Yes, alerting, even with the best of intentions, can sometimes be tricky. And one of the complications is that often a pair might have only partial agreements. Example: With 3=2=4=4 hands I tend to open 1
, my f2f partner tends to open 1
. He says Frank Stewart recommends 1
. I know Stewart used to recommend 1
but I haven't seen him say that for quite a while. The problem I se is that you open 1
, Lho overcalss 1
, partner makes a negative double. Unless me hearts are Ax I don't like my options. Had I opened 1
then I can rebid 2
. I would like to be 5-4 for that call but with Qxx / xx / AQxx / AJxx. I like opening 1
and then, after (1
) - X - (Pass) I can bid 2
. Steve Robinson, in
Washington Standard, says that with 4-4 in the minors you can open either, and I like that. I try to anticipate how things might go, and usually I decide to open 1
. Do we really want to alert and try to explain all of this? For that matter, I cannot think of any online partner that I have where either of knows what the other opens holding 3=2=4=4.
I think everyone should relax a bit. There is a difference between the Bermuda Bowl and casual online games. Meckwell have been playing together since something like the late 1970s and surely they know a great deal about what each other's bids mean.The rest of us know much less about our partner's style, or even about our own. Here is something recent in f2f at the club. Our auction was 1NT - 2
- 2
- 4
- 4
-4NT - 5 something (I forget how many keys I had) - 6
. Before the opening lead I explained that I had not alerted partner's 4
because I could not recall our discussing it, but I thought it was probably a stiff
and 6+ spades. The opening lead was a
and partner came down with 5=2=5=1 shape. He had extra strength, but so what, 3
over 2
would have been game forcing. It turned out not to matter. 6
was a good contract, much better than 6
. 6NT would have been even better for matchpoint reasons, but few were in it.
I told partner later that I thought, after my attempted explanation, he should have mentioned that the explanation I gave did not match his understanding. My idea is this. Bridge is supposed to be a game where the opponents are aware of our methods. If we conform to this, usually all is well. The opponents trust me to tell the truth, the best I can, and so a director is needed only for leads out of turn and such technical matters.
In the hand with the original post, if there was to be any alert at all I think it would have to be that they play third hand preempts as undisciplined, especially when non-vul. But everyone (almost everyone) plays third had non-vul preempts as undisciplined, so maybe an alert is needed only by those who play third hand non-vul preempts as disciplined! Just how undisciplined? Well, this one was very undisciplined, but I doubt they have set exact boundaries. A person is not required to adjust his explanation of undisciplined to the particular hand that he holds.