Alertability -- ACBL Rules

[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

 

We are having some discussion about the alertability under ACBL rules of weak NT openings (we play a 11-to-14 HCP range whenever we are NV).

 

Actually, the question is not when NT is actually bid (or even rebid by opener at his second call), but when opener opens 1 of a minor, and raises responder's major suit response from 1 level to 2 level (when we are NV e.g., 1♦ opening by South; 1♥ by North, raised to 2♥ by South, with EW silent).

 

The question is whether EW are owed an alert upon the 2♥ bid by South in this example, based upon the availability of (but the non-use of) a weak NT opening by South.

 

If EW asked "Explain the alert please" then North's full explanation might be "We play weak NT at this vulnerability. Had South possessed a balanced hand with 11-14 HCP he would have opened 1NT, and not 1 diamond. Therefore, for his 2♥ raise, he should have ♥s with either (1) a balanced hand with 15 to (say) 17 HCP, or (2) an unbalanced hand. But he shouldn't have some schlocky balanced hand."

 

>>>Pro-alertability: "Weak NT is a bit unusual. The 2 heart rebid by opener conveys this "somewhat unusual" information to responder and EW are entitled to an alert."

 

>>>Con-alerability: "All bids are natural. If you're going to alert 2 hearts, why start there? Why not alert the 1 diamond opening bid, and say "He doesn't have a schlocky balanced hand with 10-14 HCP (i.e. give the same information you would give in the above example)? But alerting 1♦ seems preposterous. So by parity of reasoning, alerting 2♥ can't be required."

Edited September 4, 2007 by ralph23

[ArcLight]

What about pre-alerting "We use an 11-14 NT" at the start of each set of boards.

[jillybean]

You must annouce your 1nt range

[hrothgar]

In general, the ACBL doesn't require that people alert negative inferences arising from a bid not chosen. The classic example would be an auction like

 

1♥ - 1♠

 

or

 

1♥ - 1NT

 

when a Flannery bid was available, but not used. Playing Flannery, a 1NT response to a 1♥ opening could conceal a 4 card Spade suit, yet the response is not alertable in any way, shape, or form.

 

Furthermore, I would argue that this specific case is one where the opponents should (reasonably) be expected to protect themselves. Whats the first thing that you check on the opponent's Convention Card? Their NT range... (Well, if this isn't #1, then very near the top of the list)

 

Alerts, announcements, and the like should be viewed as a supplement to the Convention Card. They aren't a replacement for it.

[pbleighton]

The anwer depends on how sound your 1m opener's are. If they are pretty sound, and you therefore have 15-17 support points (includes distribution), you should alert it. If they can be light, there is no need to alert.

 

BTW, I assume you're alerting your 1NT rebid as 15-17?

 

Peter

[zasanya]

Over 1♥ doesnt opener bid 3♥ with 17 points (if not 15) and 4 card ♥?Or is 2♥ forcing?

[ralph23]

What about pre-alerting "We use an 11-14 NT" at the start of each set of boards.

So do you think everyone who plays weak NT in ACBL-land ....

 

(1) Must do this?

 

(2) Should do this?

 

Of course, you can do this pre-alert thingie if it helps salve your conscience.

 

But suppose your conscience isn't all that sensitive and you just don't want to bother with unrequired alerts/pre-alerts... are you subject to some possible sanction if you fail to alert the 2♥ bid?

[iggygork]

When I play a weak NT (10-12 or 12-14), I always alert the single major suit raise by opener when playing in club games and all tournaments except KOs. In the Pacific Northwest most people play a strong NT and I feel that it is my duty to inform them that I will not hold a hand (weak NT with four trumps or three to an honor plus shortness on the side) that they would expect. In KOs, I make a pre-alert and invite the opps to look at the card.

 

As ACBL Alert regulations are permissive rather than prohibitive (i.e. there is an emphasis on alerting although it may not be required or opps might be expected to know) and I would rather have full disclosure than selective disclosure, this works for me. I am yet to be taken to task, of course your mileage may vary.

[ralph23]

You must annouce your 1nt range

Yes, when you OPEN 1nt. You don't announce it, e.g., when you OVERCALL 1nt.

 

And we do alert a 1nt rebid by the opener when NV, e.g. 1♣ North - 1♥ South - 1nt North.

 

 

Question is, what if you raise responder's major suit from 1 to 2, though?

[cherdano]

In Germany, you are supposed to inform yourself about opponent's NT range before the start of the round. Oddly enough, people even actually do that, even the LOLs in a local club.

[ralph23]

The anwer depends on how sound your 1m opener's are. If they are pretty sound, and you therefore have 15-17 support points (includes distribution), you should alert it. If they can be light, there is no need to alert.

 

BTW, I assume you're alerting your 1NT rebid as 15-17?

 

Peter

Yes, opener's rebid of 1nt showing 15-17 is alerted, and I believe this is required by ACBL rules.

 

I may be being obtuse, and don't doubt that at all :P ,but I don't follow the logic of alertability depending on how strong/weak/sound/awful our 1-of-a-minor openings are.

