Alert or no Alert?

[awm]

Partner and I have agreed to play top and bottom cuebids, so for example 1♣-2♣ shows diamonds and spades. This treatment is pretty non-mainstream in the USA, where most people play Michaels cuebids (so 1♣-2♣ for majors). However, the alert regulations are quite clear that most cuebids (including this one) are not alertable.

 

Playing in an NABC+ (national championship) event, should partner and I alert our cuebids? If trying to be ethical, should we follow the laws as they are written, or should we alert bids that are technically non-alertable so as not to get an unfair advantage over opponents who might assume Michaels without asking or looking at a CC?

 

In theory it's possible to get in trouble for alerting a non-alertable bid, but in practice this will almost never happen.

[ralph23]

I would alert it to avoid all the lawyering I will have to do if I don't alert it and someone gets huffy about the non-alerting.

 

I cannot imagine getting into trouble by following this policy, but my imagination has been known to be limited.

[hrothgar]

Partner and I have agreed to play top and bottom cuebids, so for example 1♣-2♣ shows diamonds and spades. This treatment is pretty non-mainstream in the USA, where most people play Michaels cuebids (so 1♣-2♣ for majors). However, the alert regulations are quite clear that most cuebids (including this one) are not alertable.

 

Playing in an NABC+ (national championship) event, should partner and I alert our cuebids? If trying to be ethical, should we follow the laws as they are written, or should we alert bids that are technically non-alertable so as not to get an unfair advantage over opponents who might assume Michaels without asking or looking at a CC?

 

In theory it's possible to get in trouble for alerting a non-alertable bid, but in practice this will almost never happen.

Almost makes me think back fondly to the old "special alert".

 

First and foremost, I think the Memphis's opinion on this one is more important than ours. I'd ask them and hope that you get one answer.

 

Personally, i think that the correct course of action depends on the nature of the event. If I were playing in a team event, I would pre-alert the opponents and ask them whether they would like you to alert or not.

 

If I were playing in a pairs event with short rounds, I would (probably) speak to the director before hand and ask for clarification. If I were forced to chose a course of action with no guidance, I would adhere to the letter or the law and not alert.

[helene_t]

IRL follow the regulations. Online active ethics.

[jtfanclub]

Partner and I have agreed to play top and bottom cuebids, so for example 1♣-2♣ shows diamonds and spades.

Pre-alert. It's safe, it's easy, and while somebody might whine, it's clearly legal.

 

Other than that, yeah, ask the director before you start, what else can you do?

[pclayton]

I've asked directors about this. Even though a direct cue bid doesn't require an alert, the bid has a special meaning. In Overcall Structure, the cue shows the two touching suits to the opening bid and a very wide range. The director told me that alerting can never be wrong in a case like this.

 

Put it this way. Regardless of what the regulations say, wouldn't you want to know about your opponent's agreements?

[pclayton]

Partner and I have agreed to play top and bottom cuebids, so for example 1♣-2♣ shows diamonds and spades.

Pre-alert. It's safe, it's easy, and while somebody might whine, it's clearly legal.

 

Other than that, yeah, ask the director before you start, what else can you do?

Pre-alerting technically only applies to midchart agreements and very special carding agreements, like low from xx.

 

Mind you, as a courtesy, I'll prealert overcall structure, since the 1N overcall is tricky to defend against if you don't have good agreements. I'll also pre-alert our 2N opening for the minors.

[scoob]

acbl alert procedures

 

EXAMPLE: 1♦-2♦

If the 2 bid shows the majors (Michaels), clubs and spades (top/bottom) or some other two-suiter (not including diamonds, no Alert is required.

 

edit to add:

 

acbl alert definitions

 

Alerts: Many previously Alertable calls no longer require an Alert. However, when in doubt Alert (there is no penalty for Alerting unnecessarily but there may be one for failing to Alert when one is required).

 

this actually surprised me...

[awm]

This isn't a Laws question BTW. The regulations are clear that the cuebid is not alertable. Regardless of how confused the opponents get, no director or committee will rule against us because we didn't alert a non-alertable bid.

 

It's possible that we could get in trouble by alerting, particularly if I forget the meaning of 2♣ and partner's alert "wakes me up" to what has occurred, but in practice this is never going to be an issue because partner and I aren't in the habit of forgetting our methods. :P

 

It's really more of an ethical question: "what should we do when the letter of the laws seems to conflict with active ethics?"

[TimG]

This isn't a Laws question BTW. The regulations are clear that the cuebid is not alertable. Regardless of how confused the opponents get, no director or committee will rule against us because we didn't alert a non-alertable bid.

 

It's possible that we could get in trouble by alerting, particularly if I forget the meaning of 2♣ and partner's alert "wakes me up" to what has occurred, but in practice this is never going to be an issue because partner and I aren't in the habit of forgetting our methods. :P

 

It's really more of an ethical question: "what should we do when the letter of the laws seems to conflict with active ethics?"

Ask the director of the event you are playing in whether it is OK for you to alert. If he says "yes", then alert; if he says "no" then don't alert.

[keylime]

I'm borderline on the fence since, since we play an offshoot of the Overcall Structure. I voted for the "cuebids alert themselves" mentality, but I'm considering adding a tag line to our canape pre-alert to address this, because we play specific 2 suiters.

[ArcLight]

>It's really more of an ethical question: "what should we do when the letter of the laws seems to conflict with active ethics?"

 

 

I would just pre-alert.

 

 

What would you do if you played agains't a pair and they made a Michaels cue bid.

You bid accordingly. And later found out it wasn't Michales. You only assumed it was, because thats what everyone uses.

