D(r)aft alert rules

[Gerben42]

ALERT:

 

Suit bids are not alertable if they do show length and/or strength in the suit bid. EDIT Try #2: A new suit up to and including opener's rebid this means at least 4 cards. If it is specifically the opening bid of 1♣/♦ this means at least 3 cards. In all other situations this means at least 3 cards or a willingness to play in the bid suit.

 

COMMENT Figured out you would not cover 3♥ p 4♥ otherwise!

 

Notrump bids are not alertable if they show at least one of:

* A balanced hand

* A suggestion to play in NT

 

Double is not alertable if it do esnot show specific length or strength in a certain suit, i.e. everything in the spectrum between TO and penalty.

 

EDIT Try #2: Pass is not alertable if it does not show strength or some specific distribution.

 

Redouble is not alertable if it suggests a willingness to play the current contract redoubled.

 

In all other situations a call is alertable unless it is announcable.

 

ANNOUNCE:

 

1/2NT opening bid or equivalent rebid range if natural.

 

The cheapest response to 1/2NT asking for 4-card majors (Stayman) and any transfer bid after an 1NT opening bid, 2NT opening bid or equivalent 1/2NT rebid.

 

Equivalent = Opponents have made no other call than pass, neither opener nor responder has shown length or strength in any suit.

 

Announce natural 2-level opening bids and simple jump overcalls (weak, intermediate, strong).

 

EDIT try #2: Announce 1/2♣ as artificial unlimited strong opening bid.

[Mr. Dodgy]

looks good ;)

 

would lead-directing doubles be alertable?

[Gerben42]

looks good 

 

would lead-directing doubles be alertable?

 

Depends what you mean. If it's Dbl of a short-suit bid like a splinter, no, as it shows a penalty. If this Dbl asks for a lead in the lowest unbid suit then yes.

 

Ditto 1N p 3N x if not for penalty but "I think it goes down if you make a smart lead" is alertable.

[blackshoe]

Looks to me like in 1m-1M-2M, where the major might be 3 cards, it's alertable.

 

Precision 1C is not necessarily the strongest opening bid in that system, if 2NT shows balanced 22 or so (1C might be as weak as 16 or 17) so not announceable. :-)

 

If you play Mexican 2D (shows balanced 21-22 or 27-28, or unbalanced GF with diamonds) one could argue this is stronger than artificial forcing 1C, and equally as strong as artificial forcing 2C, so neither club opening is announceable (and therefore, presumably, both are alertable).

 

Looks to me like lead directing doubles would be alertable.

[Gerben42]

Looks to me like in 1m-1M-2M, where the major might be 3 cards, it's alertable.

 

Okay maybe there should be a line that says that supporting partner naturally is not alertable. The real problem is with NEW suits. I didn't write it legal-proof just as a draft.

[jtfanclub]

Pass is not alertable if it is the default action on a minimum hand and does not include specific strong hand types.

 

Generic Precision. 1♣ opening, next player bids 1♠. A pass shows one of the following hands:

 

A very weak hand, any distribution, or

A hand hoping partner will reopen with a double, which he intends to convert for penalty.

 

95%+ of the time, it will be a very weak hand.

 

Had more trouble with this than not, to the point that I was specifically asked NOT to alert it, because it causes too much confusion. An identical situation for SAYC would be a 2♥ overcall of 2♣- responder can pass with solid hearts, hoping to hear a double by opener.

 

I think you have to make the exclusion of 'A Pass is not alertable because it may include hands interested in playing in the contract doubled, such as forcing pass situations, as long as it also includes default minimum hands'.

 

.

.

.

 

 

As a personal wish, I'd like responses which are Game Forcing or Non Forcing (except NT or rebids) to be announced. This includes announcing 2/1, when those bids are actually GF (not GF except when suit rebid).

 

For example, in basic Precision, 1♣-1♠ is alerted, and when the person asks, he's told natural GF. Of course, he already knew that, but there was always a small chance that we decided to switch during the break to transfer responses, how is a guy to know? Announcing it as GF makes life much simpler, and reveals less information to the guy at the next table.

