Alerting regulations in your country

[whereagles]

We have a nice one in Portugal. Two of our alert rules are:

 

#1 "Vulnerability-dependant bids must be alerted"

#2 "NT openers showing balanced hands need not be alerted"

 

So what happens if you play a variable 1NT? Nobody knows!!! :)

[han]

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.

See my own post in this thread:

 

What I like least is that alert procedures is that many duplicate players 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.

[KiwiBridge]

From the NZCBA manual:

 

During the auction:

 

Do alert all conventional calls other than those listed below. A conventional bid is not only a bid whose meaning is not related to the bid (e.g. a Multi 2D has nothing to do with diamonds) but also a bid that conveys extra information (e.g. 2H showing hearts and another is conventional because there is additional information that the hand contains a heart suit – making it conventional).

Do alert bids that are outside reasonable expectation. For example: a non-forcing response by partner in a new suit would require an alert.

The only exceptions are:

 

Do not alert any natural No Trump opening bid and simple 2C Stayman response (you should pre-alert the HCP range - if it is different from what is generally accepted as the basic system).

Do not alert any 3 card+ minor or 4+ major opening bid at the one level unless there is additional information (e.g. canape).

Do not alert a strong 2C opener and the negative 2D response.

Do not alert any double or redouble irrespective of meaning

Do not alert any cue-bid -- a cue-bid is defined as a bid in a known opponents suit, or a bid of the suit they have bid irrespective of the meaning of that bid.

Do not alert any bid at the 4 level or higher.

The last three categories of calls referred to above are considered to be self-alerting and therefore are exempted from alerts. Your opponents are expected to ask about their meaning if it is important to them to know before they make their own call.

[foo]

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.

 

<snip>

 

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

One class of alerts that I think all Sponsoring Organization's should be considering more carefully is those involving unusual negative inferences.

 

Simple example.

Playing Support X's, Opener's raise showing 4+ and their X or XX showing exactly 3 are both alertable. OTOH, Opener's other calls have the strong inference that Opener has 2-. =and it's not altertable= (at least in any jurisdiction I've played).

 

That's a simple example. There other examples, particularly in rarer systems, that have far more wide-reaching implications.

 

Since the guiding principle is that the opponents should know everything Our hand that we know, this lack of "negative inference" alerts IMHO can be a serious problem in terms of maintaining equity.

[jdonn]

One class of alerts that I think all Sponsoring Organization's should be considering more carefully is those involving unusual negative inferences.

 

Simple example.

Playing Support X's, Opener's raise showing 4+ and their X or XX showing exactly 3 are both alertable.  OTOH, Opener's other calls have the strong inference that Opener has 2-.  =and it's not altertable= (at least in any jurisdiction I've played).

Actually the acbl has gone the other way (and I agree with them). The raise promising 4 when you play support doubles used to be alertable but hasn't been for a couple years now.

[paulg]

One class of alerts that I think all Sponsoring Organization's should be considering more carefully is those involving unusual negative inferences.

 

Simple example.

Playing Support X's, Opener's raise showing 4+ and their X or XX showing exactly 3 are both alertable.  OTOH, Opener's other calls have the strong inference that Opener has 2-.  =and it's not altertable= (at least in any jurisdiction I've played).

 

That's a simple example.  There other examples, particularly in rarer systems, that have far more wide-reaching implications.

 

Since the guiding principle is that the opponents should know everything Our hand that we know, this lack of "negative inference" alerts IMHO can be a serious problem in terms of maintaining equity.

Negative inferences are often a topic of debate, but the view that I've seen from the ACBL and EBU is that they are not generally alertable (BOCTAOE).

 

The problem that the SOs face with negative inferences is a proliferation of alerts. Alerting every call is just as bad and confusing as not alerting so they have to draw a line somewhere. Negative inferences tend to fall just on the non-alert side of that line.

[helene_t]

From a philosofical point of view, there's no difference between negative inference and positive inference. For example, one could argue that the strong pass in a weak opening system is not alertable since it just shows a hand that doesn't meet the criteria for a (weak) opening. This may sound pedantic but seriously I don't think the term "negative inference" is clear enough to be used in law text.

 

I think it's important to teach players the purpose of the alert procedure, namely to warn opponents about calls that have a different meaning than what they might assume without the alert, especially when it might influence the defensive bidding of opps. Of course this will always conflict with the letter of the law because the letter of the law must be enforcable and therefore less subjective. But even if the SO chooses a very mechanistic approach (alert all artificial calls such as Stayman, alert no natural calls such as strong 3-openings), it is important that players understand the underlying idea, because:

- They may alert some calls that are not alert-requirering but still can be alerted, especially if playing against beginners who have no idea about the differences between "beginner standard" and "advanced standard". Even if the law does not require this, there is still something called good sportsmanship.