Should you ask the see their card on certain types of bids? Does that create an ethical problem? It also slows the game down a bit.

 

Lets say you don't alert. Won't most people assume its Michaels. Lets say they get "burned". Won't they be annoyed.

 

I think not pre-alerting has the potential to create ill feelings. Whiel pre-alerting is a basic courtesy.

[paulg]

I alert them in the ACBL but I only play at the Summer Nationals (elsewhere it is mandatory to alert).

 

David Stevenson alerts them in the ACBL.

 

It's hard to see how anyone can be damaged by the alert. It the regulations are ambiguous, as they are here (do not alert cue bids, alert unusual stuff), then taking the option that is most likely to benefit the opponents seems sensible and defensible.

 

Paul

[cherdano]

I would definitely alert them.

[han]

I don't feel strongly about alerting or not. In ACBL land the cuebid is considered self-alerting, so opponents are recommended to ask about your bid. When I play Rubens advances I do alert even though it is not required.

 

Prealerting doesn't make sense, this is not a convention that requires preparation. If you think that it is so special that the opponents should be informed, just alert.

[pbleighton]

I would alert. The ACBL states in their alerting regs that when in doubt alert, and that you can never be penalized for over-alerting. I would not pre-alert, as most people hate it, and want you to alert instead.

 

Pre-alerting technically only applies to midchart agreements and very special carding agreements, like low from xx.

 

Phil, you also have to pre-alert any fundamentally unfamiliar systems, such as very light openers, opening at the two level with Qxxxx or worse or the three level with Qxxxxx or worse, or canape systems.

 

Peter

[blackshoe]

I would not alert it. I would not pre-alert it. I might ask opponents, at the end of the auction, if I am declaring, if they would like an explanation of our auction.

 

Is "active ethics" (whatever that means) not applicable in real life? :)

[pbleighton]

Is "active ethics" (whatever that means) not applicable in real life?

 

It's as applicable as you choose it to be.

 

Peter

[TimG]

Phil, you also have to pre-alert any fundamentally unfamiliar systems, such as very light openers, opening at the two level with Qxxxx or worse or the three level with Qxxxxx or worse, or canape systems.

Is it true that you have to pre-alert canapé in ACBL events?

[TimG]

I would not alert it. I would not pre-alert it. I might ask opponents, at the end of the auction, if I am declaring, if they would like an explanation of our auction.

At the end of the auction is likely too late. After 1♣-2♣, I would assume majors and think that both 2♥ and 2♠ were cue-bids. If the actual agreement is spades and diamonds, then my bidding may well be confused.

[pbleighton]

Is it true that you have to pre-alert canapé in ACBL events?

 

From the Alert Procedures:

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertProcedures.html

 

 

PART III: PRE-ALERTS

 

Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning system of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare. Pre-Alerts must be given before the auction period begins on the first board of a round or match.

 

1) "TWO-SYSTEM" METHODS

 

Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is agreeing to play a forcing-club system not vulnerable and "two over one" vulnerable.

 

Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods still require normal Announcements (notrump ranges; transfers) or Alerts (forcing Stayman over some notrump ranges) when appropriate.

 

As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents' methods.

 

2) SYSTEMS BASED ON VERY LIGHT OPENINGS OR OTHER HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE METHODS

 

If it is your partnership style to routinely open hands with fewer than 11 HCP, preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx) suits, and/or overcalls with fewer than 6 HCP at the one level, the opponents must be pre-Alerted.

 

3) SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS

 

Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include either strong or weak notrumps with or without five-card majors. The forcing opening bid will most often be an artificial forcing opening of 1 or 2 .

 

When you play a system structured along different agreements than these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canapé system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction begins (a 10-12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the opponents.

 

Peter

[jdonn]

I would alert. It seems to me the spirit of the alert procedure is to make your opponents aware of what they would want to be aware of so that the game is fair. Of course you can't be a mind reader, but it's not hard to see they could easily want to know what this bid means during the auction, but are quite unlikely to think to ask.

 

I'd rather not create a world where I have to ask what a bid means when this is one of four times a decade I come up against it with a different meaning than all the other times.

 

This talk about pre-alerting is a red herring. That is just a term used by the ACBL, or WBF, or bridge players, or whatever. What people mean is to just let your opponents know before the round. I see nothing wrong with that.

[helene_t]

Is "active ethics" (whatever that means) not applicable in real life? :P

I used to think so, lol. Oops that was for the water cooler ......

 

On-topic: do the ACBL rules forbid alerting cuebids, or do they make it optional? If it's optional, you should default to alerting whenever opps might otherwise misunderstand, which is obviously the case here. This must apply to ACBL online tourneys.

 

If the rules forbid alerting cuebids, of course you must adhere to the rules.

 

I don't see how this can be an issue at all, unless the laws are unclear. The ACBL alert definitions say

(there is no penalty for Alerting unnecessarily but there may be one for failing to Alert when one is required).

As I read this, the ethical thing to do is to alert.

[Stephen Tu]

Since the ACBL published alert procedure explicitly spells out with examples alerting Rubens advance cue bids transferring to the higher suit but *not* alerting top & bottom cues, that's what I do. Though I do think it would be better if both were alertable, falling under the general alert "unusual + unexpected" principle. Another example of the typically random ACBL regs, driving the logically thinking people among us bridge players insane.

[paulg]

I believe it is wrong to say that it is ethical to alert, with the natural implication that it is unethical not to alert.

 

The alerting laws are quite explicit. Cue bids do not require an alert. That is not the same as saying that an alert would not be helpful, but abiding by the rules is ethical behaviour.

 

So I alert, but respect others who decide not to.

 

Paul