Fundamental alert question.

[Gerben42]

Suppose in your country in your the non-alertable meaning of a certain sequence is X, but no one actually plays it as X but instead everyone plays it as something else, say Y.

 

Let's now suppose the auction comes up for your opponents and is not alerted. Do you now stubbornly assume it is X, even though you know it is Y? If you do and you get a bad result since your opponent held Y all along, should you get a score correction?

[helene_t]

Playing F2F without screens: in principle yes, you must assume that opps alert correctly. Asking about the meaning of a non-alerted bid may draw opps' attention to a misunderstanding and/or disclose your own holding. Of course you should look at the CC before making such assumptions.

 

Suppose someone opens 2♣ at a local club somewhere in the Netherlands, and it's not alerted. And they don't have a CC. In principle you could assume that it's a natural call and therefore you could overcall 3♣ as showing the majors, or double to show support for ♠♥♦. My suspecion is that most TDs would say that it was your own responsibility to ask some neutral question, e.g. just by pointing at the 2♣ bidding card and showing a question-mark-shaped face. That would be rather harmless and besides, even if you could assume that 2♣ were natural it would still be natural to ask what strength it shows.

 

On the other hand, suppose someone forgets to alert one of the many transfer bids after 1NT that are alertable, e.g. 2♠ as transfer to clubs (or whatever). Actually there are a few pairs who play 2♠ as natural, and by asking you may draw attention to your own spade holding. So you must assume that it's natural and if that damages you, the director should adjust. Opps may get upset at you and at the director, but they will have learned to alert correctly or at least to try to alert correctly.

 

Playing on BBO, I think it's your responsibility to ask for the meaning of a non-alerted call that is unlikely to be natural, such as a 2♣ response to 1NT (assuming that the rules of the tourney say "alert all artificial calls").

[Gerben42]

Playing F2F without screens: in principle yes, you must assume that opps alert correctly. Asking about the meaning of a non-alerted bid may draw opps' attention to a misunderstanding and/or disclose your own holding. Of course you should look at the CC before making such assumptions.

 

Suppose someone opens 2♣ at a local club somewhere in the Netherlands, and it's not alerted. And they don't have a CC. In principle you could assume that it's a natural call and therefore you could overcall 3♣ as showing the majors, or double to show support for ♠♥♦. My suspecion is that most TDs would say that it was your own responsibility to ask some neutral question, e.g. just by pointing at the 2♣ bidding card and showing a question-mark-shaped face. That would be rather harmless and besides, even if you could assume that 2♣ were natural it would still be natural to ask what strength it shows.

 

This is exactly the situation I am asking about. If nothing happens to you if it's not alerted, is it in fact still alertable? I know the rules say it is but the practice says it's not!

[1eyedjack]

Whether it is alertable "in your country" may mean nothing as regards whether or not it is alertable on BBO. Is it a BBO event that you are considering, and if so, is it one that is subject to an outside jurisdiction in respect of SO regulations?

[Gerben42]

Please keep BBO regulations out of it. Thanks. Think about an example in your own country and apply it to that.

[cherdano]

I think it depends on the level of both the offenders and the non-offenders. If the offenders are experienced and should know the alert regulation, then it seems fair if the non-offending side assumes the bid has the non-alertable meaning.

If the NO are more experienced than the offenders, then it may be right not to give adjustments.

 

Arend

[jillybean]

Suppose in your country in your the non-alertable meaning of a certain sequence is X, but no one actually plays it as X but instead everyone plays it as something else, say Y.

 

Let's now suppose the auction comes up for your opponents and is not alerted. Do you now stubbornly assume it is X, even though you know it is Y? If you do and you get a bad result since your opponent held Y all along, should you get a score correction?

No I dont think you should get a correction.

Do you now stubbornly assume it is X, even though you know it is Y?

Havent you failed to play bridge, to protect yourself?

[skjaeran]

Suppose in your country in your the non-alertable meaning of a certain sequence is X, but no one actually plays it as X but instead everyone plays it as something else, say Y.

 

Let's now suppose the auction comes up for your opponents and is not alerted. Do you now stubbornly assume it is X, even though you know it is Y? If you do and you get a bad result since your opponent held Y all along, should you get a score correction?

The problem is of course that you never can know for sure it's Y, unless you play against someone you're intimate familiar with regarding methods.

 

For others, even if they used to play Y, they might have changed to X. And without the alert you cannot know this with certainty.

 

If this is a common situation, where most people play the alertable Y without alerting it, you've got two possibilities. Either ask and get clarification, or assume it's X (as it should be, lacking the alert), and get an adjustment if it turns out to be Y and you're damaged.

 

If you ask and it turns out to be Y, point out to opps that this is alertable.

[hrothgar]

I tend to be a stickler for the rules

 

I believe that the appropriate way to proceed is to

 

1. Make sure that you and your partner have an agreement in place to handle this eventuality

 

2. Stubbornly assume that the non-alerted bid shows X

 

3. If you and your partner are damaged by misinformation, seek redress from the TD

 

4. If the TD refuses to enforce the rules, escalate the matter

[awm]

Directors in the US seem to consistently rule that "if a bid is commonly one that has an alertable meaning, it is the responsibility of the non-offending side to protect themselves by asking or looking at a convention-card." In other words, if my opponents open 1NT and then bid 2♥ with no alert or announcement and I assume it's natural when it's a transfer, I will not be protected in any way. In fact this type of ruling even applies to overcalls by the opponents when my side opens 1NT.

