Alert or no Alert?

[pbleighton]

On-topic: do the ACBL rules forbid alerting cuebids

 

They specifically allow any alert you feel is appropriate.

 

Peter

[helene_t]

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

OK, if someone choses not to alert I shouldn't call him "unethical". I believe people chose not to alert because they believe that non-alerting is the ethical thing to do. I just happen to disagree with that judgement. If the lawmakers had wanted us not to alert certain calls, they would have made it illegal to alert them. In the Netherlands it's illegal to alert doubles. Weak jump raises, on the other hand, are explicity not alert-requiring but it's still recomended to alert them if playing against beginners who may assume jump raises to be constructive.

 

Theoretically you could ask opps if they want you to alert non-standard treatments that technically don't require an alert. Sometimes you get a firm "no", maybe with a proud undertone of "we're used to dealing with non-standard stuff, you can't surprise us". But as for those opps who might benefit for such extended alerts, it doesn't work. Most people don't know what is alertable and what is standard (I don't know either), many don't know that they don't know. Some will respond "please alert everything that is not Acol" (oh boy!).

[SoTired]

No alert.

 

Reason: Certain bids are "self-alerting" by their very nature, and I believe that is why the ACBL does not alert them anymore. Q-bids and dbls fall into that category.

 

A q-bid is an obvious "self-alert". An interested opp should immediately assertain the meaning of the q-bid because so many people play them differently, it would be foolish to assume some common meaning.

[blackshoe]

There are a lot of foolish bridge players. :)

 

"Ethical" means different things to different people. In particular, some people define it to include "what's fair" (in their opinion) or according to their own personal ethics. This goes beyond the bridge meaning of the term, which is "in accordance with the laws and regulations in force". The ACBL alert regulation explicitly states that top and bottom cue bids do not require an alert, so not alerting is completely ethical. It also explicitly states that there is no penalty for alerting unnecessarily, so there is no harm in alerting, if the player wants to do that.

 

I don't see the term "self-alert" in the ACBL regulation, but then the ACBL doesn't seem to be in the habit of explaining to players why they make the regulations they do. Clarification of what is deemed to be "self-alerting" would at least allow TDs to suggest to players that they should ask about such calls even if not alerted, with perhaps a bit more justification than currently exists.

[Trinidad]

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.

If cuebids are considered to be self alerting, then the opponents should be allowed to ask for the meaning of any cuebid without getting in trouble.

 

Therefore, after 1♣-(2♣), you simply ask for the meaning of 2♣. You do that always, whether you are interested in bidding or not. If you only do that when you are considering bidding then you are giving your partner UI.

 

Rik

[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.

If cuebids are considered to be self alerting, then the opponents should be allowed to ask for the meaning of any cuebid without getting in trouble.

 

Therefore, after 1♣-(2♣), you simply ask for the meaning of 2♣. You do that always, whether you are interested in bidding or not. If you only do that when you are considering bidding then you are giving your partner UI.

 

Rik

If cue-bids are self-alerting, we wouldn't need to alert when they are natural.

[cherdano]

The ACBL doesn't say that cuebids are self-alerting, it just says that most cuebids are not alertable. Only cuebids with a highly unexpected meaning are alertable.

(To me this would sound like top+bottom cuebids of a minor should be alertable, but the examples don't follow that logic...)

[blackshoe]

"Highly unexpected" is an extremely nebulous concept.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would alert.

 

In Germany, we dont alert doubles, we play

several non mainstream meanings for the double

and we try to inform the oppoennets.

 

We leave it to them, if we should alert or not.

 

For whats it worth, if they cue bid, I always ask.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[barmar]

"Highly unexpected" is an extremely nebulous concept.

But it's necessary, because it would be infeasible for the alert regulation to cover every case explicitly. Most players who play very unusual methods know it, so they don't have a problem. The problem with this vague definition mainly comes up for travelers -- foreigners often assume that their local methods are familiar, and don't realize that they're considered weird when they visit remote areas.