[Gerben42]

For example, in basic Precision, 1♣-1♠ is alerted, and when the person asks, he's told natural GF. Of course, he already knew that

 

Not alertable under rules listed above, since natural.

[hrothgar]

I'd like to take a step or two back from the discussion about what an alert / announcement system should look like and ask a more basic question: Who do we believe would be using this (hypothetical) system.

 

As I've noted in the past, regulatory systems are created by sponsoring organization. For example, when the ACBL runs an online tournament, it determines which alert / announcement system it will use and attempts to restore equity when the proprieties are violated.

 

1. I don't think that you're going to be able to get existing sponsoring organizations to change their preferred regulatory structures. (I"d even go so far as to argue that there is some value in preserving a consistent approach between the ACBL's F2F events and its online presence).

 

2. Without a formal sponsoring authority promoting a rules set you're going to have a difficult time getting anyone to go along with it. Lets assume that I'm at a pickup table and someone violates the alert procedure... I don't have any recourse.

 

In the long term, I still have hopes that the Full Disclosure system will take hold. I've always believed that the alert / announcement regime should be treated as a configuration setting within FD.

 

For example: I, as an end user, could configure FD to alert any/all artificial bids. Alternatively, I could chose to configure FD to alert any bid that doesn't match some standard FD file.

[jtfanclub]

For example, in basic Precision, 1♣-1♠ is alerted, and when the person asks, he's told natural GF. Of course, he already knew that

 

Not alertable under rules listed above, since natural.

Does that mean my 2♣ response over 1♠ (natural, invitational but not forcing), is not alerted or announced?

[mycroft]

Frelling 2-bids are not Alertable - nor are Muiderberg/Polish 2M. Of course, neither is Flannery 2H (or "Precision 2D" 2H if it promises 4H).

Ghestem 3C is frequently not Alertable (but sometimes it is).

EHAA 2-bids are not Alertable.

NF 2/1s are not Alertable.

1M-2NT!; 3H and 4H are not Alertable, whatever meaning (although 3NT showing a medium strength hand is).

 

No matter what you do, there will be some holes, but "suit bids that show that suit are not Alertable" is going to get you into trouble without clarification.

 

Michael.

[inquiry]

On line with self alerts, alert as much as you can.... your partner can't see it, and no harm is done by giving your opponents the information about your hand.

 

Having said that, last night, I had an alerting disaster that really pissed off my opponent. The situation was as follows.. .

 

I was invited to play in a team game and was partnered up with a new player I don't ever remember meeting before. I agreed to play their profile. He said he would load BBO Advanced, and since I presumably know that system I agreed.

 

On a hand the bidding started by my LHO, and went...

 

1NT (12-14) - Pass - Pass - 2D

 

I bid 2D with 5D and 4H, and not much of a hand. In direct seat against strong NT, I knew BBO Advanced played capelletti. But in balance seat I thought natural and surely natural versus weak notrump. Well, the FD thing alerted my bid as capelletti (I didn't know it would do that), and of course, it doesn't display the meaning of "our bids" so I had no idea of the wrong alert. My partner with a fist full of clubs bid 2NT as "lebehnshol" I guesss, and I passed. 2NT was down two -100, we can make 3C, they can make 3S. If they double us, partner will run to 3C, it is not clear they will find their spades they never bid (with my alerted cap, it is really unlikely). The opponents lost 5 imps because our team-mates bid 4S (down one for sure, maybe two) but their teammates holding our hands took the phantom sacrafice of 5C, which was doubled and down two. So that was +200 for us. If they had bid 3S and made it (probably would), we would be +160. So maybe our bidding disaster cost them 1 imp but in fact FD and I disagreed on the alert (maybe a reason to show what the alert is to the person who made the bid so they can "correct it" if it was wrong.

 

The opponent was, quite justifiably I guess, Irrate with me. They kept telling me that I alerted it, and finally agreed it was made by FD, but there it was on the screen so I should have seen it and corrected it. I of course do not see the alerts we make. That maybe an option in the software, because at normal tables I seem to see the FD alerts.

