Alerting regulations in your country

[paulg]

There is often much debate about alerting on BBO, but in f2f bridge we all play under different alerting regulations and I wondered what you especially liked, and disliked, about the ones you regularly use.

 

Personally I am not a huge fan of announcements in the ACBL and England. The ACBL's "may be short" for a 1♣ opener is the most useful and the notrump range probably second. Perhaps it's a bit early to judge in England as everyone is still adjusting to them but the inconsistency in application (e.g., announce range for opening 1NT, not 1NT overcalls, announce transfers over 1NT but not over 2NT) has many confused.

 

In England the alerting of doubles has changed to a simpler system, but the complexity of the previous system (still in use in Scotland) has perversely made the change to an easier one difficult.

 

The best thing about the new English regulations is "no alerts above 3NT". Hopefully we shall see this in Scotland soon.

 

Any other ideas I should be pushing the SBU to consider?

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

[Gerben42]

My biggest issue is that some bids that are "standard" but alertable. Instead I would like to see announcements in these situations. I am a big fan of announcement although they are not in use here (in Germany).

 

A great rule that is not present in many countries but I really like in the Netherlands is: The strength or forcing nature of a bid does not make it alertable. This means that as long as a bid is natural, there is no alert of for example 1♠ 3♣ if it is weak or strong. This works fine since you need to bid your OWN hand anyway. If you really need to know you can still ask / look at CC.

[ArcLight]

>This means that as long as a bid is natural, there is no alert of for example 1♠ 3♣ if it is weak or strong. This works fine since you need to bid your OWN hand anyway. If you really need to know you can still ask / look at CC.

 

 

So if I have a good hand I ask to look at the opps CC and then pass, and with a bad hand I just pass, without looking at the CC card?

:P

[david_c]

There is often much debate about alerting on BBO, but in f2f bridge we all play under different alerting regulations and I wondered what you especially liked, and disliked, about the ones you regularly use.

Hmm, how long have you got? :)

 

But I suppose you already know what I think about doubles. With that one exception, I sincerely believe that our English regulations are the best in the world.

 

In England the alerting of doubles has changed to a simpler system, but the complexity of the previous system (still in use in Scotland) has perversely made the change to an easier one difficult.

I strongly disagree that the new rules are easier. The SBU would be absolutely mad to change to the current EBU rules. It's not that they're that much worse than the old ones, but they're certainly not significantly better, and the problems with changing from one to another are enormous. If they want to make things genuinely easier they should change to the ACBL's rules, which might be more subjective but at least correspond to what the players intuitively expect.

 

The best thing about the new English regulations is "no alerts above 3NT"

Tend to agree that this is a good thing, but they should have made an exception for initial actions such as (3♠) : 4♣ (clubs and hearts).

[han]

What I like least is that alert procedures is that many duplicate think that the rules are more important than the main idea: warning the opponents about your unusual methods. But given how poorly the rules are understood by the average bridge player, I guess that cannot be avoided.

 

I like the announcements too. I think announcing short minors, notrump ranges and transfers speeds up the game and competent players are unlikely to forget about those.

 

I like that bids above 3NT in later rounds of bidding are not to be alerted as that is where most disasters occur.

 

I like that some gadgets are prealertable, so that you can quickly recall your defenses against some uncommon methods.

[jdonn]

One specific thing is I think puppet stayman and its followups should not be alertable (as they are in the ACBL). Maybe I am cycnical but I can think of several times that I believe responder didn't know if he was playing puppet or regular in that partnership, and just decided based on whether 3♣ was alerted. Meanwhile the help to the other side during the auction seems nonexistant since they are really never bidding, and at the end they can always ask if it was normal or puppet stayman without transmitting any real UI.

[Apollo81]

One possible ACBL improvement: "could be short" should apply to all scenarios (and only those) where the announcable bid is basically natural but could be a 2-card suit:

 

examples:

a. 4432 1♣opener

b. classic Precision 1♦ opener

c. 3325 1♣-1♦

d. 3442 1♠-2♣

e. 4342 1♥-2♣

 

Currently only a. and b. are announcable; the others are alertable. In addition, Precision variants where 1♦ might be shorter than two cards are also announcable as "could be short" since they are non-forcing. An alternative rule to cover this sort of opening might be to require "could be short as ___" instead of the generic announcement.

