Any Bailey Weak-2 Bidders Out There?

154 views
Skip to first unread message

Bob Park

unread,
Jan 3, 2001, 9:15:49 PM1/3/01
to
A partner and I are planning to give Bailey weak two-bids a try, as
described in the Sept 1998 Bridge World. They look like fun, but nobody
around here (Pittsburgh, PA) plays them, so they will be unfamiliar to
our opponents. What do you say when you alert your Bailey bids? Is a pre-
alert needed?


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Karen Allison

unread,
Jan 4, 2001, 8:56:15 AM1/4/01
to
I don't remember much about them but.. Evan Bailey is still around playing in
San Francisco and at tournaments. I don't recall his preAlerting his two-bids.


Karen
The Royal Magistrate
(and EX-Monitor)

Adam Beneschan

unread,
Jan 4, 2001, 12:53:36 PM1/4/01
to
In article <930mch$8m9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

Bob Park <bob...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> A partner and I are planning to give Bailey weak two-bids a try, as
> described in the Sept 1998 Bridge World. They look like fun, but
> nobody around here (Pittsburgh, PA) plays them, so they will be
> unfamiliar to our opponents. What do you say when you alert your
> Bailey bids?

You say "Alert". Of course, I'm sure your real question is, what do you
say after the opponents ask you to explain your alert? (Please, *not*
before they ask.)

Around here, the explanation I usually hear is something like "eight to
twelve high card points, five or six spades, two or three hearts, no
void, no ten cards in two suits". I live about 80 miles from San Diego,
which is (I think) where Evan Bailey lives, so I run into this bid quite
frequently. I might have some of the details wrong, since I don't play
this agreement myself; my own weak twos are usually explained as
"promises 13 cards".

> Is a pre-alert needed?

No.

-- Adam

Marvin L. French

unread,
Jan 4, 2001, 4:06:17 PM1/4/01
to

"Adam Beneschan" wrote

> Bob Park wrote:

> > A partner and I are planning to give Bailey weak two-bids a try,
as
> > described in the Sept 1998 Bridge World. They look like fun, but
> > nobody around here (Pittsburgh, PA) plays them, so they will be
> > unfamiliar to our opponents. What do you say when you alert your
> > Bailey bids?
>
> You say "Alert". Of course, I'm sure your real question is, what do
you
> say after the opponents ask you to explain your alert? (Please,
*not*
> before they ask.)
>
> Around here, the explanation I usually hear is something like "eight
to
> twelve high card points, five or six spades, two or three hearts, no
> void, no ten cards in two suits". I live about 80 miles from San
Diego,
> which is (I think) where Evan Bailey lives, so I run into this bid
quite
> frequently. I might have some of the details wrong, since I don't
play
> this agreement myself; my own weak twos are usually explained as
> "promises 13 cards".
>

Sounds about right. Suit quality is not a factor, by the way.
Alertable, yes, because of all the unusual requirements and
restrictions.

Evan indeed lives here in San Diego. He and favorite partner John
Strauch are the top pair hereabouts. They won an NABC+ Open Pairs
several years ago. Bailey Weak Two's are very popular in the San Diego
area.

Simple suit takeouts of a Bailey Weak Two are non-invitational escape
bids, and raises are invitational. Both actions are Alertable. I don't
remember what 2NT means, but it's probably natural and invitational,
and also Alertable.

My opinion is that the Bailey Weak Two Bid (and Adam's weak twos)
would become extinct if opponents would play doubles as showing
defensive hands rather than takeout hands. "Weiss Doubles," I believe
they are called. A double shows at least 3-1/2 defensive tricks, with
a little something in the suit doubled. I forget what Larry Weiss did
for takeout (cheaper minor?), but I use the ranking suit for takeout
and 2NT as an overcall in the ranking suit.

The method seems to work okay against takeout doublers. It is
permissible to play takeout doubles against disciplined (good
six-card) weak twos and Weiss doubles against others. However, players
cannot change to disciplined weak twos when you announce that you are
playing Weiss doubles against them. They might tighten up a bit as a
matter of judgment, of course, but not to the extent that they are not
playing within the bounds of what is shown on their CC.