[hrothgar]

I was invited to play in a team game and was partnered up with a new player I don't ever remember meeting before. I agreed to play their profile. He said he would load BBO Advanced, and since I presumably know that system I agreed.

 

On a hand the bidding started by my LHO, and went...

 

1NT (12-14) - Pass - Pass - 2D

 

I bid 2D with 5D and 4H, and not much of a hand. In direct seat against strong NT, I knew BBO Advanced played capelletti. But in balance seat I thought natural and surely natural versus weak notrump.

Couple points:

 

1. FD doesn't have any kind of conditional logic. Accordingly, there isn't any way to modify your choice of methods based on the opponent's NT range. (Admittedly, one might argue that this is all the more reason that the BBO Advanced should specifiy "natural" methods versus any 1NT opening in the balancing seat.

 

2. ***** happens if you and your partner don't have firm partnership agreements. Worse things happen if you and your partner agree to play a system that neither of you know completely. (For what its worth, I wasn't aware that the FD file specified capelletti in balancing seat).

 

In this case, the alerts provided by the FD system didn't match your hand. So be it... The Laws have well established procedures to deal with misbids.

[blackshoe]

Okay maybe there should be a line that says that supporting partner naturally is not alertable. The real problem is with NEW suits. I didn't write it legal-proof just as a draft.

And I was just playing Devil's Advocate and trying to point out that writing a sensible alert regulation isn't that easy. :)

[jillybean]

The opponent was, quite justifiably I guess, Irrate with me. They kept telling me that I alerted it, and finally agreed it was made by FD, but there it was on the screen so I should have seen it and corrected it. I of course do not see the alerts we make.  That maybe an option in the software, because at normal tables I seem to see the FD alerts.

I think you can either risk giving the opps misinformation or see the alerts yourself and create unauthorized information. I don't think either situation is good, the director is called for MI and likewise when the opps are reading their system notes. I am not an FD user and would not be happy using it in anything less than an experienced partnership.

 

I think its great that the self alert is not seen in tournament/team games, I assume this is across all non table games.

jb

[barmar]

Double is not alertable if it do esnot show specific length or strength in a certain suit, i.e. everything in the spectrum between TO and penalty.

What about a DONT double over 1NT, which shows a single-suited hand, but doesn't specify which suit? I think most jurisdictions require this to be alerted, so it seems wrong that we wouldn't.

[mgoetze]

Ghestem 3C is frequently not Alertable (but sometimes it is).

Uuuuhm... why wouldn't it be alertable?

 

(Standard Ghestem 3♣ never shows Clubs. Some people play a sort of "reverse Ghestem", which, however, is stupid.)

 

---

 

Anyway, I doubt you'll ever get "Standard" players to alert a strong 2♣. Or Stayman, for that matter. I recommend an exemption, that bids which are part of BBO Basic need not be alerted.

[david_c]

There are a few places where I think Gerben's ideas don't quite work, which maybe can be best explained by looking at how other SOs do it:

 

First, from the EBU:

 

The following are considered "natural" for alerting purposes:

 

(a) A bid of a suit which shows that suit and does not show any other suit; the suit shown will be at least three cards long except that preference bids and raises may be on shorter suits. ...

I think that the words "does not show any other suit" are an essential part of the regulation (as mycroft's examples demonstrate).

 

[Note: Some people believe that a call can be "natural" even if it promises length in another suit as well as in the suit bid. I prefer the EBU's definition whereby such calls are not natural. But whatever you call them, everyone agrees that these bids should be alertable.]

 

From the ACBL:

 

This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure.

I really don't think you can do without this either. There are many examples of natural calls which are so unusual that opponents really need to be alerted about them - for example, a penalty double of a 1♠ opening, or a natural non-forcing change of suit response by an unpassed hand. If you want your regulations to be as precise as possible you can try to list all of the situations in which an unusual natural call would need an alert, but it's not clear whether this is workable (even if you did make a list which you thought was complete, would anyone actually read it?) and so the ACBL's approach is very sensible.

[helene_t]

As Ben said, playing online you should alert (and explain) as much as possible.