[Apollo81]

One specific thing is I think puppet stayman and its followups should not be alertable (as they are in the ACBL). Maybe I am cycnical but I can think of several times that I believe responder didn't know if he was playing puppet or regular in that partnership, and just decided based on whether 3♣ was alerted. Meanwhile the help to the other side during the auction seems nonexistant since they are really never bidding, and at the end they can always ask if it was normal or puppet stayman without transmitting any real UI.

What about PS being unalertable but making opener's rebid alertable if it's a Puppet Stayman answer? This way opener has to make the critical decision before anyone alerts.

[jdonn]

What about PS being unalertable but making opener's rebid alertable if it's a Puppet Stayman answer? This way opener has to make the critical decision before anyone alerts.

That would be an improvement, and technically would work since they could only take advantage in obvious and flagrant fashion which would be easily exposed. Still I don't see the point, how often have you wanted to double opener's artificial rebid there?

[Apollo81]

What about PS being unalertable but making opener's rebid alertable if it's a Puppet Stayman answer?  This way opener has to make the critical decision before anyone alerts.

That would be an improvement, and technically would work since they could only take advantage in obvious and flagrant fashion which would be easily exposed. Still I don't see the point, how often have you wanted to double opener's artificial rebid there?

It's not opener's rebid -- it's responder's rebid that I am interested in. 2NT-3♣-3♦-3M is frequently an auction that I would like to double if they are playing Puppet.

 

Perhaps we should take this 1 step further....3♦ should not be alerted either but responder's major rebid should be if it means something other than a 5-card suit (this would cover Smolen too) I suppose this is pretty much exactly what you were suggesting anyway?

[Apollo81]

Last night I had a pair prealert that they werent playing Jacoby 2NT....... Lol

[han]

Last night I had a pair prealert that they werent playing Jacoby 2NT....... Lol

What defense did you come up with?

[pclayton]

Last night I had a pair prealert that they werent playing Jacoby 2NT....... Lol

I had a pair pre-alert a 2N opening showing minors and 10-15 the other night (not really necessary).

 

We had a prepared defense. That was the beginning of the end for them :D

[Apollo81]

Last night I had a pair prealert that they werent playing Jacoby 2NT....... Lol

What defense did you come up with?

unusual 6NT

[awm]

It has always seemed strange to me that playing Overcall Structure is not a pre-alert. After all, this is a method that many players are unfamiliar with. And it comes up in auctions where the opponents are probably most likely to want to bid (after all they did open the bidding). I've heard from a number of people who use Overcall Structure (and these are people who like the method) that many of their biggest wins come from people who try to redouble after the 1NT for takeout, or people who are not on the same page about which bids are forcing after either the 1NT for takeout or the power double. It seems to me that any method which seems to win a lot of IMPs/MPs simply because people "don't know what they're doing over it" would be a good candidate for a required pre-alert...

[pbleighton]

It has always seemed strange to me that playing Overcall Structure is not a pre-alert. After all, this is a method that many players are unfamiliar with. And it comes up in auctions where the opponents are probably most likely to want to bid (after all they did open the bidding). I've heard from a number of people who use Overcall Structure (and these are people who like the method) that many of their biggest wins come from people who try to redouble after the 1NT for takeout, or people who are not on the same page about which bids are forcing after either the 1NT for takeout or the power double. It seems to me that any method which seems to win a lot of IMPs/MPs simply because people "don't know what they're doing over it" would be a good candidate for a required pre-alert...

 

I take your point, but I think you've chosen a poor example.

 

I played the 1NT overcall as a weak takeout for a while. We alerted it, of course. I think that alerting is sufficient.

 

We weren't impressed with the results, and dropped it.

 

As long as it's alerted, it's not difficult to defend.

 

Peter

[badderzboy]

I prefer the new alerting/announcing rules in England including the doubles!

 

Stayman/transfers and the 2 level opening alerts and announcing the NT range at least prevent the french defence and also lighten the mood at a club session when u have to cough etc to remind partner to alert the NT range.

 

The doubling alerts are easier but given that many had no idea what they were previously its no great loss/benefit. A double for takeout is not alertable unless over a natural NT bid and also alertable if for penalty unless over a NT basically.