--
Marv
San Diego, CA, USA


Chris Ryall

unread,
Jan 6, 2001, 4:18:10 PM1/6/01
to
From Marvin L. French <mfre...@san.rr.com> ..

>Evan indeed lives here in San Diego. He and favorite partner John
>Strauch are the top pair hereabouts. They won an NABC+ Open Pairs
>several years ago. Bailey Weak Two's are very popular in the San Diego
>area.
>
>Simple suit takeouts of a Bailey Weak Two are non-invitational escape
>bids, and raises are invitational. Both actions are Alertable. I don't
>remember what 2NT means, but it's probably natural and invitational,
>and also Alertable.

Hi Marv, that's useful info for me. Adam posted a mention of
Bailey here several years ago. My archive note presently reads -

2H or 2S 8-11 hcp five+ major 2-3 in other major.
Denies 10 cards in 2 suits, or void. Popular in California
This style would meld well with the the Multi 2D which tends
to be more unbalanced, and as it uses the spare major bids


>
>My opinion is that the Bailey Weak Two Bid (and Adam's weak twos)
>would become extinct if opponents would play doubles as showing
>defensive hands rather than takeout hands. "Weiss Doubles," I believe
>they are called. A double shows at least 3-1/2 defensive tricks, with
>a little something in the suit doubled. I forget what Larry Weiss did
>for takeout (cheaper minor?), but I use the ranking suit for takeout
>and 2NT as an overcall in the ranking suit.

Bailey struck me as a flawed style in that the tendency to
balanced hands makes overcalls subject to good breaks and
therefore much safer. Penalty doubles makes this even worse.


>
>The method seems to work okay against takeout doublers. It is
>permissible to play takeout doubles against disciplined (good
>six-card) weak twos and Weiss doubles against others. However, players
>cannot change to disciplined weak twos when you announce that you are
>playing Weiss doubles against them. They might tighten up a bit as a
>matter of judgment, of course, but not to the extent that they are not
>playing within the bounds of what is shown on their CC.

The Weiss double sounds a bit like what my Grandma used to play ;))

--
Chris An eclectic collection of weak two styles from Usenet and elsewhere
Ryall Emails with new ideas welcome. chris at cavendish .demon .co .uk
(UK) http://www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/weak.two/

Marv's 2S: http://www.cavendish/bridge/weak.two/exotica.htm#marvin

Kent Feiler

unread,
Jan 8, 2001, 10:41:23 AM1/8/01
to
<ch...@cavendish.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>My opinion is that the Bailey Weak Two Bid (and Adam's weak twos)
>would become extinct if opponents would play doubles as showing
>defensive hands rather than takeout hands. "Weiss Doubles," I believe
>they are called. A double shows at least 3-1/2 defensive tricks, with
>a little something in the suit doubled. I forget what Larry Weiss did
>for takeout (cheaper minor?), but I use the ranking suit for takeout
>and 2NT as an overcall in the ranking suit.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're right, Bailey weak-twos and most of the other weak-twos played
by MP-oriented players would vanish like smoke if people began playing
Weiss. Of course, after everyone switched to playing sound weak-twos
and penalty doubles became less lucrative, people would go back to
playing takeout doubles. And then...


Regards,


Kent Feiler
kfe...@cpiusa.com
www.enteract.com/~kfeiler/mypage.com

akh...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2001, 1:08:01 PM1/8/01
to
In article <930mch$8m9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Bob Park <bob...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> A partner and I are planning to give Bailey weak two-bids a try, as
> described in the Sept 1998 Bridge World. They look like fun, but
nobody
> around here (Pittsburgh, PA) plays them, so they will be unfamiliar to
> our opponents. What do you say when you alert your Bailey bids? Is a
pre-
> alert needed?
>
Can someone post a description of these weak two bids for the benefit
of the uninitiated?

Thanks,
Atul

Marvin L. French

unread,
Jan 9, 2001, 12:03:03 AM1/9/01
to

Atul wrote:

> Bob Park wrote:
> > A partner and I are planning to give Bailey weak two-bids a try, as
> > described in the Sept 1998 Bridge World. They look like fun, but
> nobody
> > around here (Pittsburgh, PA) plays them, so they will be unfamiliar to
> > our opponents. What do you say when you alert your Bailey bids? Is a
> pre-
> > alert needed?
> >
> Can someone post a description of these weak two bids for the benefit
> of the uninitiated?