- They should pre-alert any surprising agreements that must not be alerted (such as artificial doubles against 1NT).

[Gerben42]

The big problem is this: Information value. The alert should have information value so if you alert anything that is different from SAYC, for example, players playing a different system would have to alert almost everything, thus giving their opponents the disadvantage of having to suffer meaningless alerts, causing the really unusual things to be swamped.

 

For example playing 2/1 with gadgets and weak NT, consider this auction:

 

1♦ alert, cannot be a weak NT

- 1♠ alert, can have longer minor

2♣ alert, can have 4♦ 5♣

- 2♠ alert, invitational

Pass

 

On the other hand this information may be useful when defending.

[mink]

Some said that players need to understand the purpose of alerting - the general principle that alerts are there to warn opps that a bid has an unusual meaning. I strongly disagree. Unusual, if not exactly defined by the sponsoring organization, is a subjective term - what is unusual for a little old lady may be standard for a top player and vice versa. If you allowed the alerts to be based on opps understanding of what is standard and what is unusual, it would require us to alert a transfer if you know that opps do not play transfer and not alert it if they play transfer. This is ridiculous.

 

Rather, when designing alerting regulations, the sponsoring organization must implicitly define what should be regarded as standard and define the regulations such that for any call it is clear by the regulations if it is alertable or not. The standard has to be a simple standard of course, as most players will not remember a complex set of alerting rules.

 

My favorite rules would be:

 

never alert:

- a pass after that partner might pass, too

- a double that is for penalty or strength-showing or info or optional or negative

- a redouble that is strength-showing or sos

- a cue bid in opp's naturally bid suit

- a bid of 4 club or higher, except for an opener

- a 1 club opening showing at least 2 club cards and denying a 5 card major

 

always alert:

- a bid in opp's naturally bid suit showing you have this suit yourself

 

in uncontested auctions do not alert

- stayman 2c and 2d by opener

- transfer to major and and the next bid by opener

 

in uncontested auctions do alert

- bids usually used for stayman and transfer if they mean something else

 

If a bid is not covered by the above rules, do not alert if

- a suit bid shows at least 4 cards in this major or 3 cards in this minor or

- an nt bid shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand or is non-forcing

 

Alert all other bids.

 

These rules do not refer to strength, therefore an unusual strength is never a reason to alert. This is because the rules are much simpler this way. They also do not contain the word unusual, which is necessarily interpreted differently by different people.

 

Karl

[david_c]

- They should pre-alert any surprising agreements that must not be alerted (such as artificial doubles against 1NT).

I really hate this one. In my opinion, pre-alerts should not be used as a substitute for alerts. This is because:

(i) You can't expect people to remember their opponents' systems.

(ii) It takes a fair amount of effort to explain and understand a pre-alert correctly. If the agreement in question doesn't actually come up, then all that effort is wasted.

(iii) If it does come up, it's much easier to explain at the time than it would have been beforehand, because you don't have to explain what situation it applies to.

 

In any case, there's absolutely no need for this sort of regulation. If you're prepared to write "non-penalty doubles of 1NT openings must be pre-alerted" into your regulations, how is it any more difficult to write "non-penalty doubles of 1NT openings must be alerted"? I can understand a reluctance to introduce exceptions into the regulations, but it seems to me that you're adding an exception whatever you do, just in a different place.

 

Pre-alerting does have a useful function, but that is in warning opponents about any particularly unusual conventions that they may need to discuss their defence to in advance. It shouldn't a be a substitute for alerting.

[helene_t]

- They should pre-alert any surprising agreements that must not be alerted (such as artificial doubles against 1NT).

I really hate this one. In my opinion, pre-alerts should not be used as a substitute for alerts. [......]

In any case, there's absolutely no need for this sort of regulation. If you're prepared to write "non-penalty doubles of 1NT openings must be pre-alerted" into your regulations, how is it any more difficult to write "non-penalty doubles of 1NT openings must be alerted"? I can understand a reluctance to introduce exceptions into the regulations, but it seems to me that you're adding an exception whatever you do, just in a different place.

Point taken. I was wrong.