 

Those openings could be balanced or unbalanced, obviously.

 

1. If it's unbalanced, then I miss the entire point of alerting anyway.... we use the Rule of 20 as an opening guideline here as a general matter. But I would open:

 

♠T987

♥AT97

♦AKT8

♣7

 

even though it's "only" a 19 on the Rule of 20 scale. But surely the answer to alertability can't depend on our philosophy on unbalanced hands! Opener's not going to open/rebid NT with those anyhow...

 

2. If I have a balanced hand and open 1♦, then you can be sure I don't have a balanced hand with 11-14 HCP. I might have 15 all the way up to 19 points, and when I raise responder from 1♥ to only 2♥, then if I'm balanced I only have a max of 17, as I'd jump to 3♥ with 18.

 

I think I'm missing your reasoning here, which wouldn't be unusual :rolleyes:

[ralph23]

Over 1♥ doesnt opener bid 3♥ with 17 points (if not 15) and 4 card ♥?Or is 2♥ forcing?

No, of course it's not forcing. Opener's just describing his hand. With 17 HCP balanced and 4 trumps, jump to 3♥ if you want, or bid just 2♥ if you want. That's a matter of some judgment and style.

 

I don't understand what that has to do with alertability, however, sorry.....

[jtfanclub]

If EW asked "Explain the alert please" then North's full explanation might be "We play weak NT at this vulnerability. Had South possessed a balanced hand with 11-14 HCP he would have opened 1NT, and not 1 diamond. Therefore, for his 2♥ raise, he should have ♥s with either (1) a balanced hand with 15 to (say) 17 HCP, or (2) an unbalanced hand. But he shouldn't have some schlocky balanced hand."

Couldn't he have some schlocky unbalanced hand?

 

It does not need to be alerted, unless it promises extra strength. That a bid tends to promise a not-balanced hand is not alertable in and of itself. Off-hand, I cannot think of a single exception.

 

Of course, if you want to alert it, good for you.

[ralph23]

In Germany, you are supposed to inform yourself about opponent's NT range before the start of the round. Oddly enough, people even actually do that, even the LOLs in a local club.

A sensible philosophy. ACBL is a bit more paternalistic :rolleyes: , requiring the NT opener's partner to announce the range on an opening 1nt, and (I believe) to alert a 1nt rebid by opener if playing weak NT openers. (We alert that, anyhow.)

 

Having opened Pandora's box with these policies, or having gotten on the slippery slope thereby, the question is .... well, when you do stop? (That is the well known problem of course with slippery slopes.)

 

Do you require an alert of opener's simple raise of responder's 1♥ or 1♠ bid?

 

And, Why don't you require an alert of opener's 1♣ bid? "Alert! Yes? He doesn't have a schlocky balanced hand.... he'd open 1nt with that."

[awm]

Likely this depends on the meaning of the single raise.

 

What I mean is, if the single raise is often a substantially better hand than would make a single raise playing strong notrumps (i.e. 16-17 balanced are normal single raises) then it should be alertable on the same reasoning that constructive raises of major suit openings are alertable (unexpected strength).

 

If the single raise hands are pretty similar to single raises that strong notrumpers play, except that they exclude the weak notrump hand (so most single raises are unbalanced minimums, maybe a balanced 15 is ok) then you probably don't need to alert, since the "not a balanced hand" thing is just a negative inference.

[ralph23]

Couldn't he have some schlocky unbalanced hand?

Yes, of course. If he has an unbalanced hand, it doesn't matter what our NT range is.... he's not going to open (or rebid) NT in any case.

[ArtK78]

The alert chart on the ACBL website lists the following:

 

In the category "Natural calls not specifically noted" you do not alert if the call shows "about the expected strength and shape" but you do alert if the call shows "highly unusual strength, shape, etc."

 

Further down the alert chart, under Opener's and Responder's Rebids, it is specifically noted that a 1NT rebid, if strong, is alertable. But there is nothing stated about opener's single raise of responder's one level response. So, one must rely on the explanation above.

 

If the ACBL intended for the single raise of responder's one-over-one response to be alertable when it shows about 15-17 HCP or distribution, the ACBL could have included that requirement in the alert chart where it shows that the strong 1NT rebid is alertable. But the ACBL did not do so. The conclusion that I draw from this is that the single raise showing a strong balanced hand or a distributional hand is not alertable.

 

In my experience, I have run across pairs who do alert a single raise by opener of responder's one-over-one bid when the pair is playing a weak notrump. But I have never heard from any authority that such an alert is required. It is certainly far from clear from the ACBL alert chart. Would you consider a 17 HCP hand with 4 hearts to be a "highly unusual strength" for a single raise of a 1H response? I suspect that one might consider it ususual, as most play the range for a single raise as about 12-15 HCP. But "highly unusual?" I don't think that would require an alert.

 

If you want to be on the safe side, I do not see any harm in making a "courtesy alert" of a single raise of responder's one-over-one response. But I do not believe that it is required.

[ralph23]

It does not need to be alerted, unless it promises extra strength. That a bid tends to promise a not-balanced hand is not alertable in and of itself. Off-hand, I cannot think of a single exception.