 

But I think it makes sense to distinguish between what must be alerted (opps should call the TD if you don't, especially if they might have been damaged) and what should be alerted (the TD is unlikely to adjust in case you don't but as a good sports(wo)man you alert it anyway).

 

Maybe in a tourney restricted to players who have some basic understanding of the laws (and, in particular, the differences between online law and IRL law) it would be realistic to enforce full alert obligations. One way to achieve this might be to set up a web service where would-be club members have to answer some questions about the laws and the club rules before they can become members.

 

But as a TD who allows everyone except enemies, it's just not realistic to encourage players to call me every time someone fails to alerts a 3+ 1♣ opening, or Stayman, or a strong artificial 2♣ opening.

[DrTodd13]

[Note: Some people believe that a call can be "natural" even if it promises length in another suit as well as in the suit bid. I prefer the EBU's definition whereby such calls are not natural. But whatever you call them, everyone agrees that these bids should be alertable.]

A bid showing some cards in the bid suit and some cards in another suit is natural but it is also conventional. Anything conventional should be alertable. You might say that all doubles are alertable if they aren't a takeout double of the immediately previous bid natural suit or a penalty double in all other circumstances. So, a X showing a known or unknown suit would be alertable over any NT opening.

 

Personally, I'd rather have easy to remember rules and have to alert more often than have to guess what my opponents are likely to find an unusual enough bid to require an alert.

[mgoetze]

Personally, I'd rather have easy to remember rules and have to alert more often than have to guess what my opponents are likely to find an unusual enough bid to require an alert.

Well, the question is what the point of alerting should be... alerting just for the sake of alerting? I always thought the point was to make your opponents aware that your bid might not mean what they think it means. So if you keep going through:

 

"1NT" - "Pass" - "2 Diamonds" - "Alert" - "What's it mean?" - "Transfer to Hearts"

 

guess what happens? That's right, people stop asking...

[helene_t]

"1NT" - "Pass" - "2 Diamonds" - "Alert" - "What's it mean?" - "Transfer to Hearts"

 

guess what happens? That's right, people stop asking...

That's why certain popular conventions are not alertable in some IRL jurisdictions.

 

Online, you explain spontaneously. Opps don have to ask. Therefore, transfers (and Stayman) should be alerted online.

[Gerben42]

"1NT" - "Pass" - "2 Diamonds" - "Alert" - "What's it mean?" - "Transfer to Hearts

 

I've had a lot of auctions like:

 

1NT (weak) - 2♦ (alerted)

2NT (alerted) - 4♠

Pass

 

Opps didn't ask and instead assumed we had a misunderstanding. Why? Because they assumed we were playing transfers.

[mycroft]

Ghestem 3C is frequently not Alertable (but sometimes it is).

Uuuuhm... why wouldn't it be alertable?

 

(Standard Ghestem 3♣ never shows Clubs. Some people play a sort of "reverse Ghestem", which, however, is stupid.)

Exactly. And, unfortunately, sometimes the 3C bidder is showing diamonds and spades, but actually has clubs (Ghestem problem 1).

 

Ghestem problem 2 is that everyone remembers what 1x-2NT is, but they don't remember which of the two is 1x-2x and which is 1x-3C. This includes some very famous players, including a well known Frenchman whose last name starts with...well, why give the show away?

 

And if you play it the reverse way (and the link explains one of the reasons why you would), then 3C shows clubs sometimes and not other times. Well, except when it fails to show a second suit - see Ghestem problem 1).

 

Michael.

[barmar]

I've had a lot of auctions like:

 

1NT (weak) - 2♦ (alerted)

2NT (alerted) - 4♠

Pass

 

Opps didn't ask and instead assumed we had a misunderstanding. Why? Because they assumed we were playing transfers.

Why are they assuming anything? Can't they read the little pop-ups that contain your explanations? You are filling in the explanation field when you make your alertable bids, aren't you? Or are you unnecessarily forcing the opponents to ask?

[Gerben42]

Somehow the FD popups don't work at my local club. But even with the alert AND the Full Disclosure card in play people sometimes don't get it since it is unexpected.