Alert or not.

[Helmer]

Hi

 

My partner opens 1♣ - next hand 1NT - me.....

 

♠ Q x x

♥ x x

♦ K J 10 x x x

♣ J x

 

I bid 2♦ - and all pass.

 

ALERT 2♦ - or NOT ALERT?

 

**************************

 

After the board one of the many experts on BBO blamed me for not alerting,

and my partner for not bidding.

 

My reply was that an expert would know that in many (if not all natural) systems this is not forcing, as if I had enough points, I'd have a lot better bid than 2♦, I'd double as the declarer would find his partner with around 0 points.

 

** If it had been a beginner back home in the club, I think we would alert the bid as it could be a surprise.

But I think the law would say NO alert, as it is basic system rule.

What do you say?

 

See you

 

Helmer

[Finch]

In some cases, the answer to "is this alertable" is "depends where you are playing".

 

But in this case, no it isn't. Not only is it natural (hence unlikely to need alerting) but that is the normal, standard meaning for the call. I wouldn't alert against a beginner either, because I cannot see the scope for a surprise.

[Guest Jlall]

Agree with Frances. You made a natural standard bid. I don't see how this can be alertable.

[kenberg]

I held a similar hand, spades not diamonds, just yesterday. I bid two spades, did not alert, but sent a private message to the opponents that I intended my call as non-forcing. This is more for public relations (I feel a little silly doing it but who knows, maybe I am facing the opponents you had) than anything else, since I can't imagine why anyone would think it to be forcing. It's also hard to imagine who would be damaged. Fourth hand heard his partner bid 1NT and can presumably base his bid on that knowledge, whatever his opponents are up to. In f2f bidding I have never alerted such a call, have never heard it alerted, and have never seen anyone complain.

 

Ken

[SteelWheel]

I've actually served on appeals committees at some regional tournaments where matters like this have been contested (no alert on a bid which is obviously non-forcing, based upon bridge logic), I always ask the same question of the appellants: "If your partner had a strong notrump, LHO had an opening bid, and you had whatever values you had, how many points did you want RHO to have?". At this point they get kind of tongue-twisted and slink away, knowing how we're about to rule.

 

Yet another example of not thinking about "the bridge part" of the game.

[luis]

I've actually served on appeals committees at some regional tournaments where matters like this have been contested (no alert on a bid which is obviously non-forcing, based upon bridge logic), I always ask the same question of the appellants: "If your partner had a strong notrump, LHO had an opening bid, and you had whatever values you had, how many points did you want RHO to have?". At this point they get kind of tongue-twisted and slink away, knowing how we're about to rule.

 

Yet another example of not thinking about "the bridge part" of the game.

I agree the bid is alertable but I find your methods to handle an appeal terrible.

If my pd has a strong NT and LHO opened and I have X I don't care what can the 2foo bid have, what you have to analyze is if there is missinformation or not not lecture the players.

Of course this is a clear case but I still find your comment very irritating.

 

Luis

[hrothgar]

I agree the bid is alertable but I find your methods to handle an appeal terrible.

Is there a "not" missing here?

 

I can't conceive of a playable regulatory regime under this bid could be considered alertable

 

1. Natural non-forcing is the "standard" meaning of this bid

2. 2♦ is a natural bid

 

If we're now extending alerts to natural / standard bids the system is unredeemable

[Al_U_Card]

In the same light, 1x-1NT-DBL if this was not penalty, would you alert it? (Say negative for the other suits.)

[Guest Jlall]

In the same light, 1x-1NT-DBL if this was not penalty, would you alert it? (Say negative for the other suits.)

Yes. It is now both artificial and not standard.

[Limey_p]

I was just re-reading the January 2005 ACBL Bridge Bulletin (the member's magazine) - Marty Bergen on page 49:

 

"By the way: We all know players who incorrectly treat responder's double as negative after a 1nt overcall. This is definitely not standard and is Alertable. I don't recommend it, because a negative double should be played only after a natural overcall in a suit"

[luis]

I agree the bid is alertable but I find your methods to handle an appeal terrible.

Is there a "not" missing here?

 

I can't conceive of a playable regulatory regime under this bid could be considered alertable

 

1. Natural non-forcing is the "standard" meaning of this bid

2. 2♦ is a natural bid

 

If we're now extending alerts to natural / standard bids the system is unredeemable

Yes a "not" was missing :-)

 

The bid is clearly non-alertable and the harrasing lecture approach in an appeal is horrible.

[han]

Agree of course that 2D is not alertable. The experts that blamed you for not alerting were beginners in disguise.

 

Not only is Luis correct that the lecture is uncalled for, I think the lecture is also wrong. The 2D call is not non-forcing because there aren't enough values in the deck. It is non-forcing because with a strong hand you have the double available. So even if the 1NT overcall not strong and artificial, then non-forcing is still the standard meaning of 2D and for good reasons.