Here is what Evan Bailey's favorite partner, John Strauch, sent me when I
forwarded this question to him:

Anyone who wants to check out the Bailey System should go to
http://baileywick.homestead.com/files/index.html

Weak two bids are in Chapter 11.

We say:
It's a weak two bid showing 5 or 6 D(H,S), 2 or 3 cards in H&S(S,H), 8 to
11 high card points; no more than 9 cards in two suits. Might leave the
last part off if inquirer is getting bored or impatient. Also in 3rd or
4th chair - "might have a 4-card major on the side."

John

Okay, Atul, there's your authoritative answer.

Marv
Marvin L. French
San Diego, CA

Marvin L. French

unread,
Jan 9, 2001, 1:35:05 AM1/9/01
to

"Marvin L. French" wrote
I'll add the response scheme for those interested:

Suit takeouts are nonforcing but contract improving.
Non-competitive raises are invitational.
Jump takeouts force game.
Over 2 of a minor , 2 NT is to play.
Over a major, 2 NT is forcing. Opener shows his longest minor. If responder
rebids, then a game force is created, and responder is uncertain as to the
final contract. The only exception is a competitive raise of the minor suit
response.
The redouble is undefined.
Over weak two-bids (and three-bids), 4 NT is always Blackwood.

I was wrong about no suit quality requirement, the suit must be Qxxxx or
better (usually), which John didn't mention.

Marv

Otis Bricker

unread,
Jan 21, 2001, 3:38:07 PM1/21/01
to
kfe...@cpiusa.com (Kent Feiler) wrote in
<hbnj5tos92kafef8f...@4ax.com>:

Wouldn't it make sense to play TO doubles over "Sound" weak Twos and
something else over "Weak" weak twos? Clearly the ranges and styles
involved make these completely seperate but related openings, deserving
seperate treatments.

In a related question, does changing your preemptive range constitute a
change of methods?

If yes, I wonder what would happen when you play a pair that says they play
very aggressive weak twos you tell them that you play card showing doubles
and you call the director after they pass a hand similar to one that you
had seen them open before. At least in ACBL land, I don't believe you are
allowed to vary your methods based on you opponents defensive style.
Although, I am at a loss to find this in print now that I am looking for
it.

Otis B

Nelson Ford

unread,
Jan 22, 2001, 9:14:00 AM1/22/01
to
"Otis Bricker" <obri...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:9030900B4obric...@24.91.0.34...

<snip>

> If yes, I wonder what would happen when you play a pair that
says they play
> very aggressive weak twos you tell them that you play card
showing doubles
> and you call the director after they pass a hand similar to one
that you
> had seen them open before. At least in ACBL land, I don't
believe you are
> allowed to vary your methods based on you opponents defensive
style.
> Although, I am at a loss to find this in print now that I am
looking for
> it.

See:
http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alertproc.htm#twosystem


Nelson Ford
http://www.hsbridge.com


richard e. willey

unread,
Jan 22, 2001, 9:32:37 AM1/22/01
to

>"Otis Bricker" <obri...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>news:9030900B4obric...@24.91.0.34...
>
><snip>
>
>> If yes, I wonder what would happen when you play a pair that
>says they play
>> very aggressive weak twos you tell them that you play card
>showing doubles
>> and you call the director after they pass a hand similar to one
>that you
>> had seen them open before. At least in ACBL land, I don't
>believe you are
>> allowed to vary your methods based on you opponents defensive
>style.
>> Although, I am at a loss to find this in print now that I am
>looking for
>> it.

I have certainly heard of cases in which players made appeals
regarding exactly this same point.

The way I heard the story, a partnership decided that they were going
to play penalty doubles against one notoriously light pre-empter (I
beliece it was Marty Bergen). Bergen failed to open a hand that was
consistent with his normal ultra-light preempt style and the pair in
question made a (successful) appeal requesting an adjusted score.

Bo-Yin might be able to fill in some of the details.