 

The non-alerting over 3NT has also seen benefits ie the gerberites don't have the safety harness anymore....

 

The only thing I would wish for is some standard to be adopted across the globe lol! Jez I live about 80 miles south of Scotland - sounds like I need to read up b4 playing north of the border!!!

 

Cheers

 

Steve

[pclayton]

It has always seemed strange to me that playing Overcall Structure is not a pre-alert. After all, this is a method that many players are unfamiliar with. And it comes up in auctions where the opponents are probably most likely to want to bid (after all they did open the bidding). I've heard from a number of people who use Overcall Structure (and these are people who like the method) that many of their biggest wins come from people who try to redouble after the 1NT for takeout, or people who are not on the same page about which bids are forcing after either the 1NT for takeout or the power double. It seems to me that any method which seems to win a lot of IMPs/MPs simply because people "don't know what they're doing over it" would be a good candidate for a required pre-alert...

I play OS. Just because something is unfamiliar doesn't mean that its needs advance discussion.

 

As a matter of policy, we pre-alert in team games, even though we don't have to. We don't pre-alert in pair games.

 

All of OS, except for the 1N response to the garbage overcalls (which we don't play) is GCC. Much of OS is essentially natural.

 

It isn't too difficult to devise that a double of a 1NTO operates like a redouble. In my experience, where people get confused is doubling the 2 suited jump overcall. It 'sounds' negative, but many play it as penalty.

 

The 2N overcall comes up so infrequently, and its frequently 'our hand', so devising a defense isn't worth the bother usually.

[jtfanclub]

A great rule that is not present in many countries but I really like in the Netherlands is: The strength or forcing nature of a bid does not make it alertable. This means that as long as a bid is natural, there is no alert of for example 1♠ 3♣ if it is weak or strong. This works fine since you need to bid your OWN hand anyway. If you really need to know you can still ask / look at CC.

I think that's absolutely wrong. That's exactly the situation where looking and then passing, vs. not looking and then passing, causes problems.

 

I feel alerts have two purposes. One is to alert the opponents that you're doing something unusual, and the other is to prevent the opponents from revealing information to each other by asking or checking the card at unusual times.

 

But then, rumor has it that ACBL rules have just been changed on this, so who knows?

[paulg]

The only thing I would wish for is some standard to be adopted across the globe lol! Jez I live about 80 miles south of Scotland - sounds like I need to read up b4 playing north of the border!!!

 

Cheers

 

Steve

The only differences between the current Scottish and old English rules are:

1. you do not alert simple completion of a transfer
   
2. you must alert weak jump overcalls
   

Our TDs have also been told to be tolerant of foreigners announcing their calls :)

[awm]

I play OS. Just because something is unfamiliar doesn't mean that its needs advance discussion.

 

As a matter of policy, we pre-alert in team games, even though we don't have to. We don't pre-alert in pair games.

 

All of OS, except for the 1N response to the garbage overcalls (which we don't play) is GCC. Much of OS is essentially natural.

 

It isn't too difficult to devise that a double of a 1NTO operates like a redouble. In my experience, where people get confused is doubling the 2 suited jump overcall. It 'sounds' negative, but many play it as penalty.

 

The 2N overcall comes up so infrequently, and its frequently 'our hand', so devising a defense isn't worth the bother usually.

Yes, it's GCC. Then again, canape-strong diamond systems are GCC and require pre-alert. Opening eight-counts is GCC and requires pre-alert. Frequent preempts on poor five-card suits is GCC and requires pre-alert.

 

It's quite easy to devise a defense to overcall structure. But if you've never seen it before, it's easy to have difficulties when you and partner aren't on the same page. Several different people who play this method have described "accidents" that opponents had against them (basically not knowing their defense) that lead to top boards. If this experience is as prevalent as it seems, it suggests a pre-alert might be a good idea.

 

The fact is, opponents opening light at the one-level is nice to know, but almost nobody changes their defensive methods because of this. A lot of people look only at the "front of card" before starting a round, so won't notice overcall structure. A lot of people ask the opponents "general approach" rather than look at a card, and won't hear about overcall structure. It just seems strange that defenses to opening bids which are very non-standard, very unfamiliar, and frequently result in misunderstandings by the opening side are "not a pre-alert" whereas opening methods as vanilla as opening a few points light require a pre-alert.