 

I personally think ACBL's "cue bids are self-alerting" rule is too simplistic. When it was first written, the thinking was presumably, "they're obviously not natural, so there's no need to alert". But those were the days when things like negative/responsive doubles and transfers were still alertable; the general idea was to alert most artificial bids. They've since shifted to a theme of alerting unexpected meanings, and in this spirit they should have made unusual cue bids alertable. Or perhaps this is another place where announcements would be appropriate: Michaels and natural could be alertable, everything else would not be; they would be self-alerting, and opponents could ask.

[cherdano]

I personally think ACBL's "cue bids are self-alerting" rule is too simplistic. When it was first written, the thinking was presumably, "they're obviously not natural, so there's no need to alert". But those were the days when things like negative/responsive doubles and transfers were still alertable; the general idea was to alert most artificial bids. They've since shifted to a theme of alerting unexpected meanings, and in this spirit they should have made unusual cue bids alertable.

I said it above, but I will repeat it: cue bids are not self-alerting in the ACBL, it is just that only cuebids with highly unexpected (instead of your "unexpected") meanings are alertable. E.g. (1S) 2D (P) 2S=clubs is alertable; I suppose this means every Rubens transfer cuebid is alertable.

[barmar]

But it's not obvious whether Top-and-Bottom cue bids are considered "highly unexpected" -- hence this thread. They're very similar to Michaels in that they show two suits, they just show a different pair of suits, and in fact one of the known suits is always the same for both conventions (when used over a major they both show the other major, and when used over a minor they both show Spades).

 

So does that similarity make them only unexpected, but not highly unexpected? These days, the only direct cue bids that are really expected in ACBL territory are Michaels; maybe if they're LOLs you might also expect old-fashioned strong takeout. But many books on competitive bidding talk about Top-and-Bottom. Is that enough to make them merely unexpected?

 

Many (perhaps most) people play that (1m)-3m is a natural preempt, usually hoping that opener's minor is short. I can't recall anyone ever alerting this, although natural cue bids are supposed to be alerted.

[markleon]

From the ACBL web page, on the alert chart, it states:

 

Cuebids

 

No Alert - Most Cue-bids *See Alertable Cue-bids*

 

Alert - Direct cue-bid of natural opening bid played as natural

 

To my reading, that says that Top-and-Bottom cue bids are not alertable.

[blackshoe]

The alert regulation (which is more definitive than the chart) says specifically that top and bottom cuebids are not alertable. Therefore, top and bottom cue bids are not alertable.

[Free]

From the ACBL web page, on the alert chart, it states:

 

Cuebids

 

No Alert - Most Cue-bids *See Alertable Cue-bids*

 

Alert - Direct cue-bid of natural opening bid played as natural

 

To my reading, that says that Top-and-Bottom cue bids are not alertable.

If this is the case, alerting the cuebid would mean your opponents (if they know the alerting regulations) will think it's natural and won't ask about the meaning of this bid! This is even more misleading than not alerting, so I wouldn't alert...

 

Alerting may even be considered as giving a wrong explanation imo.

[blackshoe]

If this is the case, alerting the cuebid would mean your opponents (if they know the alerting regulations) will think it's natural and won't ask about the meaning of this bid! This is even more misleading than not alerting, so I wouldn't alert...

 

Alerting may even be considered as giving a wrong explanation imo.

No way is alerting "giving a wrong explanation", even if some TDs think so. Not in the ACBL, at any rate, where the alert regulation specifically says

When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME.

[hrothgar]

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.

This makes life SO much easier

 

I'm simply going to alert every single bid that partner and I make. I can't ever get punished for a failure to alert. I can't ever get punished for over alerting.

 

Best of both worlds

[jdonn]

Alerting may even be considered as giving a wrong explanation imo.

You are clearly wrong about that.

 

The more I think about this the more I become convinced this bid should be alerted. Players should follow the spirit of the law first and foremost. If you simply ask yourself what is the literal purpose of even having an alert procedure, you will reach the obvious answer.

 

"The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically required in volunteering information to the opponents."