[joker_gib]

I usually alert all the sensible bids but I must admit I would never think to alert 2♦ in this case !

 

Alain

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would not alert it, but the answer to the question:

to alert or not, is depend on the law book relevant

for the place your playing.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[SteelWheel]

In the interests of defending myself....

 

I wouldn't take this approach in an appeal with a beginner, of course. With a truly good player, all of this would be moot--no appeal would be made.

 

Here in the US though, there are a large number of what I'll refer to as "Flight B Secretary Bird" types--some of these people have been playing so long, and earned so many ACBL ma$terpoints, that they have become "Flight A Secretary Bird" types. I'm not sure what the equivalent descriptions would be in other countries. Perhaps Justin or someone else who has played internationally would be able to suggest an equivalent term.

 

At any rate, I admit to being somewhat short with such folk. It is irritating to see people who attain such reputedly high standing in ACBL-land (Life Master or higher still), who still do not truly understand the game (see my recent post in the convention bashing thread about players who only know rules and never actually learn the game).

 

It's actually only people in this group who might lead me to take this approach. Surely, we could hope that an appeals committee process might do more than merely adjudicate the game? If we can inform and educate as well, is this not "a good thing"?

 

Regardless, I'll attempt to be more diplomatic in the future, should such situations arise. I'm always willing to learn, whether it's about bridge, how to be a better committee member, or how to be a better person.

 

Peace.

[Trinidad]

I would probably apologize to my "expert" opponent and add a note to his profile that he doesn't understand elementary bidding.

 

Rik

[helene_t]

Surely, we could hope that an appeals committee process might do more than merely adjudicate the game?  If we can inform and educate as well, is this not "a good thing"?

Yes, but not in this way. If you earn a reputation as a good TD and AC member, you can use that status to make people listen to your educative talk in columns and such.

 

But in a concrete appeal, be professional and stick to the case. "2♦ as non-forcing is standard and your opps rightly assumed a player of your level to know this" is sufficient. No need to tell them why it is standard. That only blurs the case.

[luis]

In the interests of defending myself....

 

I wouldn't take this approach in an appeal with a beginner, of course. With a truly good player, all of this would be moot--no appeal would be made.

 

Here in the US though, there are a large number of what I'll refer to as "Flight B Secretary Bird" types--some of these people have been playing so long, and earned so many ACBL ma$terpoints, that they have become "Flight A Secretary Bird" types. I'm not sure what the equivalent descriptions would be in other countries. Perhaps Justin or someone else who has played internationally would be able to suggest an equivalent term.

 

At any rate, I admit to being somewhat short with such folk. It is irritating to see people who attain such reputedly high standing in ACBL-land (Life Master or higher still), who still do not truly understand the game (see my recent post in the convention bashing thread about players who only know rules and never actually learn the game).

 

It's actually only people in this group who might lead me to take this approach. Surely, we could hope that an appeals committee process might do more than merely adjudicate the game? If we can inform and educate as well, is this not "a good thing"?

 

Regardless, I'll attempt to be more diplomatic in the future, should such situations arise. I'm always willing to learn, whether it's about bridge, how to be a better committee member, or how to be a better person.

 

Peace.

So not only you harrass the players with uncalled lectures from an authority position when you are in the AC but you do that with "some" players in a clear discriminatory way.

Let's just say you like to lecture and humiliate players because if you try to fix it you make it worst :-)

[Sigi_BC84]

In Germany non-forcing 2/1 shifts are alertable, so this would be alertable under our regulations. If your regulations say it's not alertable than it's not. Period.

 

Alertability is not about what one deems to be "obvious" but what the regulations demand. Maybe these regulations are silly or inconsistent but that doesn't change the facts. Therefore I don't undertstand why everybody here is repeating the argument that because this is so "obvious" and "natural" you don't have to alert it.

 

--Sigi

[luis]

In Germany non-forcing 2/1 shifts are alertable, so this would be alertable under our regulations. If your regulations say it's not alertable than it's not. Period.

 

Alertability is not about what one deems to be "obvious" but what the regulations demand. Maybe these regulations are silly or inconsistent but that doesn't change the facts. Therefore I don't undertstand why everybody here is repeating the argument that because this is so "obvious" and "natural" you don't have to alert it.

 

--Sigi

I bet you a beer 2♦ is not alertable in Germany with the 1NT overcall in the middle.

[SteelWheel]

Sorry, I refuse to let go on this point--perhaps someone smarter than I would do so, but I think I'm getting flamed unduely.

 

Yes, but not in this way. If you earn a reputation as a good TD and AC member, you can use that status to make people listen to your educative talk in columns and such.