 

What we usually do is to pre-alert stuff which we can't alert because of regulations (such as artificial doubles of 1NT) as well as stuff that may or may not be alertable depending on the mood of opps and/or TD. Especially weak jump shifts. Some people get upset if you don't alert WJS, claiming that the law says they must be. Other people get upset when you do alert WJS, claiming that the law prohibits alerting of WJS.

 

Of course this is not an ideal situation. Either the laws should be clearer and/or better understood, or at least we should trust opps to acknowledge that since everybody interprets the law differently, they can't expect us to alert as we should according to their interpretation of the law.

[pbleighton]

I really hate this one. In my opinion, pre-alerts should not be used as a substitute for alerts.

 

Ditto.

 

In fact, pre-alerts should be eliminated.

 

Peter

[paulg]

England and Scotland do not have pre-alerts. However our methods, specifically transfer responses to a short 1♣ opener and leading low from small doubleton, are unusual here and come up very frequently, so we do pre-alert everyone to them.

 

It is a little more tedious in the ACBL where we must pre-alert five or so other (Mid Chart) methods that are much rarer and, imo, easier to defend. You can see the opposition's eyes glazing over after the first two.

 

But I agree with David that the idea of pre-alerts is reasonable if it can be done quickly, concisely and is something that the defence would need to discuss.

 

Paul

[jtfanclub]

I really hate this one. In my opinion, pre-alerts should not be used as a substitute for alerts.

 

Ditto.

 

In fact, pre-alerts should be eliminated.

 

Peter

I disagree. I think that the number of pre-alerts should be expanded, but kept short on each. I mean, if on the computer I can say

 

"Hi, we play Precision with upside-down carding, Journalist leads, and odd/even discards"

 

How much harm can it do to pre-alert this on face-to-face, even in a pairs game?

 

The little stuff that doesn't come up very much, that I don't like those in pre-alerts, although I'd be willing to (for example) pre-alert the Multi 2♦ if that means we can play it in GCC.

[paulg]

I was wrong, Scotland does actually require pre-alerts. Everyone does it but I thought this was a matter of courtesy rather than regulation, but our directives state:

 

§2 At the start of each round, you should exchange convention cards with your opponents and inform them of:

• Your basic system
  Examples: Acol, strong club, five-card majors with forcing no-trump
  
• Any unusual aspects of your system
  List these items in a clearly identified area of the convention card. Examples: canape (bidding a shorter suit before a longer one), strong two over-one responses, artificial opening bids such as the multi-2♦, weak jump shifts, weak jump overcalls.
  

England requires you to exchange convention cards but there is no requirement to pre-alert (although I've yet to find anyone object to it).

 

Paul

[pbleighton]

How much harm can it do to pre-alert this on face-to-face, even in a pairs game?

 

In my (extensive) experience of pre-alerting, it irritates most players to be pre-alerted. In fact, the majority refuse to read a written pre-alert, telling us to alert all of our unusual stuff.

 

The opps almost never agree on any defenses.

 

This is real world experience, at the club, sectional, and regional levels.

 

It may well be different at top level bridge.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

In my (extensive) experience of pre-alerting, it irritates most players to be pre-alerted. In fact, the majority refuse to read a written pre-alert, telling us to alert all of our unusual stuff.

Really? I've never had anybody object to us pre-alerting that we play Precision. I can't say how many were annoyed but didn't say anything.

 

On the other hand, if we pre-alerted our modified Flannery 2♦ opening, or our Precision 2♣ opening, or so forth, I'm sure they would be very annoyed.

 

I would say that when we don't pre-alert, half of our opponents won't be aware we're playing Precision until it actually comes up.

[pbleighton]

Really? I've never had anybody object to us pre-alerting that we play Precision. I can't say how many were annoyed but didn't say anything.

 

I've had some nasty comments, and a LOT of glares.

 

Peter

[awm]

My understanding was that negative inferences were defined a little differently than Helene was suggesting. You can look at any call as showing "one of some set of hands" by partnership agreement. A negative inference is a hand or type of hand which is excluded from the set of possible hands.

 

So in other words, if my hand might look different (by agreement) from what opponents would expect for a call, then partner should alert. If my hand will always be one of the "expected" hands but there are a few "expected" hands which in fact are not possibilities, then no alert.

 

Some examples:

 

(1) Suppose my partnership agrees never to open a weak two bid with a four-card major on the side or with any void. Then my 2♥ opening potentially has a different meaning than other people's 2♥ opening. But this is only a negative inference -- all my 2♥ openings (except for psychs of course) will look like possible 2♥ openings that anyone else could have. The fact that my 2♥ opening denies a void or a four-card spade suit does not make it alertable, although this inference should be explained to opponents who ask.