[sceptic]

surely if playing live bridge and cue bids like this are non alertable, the only reason an op would complain is if they never bothered to read your cc ?

 

also maybe the continuations may be alerteable

 

why alert something you have already given to the opps, the opps have to take some responsibility for reading your cc, if they chose not to surely this is a FAIR advantage

[jillybean]

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.

If cuebids are considered to be self alerting, then the opponents should be allowed to ask for the meaning of any cuebid without getting in trouble.

 

Therefore, after 1♣-(2♣), you simply ask for the meaning of 2♣. You do that always, whether you are interested in bidding or not. If you only do that when you are considering bidding then you are giving your partner UI.

 

Rik

If cue-bids are self-alerting, we wouldn't need to alert when they are natural.

Whoa! Are you saying you alert (1♣) 2♣ if natural?

[cherdano]

If cue-bids are self-alerting, we wouldn't need to alert when they are natural.

Whoa! Are you saying you alert (1♣) 2♣ if natural?

I don't know what TimG does, but the ACBL is pretty clear that this is alertable. :)

[TimG]

surely if playing live bridge and cue bids like this are non alertable, the only reason an op would complain is if they never bothered to read your cc ?

 

also maybe the continuations may be alerteable

 

why alert something you have already given to the opps, the opps have to take some responsibility for reading your cc, if they chose not to surely this is a FAIR advantage

When is it that you're supposed to check this section of the CC? If you say it should be done at the beginning of a round, then you're suggesting that there ought to be a rather thorough examination prior to each round. In a pairs event where you might face a dozen pairs in a single session, it is easy to imagine mixing up which pair it was where you saw the unusual cue-bid and which pair you saw the unusual NT range and which pair you saw the NF advances of overcalls, etc.

 

If the CC should be checked after the cue-bid is made, that is no different than asking for an explanation and carries with it all the same problems.

 

If I give the opponents my convention card, which has top and bottom cue-bids marked, and I don't alert my top and bottom cue-bid, the opponents won't think to look, they'll just assume it is what is common. (In my experience in ACBL-land, this top and bottom agreement is very uncommon -- if I faced 50 pairs over the course of a tournament, I would expect it much more likely that none of them were playing top and bottom than even as many as one pair were playing top and bottom.)

 

An alert at least wakes the opponents up to the notion that checking the CC in an especially good idea in this case.

 

In my opinion, the alert procedure is in place to make disclosure more efficient. It is not in place to exonerate a pair who discloses incompletely and then hides behind regulations. There should never be a "FAIR" advantage for sneaking something past the opponents.

[TimG]

I don't know what TimG does

Very few do! :)

[ralph23]

Not that it is a propos of anything here :) (it may be) but there is some ambiguity in the meaning of the term "non-alertable". It might mean:

 

1. Alert Forbidden. Don't alert this call -- if you do alert it, you did wrong and you may get punished.

2. Alert Not Required. You don't need to alert this call. I.e., there's no penalty if you fail to alert this call.

 

Some calls (like responses to keycard asks etc. and other calls after the auction has gone past 3nt in 2nd and later rounds, at least in acbl land) are in class 1.

 

And some are in class 2 -- e.g. in the old days (10 years ago?), you were supposed to alert if you opened 1♣ and partner bid 1M, if partner by agreement could skip over a diamond suit to bid his major suit. Nowadays, such a possible skip-over of ♦ is non-alertable (class 2), because it is pretty common after all, but there's no sanction imposed if you should (maybe you're relapsing to the olden tymes :D or maybe you just got confused or maybe you are too scrupulous) alert it.

[blackshoe]

Whoa! Are you saying you alert (1♣) 2♣ if natural?

The alert chart says you alert 2♣ in the auction (1♣)-2♣ if both club bids are natural. One implication of this is that if 1♣ is not natural, but 2♣ is, it need not be alerted.

 

The alert regulation doesn't seem to address this specific question.

 

Hrothgar: If, in a game I am directing, I find out that you are alerting every call your partner makes, even though most of them are not alertable, I will issue you a five yard penalty for delay of game. :)