 

Obviously you can argue that a top-flight pair will look at the opponents' card in detail, or that they'll have seen overcall structure before and have a prepared defense, or have meta-defenses... but by that argument nothing would require a pre-alert (and in fact you could argue that openings/responses don't require an alert because they're on the CC). It just seems to me that if any method that's on the general chart requires a pre-alert (and some do) then overcall structure should require one.

[pclayton]

Adam - I might be confused on this. Why would any GCC treatment require a pre-alert? I thought only mid-chart required a pre-alert.

[pbleighton]

Adam - I might be confused on this. Why would any GCC treatment require a pre-alert? I thought only mid-chart required a pre-alert.

 

Pre-alerts are required for any system which may be fundamentally unfamiliar to the opponents, such as canape, those where hands with < 11hcp are routinely opened at the 1 level, and those where 2 bids may be Qxxxx or 3 bids may be Qxxxxx. 4 card majors and strong club systems are excluded, unless they qualify for a pre alert for another reason.

 

EHAA, for example, is pre alertable.

 

There is no specific provision for GCC legal bids being pre alertable. The ACBL does encourage alerting wherever you think it's appropriate, even though it may not be specified in the regs. This could be construed (or not) to apply to pre alerts.

 

On a practical note, I've played a lot of pre alertable systems, and most of the opponents absolutely hate the pre alerts. They just want the bids alerted. I will therefore not pre alert something the ACBL doesn't say I need to pre alert.

 

Peter

[Fluffy]

They sent a letter to all members of AEB (spannish NBO).

 

It as 4 or 5 pages to say you must alert everything but stayman, an even prealert many other things.

 

Nobody has followed the rule, and people do exactly the same as before.

[helene_t]

It's impossible to devise an alert procedure that satisfies everybody. I used to hate the Dutch alert procedures but since I realized that most other countries have even more ridiculous procedures and that many people hate the alert rules that I like the most (and vice versa) I've become more sympathetic to it. For example, I very much like anouncements, but Jeff Rubin wrote in an editorial in Bridge World that they are abused so often that they should be abandoned, and probably he knows more about how they work in practice than I do.

 

In particular, it's difficult to devise alert procedures that work at all levels from coffee-house to Bermuda Bowl, yet a jungle of different alert procedures is not desirable either. We already have three dimensions (SO, yearly changes, and IRL/online) of different procedures.

 

The general rule in the Netherlands is that natural calls are not alertable. This conflicts with the general rule that you should alert everything that may be misunderstood by opps if not alerted. Surprisingly, not everybody thinks that the "alert misunderstandable calls" precedes over "don't alert natural calls" although, as I read the laws, the precedence is quite explicit. I can imagine two reasons for that:

- "Misunderstandable" is too subjective to be enforceable. You might alert everything on the basis of the fact that Gozilla might not understand that a 1♦ opening promises diamonds, that a 1♥ response to 1♦ is forcing etc. On the contrary, "natural" can be defined in a way that makes it almost culture-independent.

- The main reason for alerting is that opps may play different defenses against different methods. Often, standard methods apply against natural methods while lead-directing doubles are used against artificial methods. While not bullet-proof, the information that a call is "artificial" gives more clues to the choice of defense than the information that "it might be different from what you are used to".

 

I think the BF should resolve this issue by stating either:

- Natural calls are never alertable (no exceptions), or

- You must alert only on the basis of deviance from common standards. Naturalness per se is irrelevant.

 

Of course no matter which of the two they choose a lot of people will get angry.

 

In conclusion, I think the Dutch procedures are not that bad. Some minor justifications would make them better, though:

- Why alert PS? The not-alertable 2♣ response to 1NT could mean anything depending on Stayman version, and PS falls well within that range. As Apollo says, it would make more sense to alert opener's rebids after PS.

- Why alert Walsh? Makes no sense. In particularly in NL where many advanced pairs play some kind of soft-Walsh which may or may not be alertable depending on the mood of the TD. If you play major inversion, you really need to alert but opps won't notice because the Walsh-alerters cry wolf.