 

(2) Suppose my partnership agrees that opening bids including a five-card major should always open in the major. This means my 1♣ opening will never have a five-card major, and my 1nt opening will never have a five-card major. However, these are again negative inferences -- when I open 1♣ my hand always looks like a hand that anyone else would open 1♣, it's just that there are a few hands other people open 1♣ where I would not. This does not make my 1♣ or 1nt openings alertable, although again this inference should be explained to opponents who ask.

 

(3) Suppose my partnership agrees to play mandatory support doubles. This means that in an auction like 1♣-Pass-1♥-1♠, if I pass over 1♠ I cannot hold three hearts. However, all the hands where I would pass are also hands where people not playing support doubles would pass. Again this is a negative inference -- a few hands where other people would pass have been removed from my passes. This does not make my pass alertable.

 

(4) Suppose my partnership agrees to open all eight counts. This makes my 1♠ opening alertable, because it includes many hands that are not standard 1♠ openings (i.e. balanced eight counts). However, if I pass in first seat, there is also an inference that I do not have a balanced eight-count, which would certainly be a possible hand for most people. This is a negative inference -- the hands that I pass are still hands that "standard" bidders would pass. So my initial pass remains not alertable although again if opponents ask partner should explain that this denies 8+ points.

[inquiry]

Adam

 

I am going to have to disagree here. I will take just two of your examples. Let's start with the last one.. Your partner passes. Now you and he are on defense. You know that he has at most 7 hcp. This can easily affect your line of play, especially when you see dummy. It might also affect your bidding. You might "underbid" by standard methods knowing the most your passed partner hand can have is 7 hcp. Here your bidding and your defense can be directly affect by info you have on your partners hand. I can not imagine NOT sharing that same info with your opponents.

 

Let's take the first example next. Say your partner passes.. and then later, bids hearts, maybe twice. You can start drawing some inferences. Did he have a 4 card spade suit? Maybe your hand and the auction can rule that out. Then you know, or at least strongly suspect he has a void. Maybe you can even guess which one it is, and make a lebenhshol lead in that suit for him to ruff and find an entry to your hand. If you can start imagining a void in his hand due to the auction where he only bid (delayed) hearts, the opponents have the same rights to this information without having to question it.

 

So while in principal I agree wtih negative inferences are not "alertable", I would alert each of these out of the spirit of full disclosure.

[awm]

I'm not arguing about what the rules should be here -- just explaining what the current rules are. Helene indicated that a negative inference means: "Partner knows something about my hand because I didn't make some other bid" whereas my claim is that a negative inference means: "Partner knows that I cannot have some certain hand that other people might have for my bidding, but the set of hands I can have is included in what other people could have."

 

---------------------------------

 

As for whether negative inferences should be alertable, it's a pretty complicated situation. Suppose I open 2♥ "weak" in a regular partnership. Partner probably knows a lot of things about my hand, including:

 

(1) What are my approximate suit quality requirements? Do I need two of the top three honors? One of the top three? None?

 

(2) Can I have a five-card heart suit? If so, are the suit quality requirements more stringent? Could I have a 3-5-3-2 type pattern?

 

(3) Could I have four spades?

 

(4) How much can I have outside my suit? Is an outside ace allowed? Two outside cards? None?

 

(5) Could I have a seven card heart suit?

 

(6) Can I have an outside void? A 6-5 hand with a five-card minor?

 

All of this is information partner probably has, if only implicitly by having played a few thousand hands with me. Opponents probably don't have this information. Our convention card probably says something about our "overall style" (like if we frequently open five card suits it might say something) but will not address all of these points.

 

However, while it's certainly the case that partner has more information than the opponents, that doesn't necessarily mean that my weak two bid should be alertable. If it did, then all bids in a regular partnership would be alertable. If opponents are likely to care about this stuff they should know to ask. We have to draw the line somewhere, and negative inferences are probably a reasonable (if not best possible) place.

 

To take another example, say I pass in first seat. Partner probably knows:

 

(1) Do I open all 12s? All 11s? What is my maximum possible strength in a balanced passed hand?

 

(2) Do I open more aggressively with shape than with a balanced hand? If I'm 5-5 in two suits, what's my maximum for a pass? Do we have conventional openings to show shapely weak hands?

 

(3) Is my opening count different with a five-card major than without?