 

Personally I don't like this approach, since it seems to indicate that certain alertable bids are not (de facto) alertable, and that it would also be to one's advantage to consistently fail to alert such bids. But those are the "rules on the ground" around here. Hopefully things are different in other countries.

 

On the other hand, it's very amusing to me when my RHO opens 1NT and I overcall a natural 2♦ (no alert) and opponents proceed to interrogate my partner about the meaning of the bid (of course they have to do this to some degree, since they wouldn't be protected if 2♦ was majors or one major and partner failed to alert).

[Gerben42]

Hopefully things are different in other countries.

 

Nope... Exactly the same, which is the reason for the question in the first place.

 

As someone who does not play transfers after 1NT with his regular partners, I wonder what would happen in this case in the US.

[hotShot]

Whenever you ask about an unalerted bid, you create an UI.

Everybody else will think about the cards that made you ask.

 

Lets assume:

1NT - pass - 2♥ - You ask ... pass

2♠ - 3♥ DIRECTOR!

 

or

 

1NT - pass - 2♥ - You hold long spades, but you guess it's transfer and PASS

pass - pass

You just lost a good 2♠ contract and opps did everything right. No way you get your score back.

 

The only way to solve that problem, is to enforce the proper alerts. This you should have protected yourself by asking is just stupid. Unless you ask every single bid you create an UI.

 

So whenever opps forget to alert the non offending side is in a lose-lose situation. There is definitely something wrong with the laws there.

[jillybean]

I should have asked when everyone else plays 'Y' do they alert it? I assumed not.

[barmar]

I don't think there's much UI created when a player asks about one of these bids. If you expect to hear an alert or announcement, but there isn't one, it's natural to wonder if the player simply forgot to alert/announce. If you consistently ask in these situations, regardless of your hand, then there's no UI.

 

In the early 90's ACBL still required alerts for negative doubles and no alerts for penalty doubles in these auctions, but practically all tournament players used negX. But my bridge crowd still used penalty doubles in our rubber bridge games, and when I would go to tournaments with some of these people we would agree to play our minimal RB system (IIRC, it was 5-card majors, Stayman, regular Blackwood, takeout doubles, and weak 2's). Every time we had a 1X-(1Y)-Dbl auction the opponents would stare at us, waiting for the expected double. These moments were priceless. :)

[Finch]

In my country (the UK) it depends on the sequence and the experience of the players concerned. The principle is that you are entitled to assume that the opponents have alerted correctly, and will get an adjustment in your favour if they haven't. However, the principle is tempered somewhat by a requirement, particularly for experienced players, to protect themselves at least to some degree.

 

There is little case law on this subject (particularly as the alerting rules have recently changed). Under the old rules I would not have given you, Gerben, an adjustment in the following case:

 

(1C) 1H (x) Dbl not alerted but in fact meant to be for take-out, you say you didn't raise hearts because you "assumed the double must be for penalties" (the rules have changed and now take-out doubles are not alerted).

 

Similarly under the new rules, 1NT p 2C not alerted/announced, if you assume it's a natural weak take-out and then claim misinformation I would rule against you.

 

But the examples have to be fairly extreme to override the principle. You would be entitled to assume that a 2D overcall of a 1NT opening is natural without an alert, or that a 2major response to 1NT not alerted/announced is natural.

 

(In England no-one understands the new rules on doubles and you pretty much have to ask everytime if you are unsure)

[P_Marlowe]

Suppose in your country in your the non-alertable meaning of a certain sequence is X, but no one actually plays it as X but instead everyone plays it as something else, say Y.

 

Let's now suppose the auction comes up for your opponents and is not alerted. Do you now stubbornly assume it is X, even though you know it is Y? If you do and you get a bad result since your opponent held Y all along, should you get a score correction?

Hi,

 

simple example (Germany)

 

1 NT (1) - 2H (2)

 

(1) 15-17

(2a) natural (and weak sign off) => unusual, but not alertable

(2b) transfer => usual, but alertable

 

First off all you need to construct a hand,

where you get damaged, assume (2a),

you are "suprised" it goes all pass, and

you did not act holding a takeout for hearts,

your fault.

Assuming it was transfer, the auction comes

back, you can act again and claim damage

...

Similar scenarios exists for weak2 and strong2

 

 

Second it depends a lot on the level you are playing,

playing a certain level, opponents need to know the

alerting rules, and they have to follow the rules.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: You have the duty to look after yourself in a

reasonable way, i.e. look at the convention card if

possible, but nothing else.

[jtfanclub]

I think you have to ask under an unusual auction situation, and I don't apologize for it.

 

One of the dumber concepts promoted by the ACBL is that I should only ask if there's something for me to think about. I always ask *if I would ask if I had something to think about*. I have yet to have a director lecture me on this, and certainly in that way I am passing no UI.

[Gerben42]

I always ask unless:

 

* I already know

* I think opps may not know

 

Ceterum censeo... the current rules are bad, in the sense that:

 

You should not be forced to "protect yourself". Instead, alert rules should be set up that bids that are standard but alertable should be announced.

 

In case of doubles, nothing in the spectrum of TO through penalty should be either announcable or alertable.