Well.... it does promise that IF opener is balanced, he doesn't have a balanced minimum. If he had a minimum he would have of course opened with 1nt. So, that in a way suggests "extra strength" ....

 

Our rather anecdotal analysis tends to show that indeed, as you suspect, on the auction 1m - 1M - 2M when non-vul and playing weak NT, opener will more likely than not be UNbalanced, simply because holding an 11-12-13-14 count is so much more likely than holding a 15-16 count, and the a priori relative frequency of balanced hands with specifically-one-or-two-4-card-suits v. unbalanced hands isn't enough to outweigh this.

[jillybean]

You must annouce your 1nt range

Yes, when you OPEN 1nt. You don't announce it, e.g., when you OVERCALL 1nt.

 

And we do alert a 1nt rebid by the opener when NV, e.g. 1♣ North - 1♥ South - 1nt North.

 

 

Question is, what if you raise responder's major suit from 1 to 2, though?

Pardon me, I was trying to make a distinction between alert and annouce in response to the previous reply. :rolleyes:

[ralph23]

Likely this depends on the meaning of the single raise.

 

What I mean is, if the single raise is often a substantially better hand than would make a single raise playing strong notrumps (i.e. 16-17 balanced are normal single raises) then it should be alertable on the same reasoning that constructive raises of major suit openings are alertable (unexpected strength).

Well, I don't know about "often" -- my analysis suggests so far that when weak NT is "on", then the auction 1♦ North - 1♥ South - 2♥ North is about a 2-to-1 favorite to be an UNbalanced (or nonbalanced) opening hand by North.

 

I guess my answer is, that *IF* Opener indeed does have a balanced hand, and raises Responder's one♥ to 2♥, then he does have extra strength over and above what strong Notrumpers would expect as a minimum ... i.e. Opener doesn't have just some schlocky balanced hand that has to raise to 2♥ because (1) he opened a 4 card minor and (2) he has 4 ♥ and (3) 1♥'s a forcing bid.

 

But of course, opener may not have a balanced hand at all. In which case, as jt observed, he may have a schlocky unbalanced hand. No inference can be made about that.

 

If you're going to require an alert of a 2♥ raise, are you going to require one of the 1♦ opening? Strong notrumpers don't expect this bid to be 15-17 balanced, although it sometimes is just that....

[hrothgar]

Likely this depends on the meaning of the single raise.

 

What I mean is, if the single raise is often a substantially better hand than would make a single raise playing strong notrumps (i.e. 16-17 balanced are normal single raises) then it should be alertable on the same reasoning that constructive raises of major suit openings are alertable (unexpected strength).

Are constructive raises really alertable?

 

I saw them played for years with nary a peep out of the opponents. Hell, I played them for ages (without alerting them) and was never informed that they required an alert.

 

I'd argue that these are much closer to "About expected strength and shape" than "Highly unusual strength, shape, etc."

 

(I'd prefer to see some kind of official opinion on this one)

[ralph23]

If the ACBL intended for the single raise of responder's one-over-one response to be alertable when it shows about 15-17 HCP or distribution, the ACBL could have included that requirement in the alert chart where it shows that the strong 1NT rebid is alertable. But the ACBL did not do so. The conclusion that I draw from this is that the single raise showing a strong balanced hand or a distributional hand is not alertable.

That seems to me like a rather convincing argument. The 1nt rebid by opener (showing 15-17 and a balanced hand) was specifically carved out, to make it alertable by the weak notrumpers. They didn't carve out other bids, such as raising responder from 1M to 2M, or opening 1m. Hence those non-carved-out bids are not alertable unless they meet the general standard of being "highly unusual" or whatever.

[mycroft]

Yes, negative inferences are generally not Alertable (the way one NTD put it to me is "if all the times you bid X, everybody playing "standard" would bid X as well, you don't need to Alert" (specifically on Constructive Raises)), but see this quote from the Alert Procedure:

 

"Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them."

 

Whenever I play weak NT, I alert 1m-1M; 2M under the "strong bids that sound weak" section. My explanation is "15-17 playing points in support of <M>; either a strong NT with 4 [it's more common to have a checkback hand after a strong NT rebid than a 12-14 one, so raising on 3 isn't as necessary], or a distributional hand with support". No need to explain why we bid that way, just what the call means.

 

But I tend to Alert if it's dubious, especially if I'm playing something weird (and at least out here, weak NT is something weird, and the biggest differene is in the 1m openings).

Michael.

[pbleighton]

Are constructive raises really alertable?

 

I have alerted (and heard it alerted) only when they are very constructive, i.e. 8-10. I have never heard it alerted as 7-10.

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

If you want to be on the safe side, I do not see any harm in making a "courtesy alert" of a single raise of responder's one-over-one response. But I do not believe that it is required.

 

You are correct in that you won't be penalized for not doing it.

 

However, the ACBL says that its alerting regs are deliberately fuzzy and that when in doubt, alert. I think 15-17 versus the field's 12-16 is a sufficient difference to be alerted.

 

Peter