 

Again, to some degree opponents need to know to ask. If my pass actually guarantees values, then something weird is going on (forcing pass? semi-forcing pass?) and we need an alert. But just varying my maximum strength pass probably shouldn't be an alert. Certainly there are situations (mostly in the play) where opponents would like to have this information, but that doesn't mean it becomes alertable. Of course, this is part of why very light openings are a pre-alert in ACBL-land, even though almost no one changes their defensive bidding methods to react to it.

[rbforster]

You can look at any call as showing "one of some set of hands" by partnership agreement. A negative inference is a hand or type of hand which is excluded from the set of possible hands.

 

So in other words, if my hand might look different (by agreement) from what opponents would expect for a call, then partner should alert. If my hand will always be one of the "expected" hands but there are a few "expected" hands which in fact are not possibilities, then no alert.

 

I like your effort to define this sort of negative information in a precise way, but I fear it's more complicated than that.

 

If my pass actually guarantees values, then something weird is going on (forcing pass? semi-forcing pass?) and we need an alert.

 

This doesn't fit quite as nicely into your classification however. If you play Lorenzo Two's (where all 0-7 hands make a weak 2 bid), your pass promises 8-11. Most people pass with these hands too. So the fact that a pass in this system promises values is only a negative inference and hence shouldn't be alerted (since afterall you are still passing with a strict subset of the "expected" passing hands).

 

I'm not saying I have a strong opinion about whether or not a constructive pass should be alerted or not, but your comment about needing an alert in this case is at odds with your earlier suggestion not to alert in cases of negative inferences.

[mgoetze]

If a bid is not covered by the above rules, do not alert if

- a suit bid shows at least 4 cards in this major or 3 cards in this minor or

- an nt bid shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand or is non-forcing

 

Alert all other bids.

 

So you want alerts in auctions such as:

 

1♥-p-2♥*-p-p-dbl-p-2♠**-p-p-p

 

*Alert because it might show as few as 3 hearts, or in some rare cases even a doubleton honor!

 

**Alert because it might rarely have only 3 spades, e.g. KQ9.

 

My understanding was that negative inferences were defined a little differently than Helene was suggesting. You can look at any call as showing "one of some set of hands" by partnership agreement. A negative inference is a hand or type of hand which is excluded from the set of possible hands.

 

Sets are really quite agnostic about what operations were performed to generate them. Especially since we are dealing with finite sets. So the following sets of hands which might pass:

 

A. Any 13+ hand.

 

B. Any hand whatsoever, except those which happened to be covered by another opening bid (which in turn cover all 0-12 hands).

 

are one and the same, no matter how much legalese-speak you use to try and seperate them.

[david_c]

I don't think it's necessary to define "negative inference" precisely. Alerting regulations are usually subjective anyway, for example in the EBU we alert bids which have a "potentially unexpected meaning" and this is not clarified except by way of examples. (We have lots of examples.) So it seems OK to say "negative inferences are not generally alertable" without having to define exactly what we mean. People will understand.

 

For what it's worth, the EBU's rule about negative inferences is:

 

Players should not alert: ...

 

(l) Any bid where the partnership has an agreement over alternative possible calls that affect this one, unless it is in another alertable category. For example, see (c )(5), (e)(2) and (g) above. Also the 3♥ bid in the auction 1NT (pass) 2♦ (dbl) pass (3♦) 3♥ would not be alertable just because the partnership plays a 3♥ response to 1NT as pre-emptive.

 

[The examples are:]

 

(c )(5) A natural opening bid of 4♥ or 4♠ when the partnership also has a South African Texas 4♣ or 4♦ or similar artificial bid in its system.

 

(e)(2) A 1♦ response to 1♣ that will only include a major if strong: for example, as in 'Walsh' responses.

 

(g) A 1NT rebid that may include a 4-card major.

[barmar]

This doesn't fit quite as nicely into your classification however. If you play Lorenzo Two's (where all 0-7 hands make a weak 2 bid), your pass promises 8-11. Most people pass with these hands too. So the fact that a pass in this system promises values is only a negative inference and hence shouldn't be alerted (since afterall you are still passing with a strict subset of the "expected" passing hands).

 

I'm not saying I have a strong opinion about whether or not a constructive pass should be alerted or not, but your comment about needing an alert in this case is at odds with your earlier suggestion not to alert in cases of negative inferences.

I think this tends to be covered by the rule that highly unexpected meanings should be alerted, which supercedes the rule that negative inferences don't need to be alerted. Unless Lorenzo Two's are common in your area, the very narrow range of an opening pass is very unusual.