Walsch alertable?

[Free]

A couple of people at my local club claim that playing walsch, 1♣-1M should be alerted, but not 1♣-1♦ because it's "natural" (but imo it contains more information than that). They would alert the bidding 1♣-1♦-1NT however.

 

What do people here think?

[helene_t]

It's alertable in the Netherlands, at least if you play strict Walsh. People play all kind of intermediate styles between fourcards-up-the-line and Walsh, and I don't know excactly where the line goes.

 

1♣-1M is natural, too, as is 1x-1y-1NT. But naturalness is not the primary criterion for alertability.

[paulg]

In England and Wales, 1♣-1♦ is not alertable for Walsh players but 1♣-1M is. These are specifically noted in the alerting regulations.

 

In Scotland, although not explicitly covered, I would expect the same.

 

Paul

[Finch]

The English alerting rules define 1C - 1M alertable if it may have longer diamonds (so if you respond 1M on 4-4 that isn't alertable). The negative inference from 1C - 1D is not alertable.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

it certainly depends on the place you are playing

and on the style you play.

Playing Walsh, the 1D response may or may not

be made on a 3 card diamond suit, depending on the

meaning of a 1NT response to 1C.

 

If it can be made on a 3 carder, it certainly is alertable.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

If it can be made on a 3 carder, it certainly is alertable.

The situations in which people bid a 3-card diamonds are

- Strong hand with club support, and no forcing raise available

- a 3334-shape and wants opener to declare in notrumps and/or an HCP count that is not appropriate for any notrump bid (typically 11-12 or 15-17).

 

Those 1♦-bids on a fake suit are probably not alertable in the Netherlands although the rules don't mention them explicitly.

 

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Walsh.

[P_Marlowe]

If it can be made on a 3 carder, it certainly is alertable.

The situations in which people bid a 3-card diamonds are

- Strong hand with club support, and no forcing raise available

- a 3334-shape and wants opener to declare in notrumps and/or an HCP count that is not appropriate for any notrump bid (typically 11-12 or 15-17).

 

Those 1♦-bids on a fake suit are probably not alertable in the Netherlands although the rules don't mention them explicitly.

 

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Walsh.

Hi,

 

I seem to remember that in the Walsh

context, an NT response shows around 8-10,

which means with 4-3-3-3 and 6-7HCP you

have to bid 1D.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[awm]

One of ACBL's more reasonable rules is that negative inferences alone don't make a bid alertable. So basically an alert says "hey opponents, he might have a hand you wouldn't expect" rather than possibly saying "hey opponents, there's some hand that you might think was a possibility, but he can't actually have that."

 

By this rule, the Walsh-style 1♦ response is not alertable (it shows diamonds, anyone playing standard would bid 1♦ with these hands) whereas the 1NT rebid by opener that may bypass one or more four-card majors is alertable. The Walsh-style 1M response to 1♣ (or a MAFIA-style 1M response to 1♦) would be alertable as well.

 

On the other hand, there are certain bids which are technically alertable but for which you will never be ruled against if you fail to alert. Walsh-style bidding normally falls into this category of "sufficiently common that opponents should realize it is a possibility."

[joker_gib]

I think that's it's normal to alert the 1NT rebid and explain it as "may have one or two 4 cards major"

 

1♦ (even if short with big club support or less than 8-10) and 1M responses are natural and played in all natural systems so I think it's not a problem not to alert them.

 

Alain

[Finch]

I think that's it's normal to alert the 1NT rebid and explain it as "may have one or two 4 cards major"

 

1♦ (even if short with big club support or less than 8-10) and 1M responses are natural and played in all natural systems so I think it's not a problem not to alert them.

 

Alain

It really depends so much on where you were 'brought up' bridgewise.

 

In England, no-one would dream of alerting a 1NT rebid that might have one or two 4-card majors, because that's normal.

 

In England, the idea of responding 1D on a weak hand with a 3334 distribution is very surprising, and if a standard part of your system is definitely alertable (the normal response to 1C with a 3334 weak hand is 2C, or 3C if you play inverted raises, or possibly 1NT. Definitely not 1D.)

[david_c]

By this rule, the Walsh-style 1♦ response is not alertable (it shows diamonds, anyone playing standard would bid 1♦ with these hands) whereas the 1NT rebid by opener that may bypass one or more four-card majors is alertable.

This doesn't seem to agree with what the ACBL alert chart says:

 

No alert:

A 1NT or 2NT rebid that implies a balanced hand (may contain one or two four-card majors)

[Elianna]

By this rule, the Walsh-style 1♦ response is not alertable (it shows diamonds, anyone playing standard would bid 1♦ with these hands) whereas the 1NT rebid by opener that may bypass one or more four-card majors is alertable.

This doesn't seem to agree with what the ACBL alert chart says:

 

No alert:

A 1NT or 2NT rebid that implies a balanced hand (may contain one or two four-card majors)

This is not the first observed case of the rules as written being different than the rules on the ground. (See the rudeness at clubs thread for more examples)

[glen]

This is not the first observed case of the rules as written being different than the rules on the ground.

No difference here - the Walsh approach in the ACBL is not alertable, on the ground and otherwise.

[barmar]

By this rule, the Walsh-style 1♦ response is not alertable (it shows diamonds, anyone playing standard would bid 1♦ with these hands) whereas the 1NT rebid by opener that may bypass one or more four-card majors is alertable.

This doesn't seem to agree with what the ACBL alert chart says:

 

No alert:

A 1NT or 2NT rebid that implies a balanced hand (may contain one or two four-card majors)

This is not the first observed case of the rules as written being different than the rules on the ground. (See the rudeness at clubs thread for more examples)

I believe that at one type many of the Walsh sequences were alertable in ACBL, but the alert chart has since changed. But many players take a while to adapt to these changes (a common complaint is that they "can't keep up with rules that change every year", but in actuality ACBL only changes them every 3-5 years), so you frequently encounter these obsolete alerts, and players who insist that they're correct and that a director has confirmed this (I'm sure directors are not immune from the problem of not keeping up with the changes).

[blackshoe]

Barmar has it exactly right. B)

 

And the 55% of the people who took this poll and did not answer "depends on jurisdiction" got it wrong. :)

[Elianna]

This is not the first observed case of the rules as written being different than the rules on the ground.

No difference here - the Walsh approach in the ACBL is not alertable, on the ground and otherwise.

At many clubs in my area, the people playing there consider them alertable, and will raise a fuss if you don't alert. And a director will back them up. That's what I mean by "rules on the ground": Rules that may not be written or legal, but are enforced by prevailing sentiment.

 

Usually this happens in an opposite way: The rules may say that you can't be rude to an opponent, but the directors don't enforce it, so the rule on the ground is that one can be rude to opponents.

[blackshoe]

At many clubs in my area, the people playing there consider them alertable, and will raise a fuss if you don't alert. And a director will back them up.

I bet those people don't play at sectional or higher level tournaments. If they did, they'd find that the ACBL alert regulations do not say what these folks think they say.

 

That said, if a club wants to use different alerting regulations, that's the club's prerogative. However, I think it is dishonest of a club owner not to publish those differences where all players can see them- which is often the case at clubs.

 

As for directors who haven't bothered to actually read the ACBL regulation, but still claim to rule according to it, well, that's just plain incompetence.