Marvin L. French

unread,
Jan 23, 2001, 5:32:05 PM1/23/01
to

"richard e. willey" wrote
>
> >"Otis Bricker" wrote

> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> If yes, I wonder what would happen when you play a pair that
> >says they play
> >> very aggressive weak twos you tell them that you play card
> >showing doubles
> >> and you call the director after they pass a hand similar to one
> >that you
> >> had seen them open before. At least in ACBL land, I don't
> >believe you are
> >> allowed to vary your methods based on your opponents' defensive

> >style.
> >> Although, I am at a loss to find this in print now that I am
> >looking for
> >> it.

Look in the back of the Laws, it is in print. The ACBL Chief Tournament
Director has clarified the "Election" for L40E2, saying it was intended to
apply to opponents' methods in general, not merely to "conventional calls and
preempts."


>
> I have certainly heard of cases in which players made appeals
> regarding exactly this same point.
>
> The way I heard the story, a partnership decided that they were going
> to play penalty doubles against one notoriously light pre-empter (I
> beliece it was Marty Bergen).

I believe it is not permitted to change system solely because of who an
opposing pair is. If the agreement was general, "penalty doubles against very
light preempters, takeout doubles against others" that would be acceptable.
Changing countermeasures according to opposing initial actions is allowed (but
not vice versa).

> Bergen failed to open a hand that was
> consistent with his normal ultra-light preempt style and the pair in
> question made a (successful) appeal requesting an adjusted score.

This is a very doubtful AC decision.

A player is allowed to vary his system based on "style and judgment," as long
as s/he does not stray outside a disclosed (e.g., CC description) range for an
action frequently enough that partner allows for it. That is according to Law
40E1: "...a regulation organization must not restrict style and judgment, only
method." Varying *within* a disclosed range is normally okay, if it's not a
special partnership agreement.

If Marty's partner expects a range different from what is on the CC, however,
based on an anticipated countermeasure, then that disclosed range is not
correct, which is a violation of CC regulations. If he expects some tightening
against strong opponents, and loosening against weak opponents, while
generally staying within the implied or stated range (e.g., 11-14 HCP weak
notrumps), that's a matter of judgment, perfectly all right. My feeling is
that going conservative or liberal within a disclosed range solely because of
an anticipated countermeasure logically should be prohibited, but that would
be impossible to enforce.

So, you can't change system because of an anticipated countermeasure (ACBL
Election for L40E2, in the back of the Laws), and yet you can't be restricted
from taking an action that is based on style/judgment. This is a very fine
line to draw, making it very difficult to tell whether a pair is varying
system illegally or not. Optional doublers are usually strong players, so how
could anyone tell why Marty passed up a very weak preempt? Doesn't everyone
tighten up against strong pairs as a matter of judgment?

Whatever, you can't go outside a disclosed range if partner allows for it. For
instance, if the CC is marked "very light" for preempts, your preempts can't
become regularly "light" against optional doublers. Nothing says you *have* to
preempt with a very light hand if that's what you play, but the "Election"
does say you can't change system (i.e., you can't take actions that contradict
what is on the CC if partner might allow for that). And, of course, you are
not allowed to mark "very light" against takeout doublers and "light" against
optional doublers. You can mark both, however, if valid reasons are given
(e.g., vulnerability, passed hand) and you don't switch because of a
countermeasure being used by the opposition.

It follows that "What sort of doubles do you play against preemptive bids?" is
not a proper question before the start of a round or match. The answer should
be, "You'll find out when it happens." In fact, I would like to see all
countermeasures shown on one side of the CC, a side that is face-down until a
countermeasure is employed. And maybe just announce "Optional," "Business," or
"Takeout," when partner doubles as a counter to an opposing bid.

Bob Park

unread,
Jan 23, 2001, 9:59:11 PM1/23/01
to
In article <FDnb6.39400$GV2.8...@typhoon.san.rr.com>,
"Marvin L. French" <mfre...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
(snip)

>
>
> It follows that "What sort of doubles do you play against preemptive bids?" is
> not a proper question before the start of a round or match. The answer should
> be, "You'll find out when it happens." In fact, I would like to see all
> countermeasures shown on one side of the CC, a side that is face-down until a
> countermeasure is employed. And maybe just announce "Optional," "Business," or
> "Takeout," when partner doubles as a counter to an opposing bid.
>
> Marv
> San Diego, CA, USA
>
I've often wondered...in baseball, what would happen if an ambidexterous
pitcher were to face a switch hitting batter?