 

But in a concrete appeal, be professional and stick to the case. "2♦ as non-forcing is standard and your opps rightly assumed a player of your level to know this" is sufficient. No need to tell them why it is standard. That only blurs the case.

 

Here in ACBL-land, I am a certified director, fwiw. However, I have not directed a game in quite some time, and have no desire to do so.

 

As for being professional and sticking to the case: I've tried to follow the course of action suggested in these sorts of situations. Whereupon, the appellants generally demand to know WHY the committee members believe such a call to be non-forcing and non-alertable. At this stage, I have three options:

 

1. Refuse to discuss the matter further. This makes the other committee members and I appear to be rude or discourteous. Beyond that, it runs the risk of appearing as if the committee has ruled in a whimsical or capricious fashion, or out of some personal animus against the appellants, or out of favoritism to the non-offending side. This is not a desirable outcome.

 

2. Suggest the appellants consult some outside authority or basic book on bidding. Perhaps this would work with some, but I've never seen it. Remember, most bridge players (here on BBO, or out in the real world), are "experts", in their own minds, at least. So when I take this approach, I usually receive a response something like this: "How dare you suggest that I consult a 'baby' book on bridge? After all, I'm a Neon Life Master with 2000 platinum points."

 

3. Attempt to enlighten and inform that the call is non-forcing and non-alertable, for all the reasons we have discussed. Perhaps there might be a bruised ego for a moment, but over the long haul, I think the bridge community is best served in this manner.

 

Also, fwiw: Appeals committees are the only place where I would or could ever get drawn into such a debate. I learned a long time ago how to behave appropriately whilst playing this game. I never give lessons at the table. Never berate partner or the opponents. Maybe this is why I'm taking such strong exception to some of the comments Luis and others have made. I just don't think of myself as the bridge ogre I'm being made out to be here.

 

I know we've gotten way off the original topic, so maybe it's just best if we all let this go. I promise to be on my best behavior the next time I serve on an appeals committee, and hopefully we've all learned a little something from this spirited discussion.

[mikestar]

... Here in the US though, there are a large number of what I'll refer to as "Flight B Secretary Bird" types--some of these people have been playing so long, and earned so many ACBL ma$terpoints, that they have become "Flight A Secretary Bird" types...

 

I've done a fair amount of directing and and I can't disagree with SteelWheel's take on this type of player. They are trying to win in committee what they aren't good enough to win at the table--and this kind of bridge lawyering drives players away. Perhaps this is one of the reasons the ACBL is a dying organization.

[keylime]

If the "expert" is fussing about a nonalerted 2♦, I would want to drag the guy into a Competition and Ethics hearing for bringing the game into disrepute for claiming to be an "expert" and then failing to play bridge. And yes, I as well am a certified director - I would have zero qualms about filling out the recorder memo myself to stop this nonsense.

 

There is no reason to alert a natural call unless it's so totally unexpected (some people play 1♣-2♣ as natural and prealerted me on it). 2♦ is not unexpected. It's a player bidding their God-given hand. Surely if bridge is ever going to recapture people we must emphasize SOME naturality to the game.

 

I completely and resoundingly agree with both steel's and mike's posting. I've been dragged to committee enough times by players that couldn't win it at the table, because they couldn't believe that a 1NT overcall was NOT natural, or that a cuebid doesn't have to show an anchor suit, and therefore claimed the "I was damaged because I don't understand their bidding!" card. Thankfully, the panel stated in emphatic terms what I wanted to say to them: EDUCATE YOURSELVES.

 

With this said, I must admit that the ACBL's track record at nationals is trying to improve with regards to what they term as "frivolous appeals".

[Gerben42]

In Germany non-forcing 2/1 shifts are alertable, so this would be alertable under our regulations. If your regulations say it's not alertable than it's not. Period.

 

This is just another of many silly rules. I'm a certified director (in Germany too!) but I would NEVER adjust if someone claims damage if this 2♦ was not alerted.

 

Now 1♥ (1♠) 2♦ is different, this is played as forcing or non-forcing.

I know it's hard to put this into rules but maybe it's time to STOP the craziness in which natural bids require an alert.

[cherdano]

In Germany non-forcing 2/1 shifts are alertable, so this would be alertable under our regulations.  If your regulations say it's not alertable than it's not.  Period.

 

Alertability is not about what one deems to be "obvious" but what the regulations demand.  Maybe these regulations are silly or inconsistent but that doesn't change the facts.  Therefore I don't undertstand why everybody here is repeating the argument that because this is so "obvious" and "natural" you don't have to alert it.

 

--Sigi

I bet you a beer 2♦ is not alertable in Germany with the 1NT overcall in the middle.

You owe Sigi a beer.

 

Sorry Luis, but it is very dangerous to assume that German bridge regulations make any sense. (Unfortunately, there are way bigger L&E problems than this in Germany.)

 

Arend