description the oral explanation may not have been terribly well ‘packaged’.
In the circumstances described I can’t see a procedural penalty being appropriate, nor do I see barring their 1NT opener from a 5A Swiss Pairs tournament as being the right thing to do.
Have I missed or misinterpreted anything important?
You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Click here to log in.