Steve Willner

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 6:29:07 PM1/29/01
to
> > Bergen failed to open a hand that was
> > consistent with his normal ultra-light preempt style and the pair in
> > question made a (successful) appeal requesting an adjusted score.

In article <FDnb6.39400$GV2.8...@typhoon.san.rr.com>, "Marvin


L. French" <mfre...@san.rr.com> writes:
> This is a very doubtful AC decision.

While there are many factors that could affect the ruling, I consider
it quite normal.

> A player is allowed to vary his system based on "style and
> judgment," as long as s/he does not stray outside a disclosed
> (e.g., CC description) range for an action

yes

> frequently enough that partner allows for it.

No. Methods must be accurately described to the opponents, whether
partner allows for variations or not.

> So, you can't change system because of an anticipated countermeasure (ACBL
> Election for L40E2, in the back of the Laws), and yet you can't be restricted
> from taking an action that is based on style/judgment. This is a very fine
> line to draw, making it very difficult to tell whether a pair is varying
> system illegally or not.

True.

> if the CC is marked "very light" for preempts, your preempts can't
> become regularly "light" against optional doublers.

Yes.

> Nothing says you *have* to preempt with a very light hand if that's
> what you play, but the "Election" does say you can't change system

Please recall that Bergen's (for example) election of "very light"
preempts implicitly defines the range for his initial pass. If he
told his opponents that pass excludes certain hands, and then passed
and turned out to hold one of the "excluded" ones, there might very
well have been a violation of L40B and L75A. (I am not commenting on
any actual case and only using Bergen as an example because someone
else did so. However, he is a good example because his preempting
habits were well known, and it would have been easier to find against
him than some unknown player using the same methods.)

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

Steve Willner

unread,
Jan 29, 2001, 6:33:05 PM1/29/01
to
In article <94lgds$42q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bob Park

<bob...@my-deja.com> writes:
> I've often wondered...in baseball, what would happen if an ambidexterous
> pitcher were to face a switch hitting batter?

Wasn't there a real example many years ago? As I heard it, the
pitcher took off his glove and stood on the rubber with both hands
behind his back. The batter then had to choose which side of the
plate to stand on. As I recall the story, the batter then got a base
hit, even though he was supposedly at a disadvantage.

It wouldn't surprise me if there is now a specific rule.

lawrencel...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 10, 2020, 3:46:45 PM2/10/20
to
I like them at match points. My partner doesn't alert them, but I do. In my opinion, not alerting is unethical. If they ask, tell them everything you know. Full disclosure. Anything else is unethical in my opinion. Pre alerts are not necessary.

John Hall

unread,
Feb 11, 2020, 5:39:17 AM2/11/20
to
In message <f0a261a6-4f43-4a6f...@googlegroups.com>,
lawrencel...@gmail.com writes
I very much doubt whether Bob Park is still waiting for an answer after
19 years. Still, it's nice to see someone posting here.
--
John Hall
"If you haven't got anything nice to say about anybody, come
sit next to me."
Alice Roosevelt Longworth (1884-1980)

Kenny McCormack

unread,
Feb 11, 2020, 8:01:16 AM2/11/20
to
In article <RLQsf5B9LoQeFwgv@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
John Hall <jo...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
...
>I very much doubt whether Bob Park is still waiting for an answer after
>19 years. Still, it's nice to see someone posting here.

I noted the date of the original post, but I don't think it matters.

Certainly, in a group like this one (rgb), any posts we can get are welcome.

But here's the thing, I really don't understand why people get hyper about
necro-posts anyway. There really doesn't seem any harm in it to me.

--
"Everything Roy (aka, AU8YOG) touches turns to crap."
--citizens of alt.obituaries--

John Hall

unread,
Feb 11, 2020, 11:57:31 AM2/11/20
to
In message <r1u8iq$pim$1...@news.xmission.com>, Kenny McCormack
<gaz...@shell.xmission.com> writes
>In article <RLQsf5B9LoQeFwgv@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
>John Hall <jo...@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
>...
>>I very much doubt whether Bob Park is still waiting for an answer after
>>19 years. Still, it's nice to see someone posting here.
>
>I noted the date of the original post, but I don't think it matters.
>
>Certainly, in a group like this one (rgb), any posts we can get are welcome.
>
>But here's the thing, I really don't understand why people get hyper about
>necro-posts anyway. There really doesn't seem any harm in it to me.
>

No, there's no harm in it, but it does seem a little strange to be
answering a question that was posed almost 19 years ago.

Bertel Lund Hansen

unread,
Feb 11, 2020, 12:07:43 PM2/11/20
to
Kenny McCormack skrev:

> But here's the thing, I really don't understand why people get hyper about
> necro-posts anyway. There really doesn't seem any harm in it to me.

I'm not getting hyper, but through the last years there has been
a number of necro-posts in different groups, and with yours as
the only exception, the posters have dropped a single message
only to never appear again.

And if the question for example is about which tv-set is the best
one to buy, or how to fix a broken washing machine, then it makes
little sense to answer the question ten years later.

--
/Bertel

lawrencel...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 11, 2020, 2:17:57 PM2/11/20
to
On Wednesday, January 3, 2001 at 6:15:49 PM UTC-8, Bob Park wrote:
I was doing a web search on Bailey Weak Two Bids, saw the question, and didn't look at the date. So I answered it. Excuse me all to hell. If it is really going to upset people to answer the question, then take it down.

We play Bailey Weak 2 bids. So although it may be an outdated question to you, it isn't to us. In fact the question consistently comes up.

I hope this doesn't spoil your whole day. Maybe take some aspirin and get a good night's sleep.

John Hall

unread,
Feb 11, 2020, 4:17:39 PM2/11/20
to
In message <ee4ce2ac-b5cd-4730...@googlegroups.com>,
lawrencel...@gmail.com writes
>On Wednesday, January 3, 2001 at 6:15:49 PM UTC-8, Bob Park wrote:
>> A partner and I are planning to give Bailey weak two-bids a try, as
>> described in the Sept 1998 Bridge World. They look like fun, but nobody
>> around here (Pittsburgh, PA) plays them, so they will be unfamiliar to
>> our opponents. What do you say when you alert your Bailey bids? Is a pre-
>> alert needed?
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com
>> http://www.deja.com/
>
>I was doing a web search on Bailey Weak Two Bids, saw the question, and
>didn't look at the date. So I answered it. Excuse me all to hell. If
>it is really going to upset people to answer the question, then take
>it down.

I was mildly amused rather than upset. As for taking it down, this is
Usenet not a Web forum, and there's no real way of taking a post down.
I'd guess that you are using Googlegroups, which presents Usenet
newsgroups as though they were Web forums, but they are very different.

>
> We play Bailey Weak 2 bids. So although it may be an outdated
>question to you, it isn't to us. In fact the question consistently
>comes up.
>
> I hope this doesn't spoil your whole day. Maybe take some aspirin
>and get a good night's sleep.

I doubt that anyone was upset, but it gave us something to talk about in
a group that's become extremely quiet in recent months.

Kenny McCormack

unread,
Feb 12, 2020, 9:13:52 AM2/12/20
to
In article <1fsd4vgzanmwq$.d...@lundhansen.dk>,
Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>Kenny McCormack skrev:
>
>> But here's the thing, I really don't understand why people get hyper about
>> necro-posts anyway. There really doesn't seem any harm in it to me.
>
>I'm not getting hyper, but through the last years there has been
>a number of necro-posts in different groups, and with yours as
>the only exception, the posters have dropped a single message
>only to never appear again.

Every once in a while, in the obits newsgroup, you'll see a post attached
to an item about somebody dying, say 20 years ago (It will say at the top
of the post something like "On 13 April, 2001, so and so said this and
so"). The new post will say that the person referenced in the obit (who
died, say, 20 years ago) was their gramma (or something similar).

I think this sort of post is charming and useful. Not to be discouraged.

>And if the question for example is about which tv-set is the best
>one to buy, or how to fix a broken washing machine, then it makes
>little sense to answer the question ten years later.

Maybe...

Anyway, bridge is pretty timeless. Nothing wrong with commenting 20 years
later on a bridge topic. Also, the whole idea of newsgroups (as opposed to
private email) is that it is for everyone, not just the OP. If your intent
was solely to inform the OP, you'd just send them a private email (and not
cost the net hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars by doing so).

--
Every time a Republican gets caught doing something illegal (i.e., just about every
day or two), they always immediately issue two simultaneous statements about it:
1) "I didn't do it" (Standard denial)
2) "Here's how I did it and why I did it and why it shouldn't matter to you and why you should go back to watching TV sports"

lawrencel...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 12, 2020, 1:55:47 PM2/12/20
to
Larry Lang <lawrencel...@gmail.com>
10:40 AM (4 minutes ago)
to rec.games.bridge

Bertel,
If I had understood the date of the question and where it came from, I would not have replied. Next time I'll do a research project on where the question came from, before I answer. I hope this will make your life easier.

But here's the scoop. As a Bridge director, I can tell you the official ACBL stance on alerts has been modified at least 8 times in the last 20 years. Your remark about washing machines doesn't apply. And since my comment is so important to you, I'll finish what I started and answer the question in a more general sense and thus answer the question completely..

There is an ethical and a legal aspect of what you should alert at Bridge As of now, they do not coincide because there is not enough room in the rule book to cover every possible situation and auction. One must balance the problem that could be caused by alerting partner to your understanding of the agreement, against not giving the opponents full disclosure that they need to defend and bid to the best of their ability.

I would argue that Bailey Weak 2 bids are so different from normal weak two bids (5 cards instead of 6) that ethically you should alert. However, if you don't, few directors would take exception. As in all situations, if the opponents ask, you must give full disclosure, even and up to including things you know about partner's bidding style through past history.

Will this change sometime in the future? Certainly it will. The ACBL has passed and then revoked many laws about weak twos already, and written and revised many pamphlets about alerting. It revises Bridge Laws, seemingly every 4 years? The whole attitude has changed about penalties, such that they now wish to put a board back to normalcy after an irregularity rather than penalize the person causing the irregularity.

And yes, Bailey Weak 2 Bids are still played, and people still argue about alerting.

Robert Park

unread,
Sep 20, 2021, 2:46:43 PM9/20/21
to
Bob Park here.
Interesting to see this thread brought back to life. I just signed on to r.g.b after several years aways from it and found it.
My most regular partner and I have now been playing Bailey 2-bids in the majors for more that 20 years now. We seem to have been averaging between 60-65% with them, though I don't have statistics to back that up. The responses we use (not Bailey's) let us open 2M also with (5-4) and (6-4) majors, so they come up even more often for us than they did for Evan...often 2 or 3 times per session. We never use Baileys in 4th seat.
As for alerts...we've never had a problem. We always alert: "5 or 6 cards, 2, 3, or 4 in oM, 8-11 HCP. Sometimes we add, "No void," but we don't see that as needed, as users of standard weak 2's never alert the "no void" when that is part of their agreement.
FWIW, we have never seen the "No void" alert to be of any use to opponents.

Fabulous Pedigree

unread,
Sep 21, 2021, 8:01:27 AM9/21/21
to
On Wednesday, January 24, 2001 at 5:32:05 AM UTC+7, Marv wrote:
> "richard e. willey" wrote
> >
> > >"Otis Bricker" wrote
> > >
> > ><snip>
> > >
> > >> If yes, I wonder what would happen when you play a pair that
> > >says they play
> > >> very aggressive weak twos you tell them that you play card
> > >showing doubles
> > >> and you call the director after they pass a hand similar to one
> > >that you
> > >> had seen them open before. At least in ACBL land, I don't
> > >believe you are
> > >> allowed to vary your methods based on your opponents' defensive
> > >style.
...
> So, you can't change system because of an anticipated countermeasure (ACBL
> Election for L40E2, in the back of the Laws), and yet you can't be restricted
> from taking an action that is based on style/judgment....
> Marv
> San Diego, CA, USA

Interesting. I'd never heard of this being an issue (although this post is
closer to my vintage, date-wise :) ).

But I assume you can write "Weiss Doubles vs Bailey" on your convention card, no?

For that matter, can you write "Bailey 2-bids except vs Weiss doubles"?
That could lead to infinite regress!

James
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages