Alertability -- ACBL Rules

[bid_em_up]

Are you saying that your 2M raise combines both the balanced 15-17 raise and the 11-14 distributional raise?

 

Or is 2M always the balanced 15-17, and 3M would be the distributional raise (like a K/S structure)?

[ralph23]

Are you saying that your 2M raise combines both the balanced 15-17 raise and the 11-14 distributional raise?

Well, yes, but:

 

1. With a balanced 17 count, I might & probably would jump to 3♥. Wouldn't you? Unless it's a really sucky 17 but even then a jump raise of responder's suit sounds like a better description.

 

2. No reason my unbalanced ♦ opening and ♥raise of responder's suit should be limited to 14. I have a hand that's good enough to raise to 2, not good enough to jump to 3. That should contain some unbalanced 15 HCP-count opening hands, I think.

 

With 16 unbalanced I probably have a jump to 3, but maybe there are some factors that militate against such a jump in some cases. Who knows without examining the actual hand, though...

 

The easier way to think about it is, what I don't have when I raise from 1♥ to 2♥. I don't have a minimum balanced hand; I would have opened that 1nt.

[jtfanclub]

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 if you do it with the same schlocky 3-4-5-1 11 count that everybody else does it with, then it really isn't a strong bid that sounds weak. Assuming that (like most people) you don't raise to 2♥ with most balanced hands with 3 card support, the most common hand that you'll have to raise to 2 with is the same as theirs.

 

I have asked, specifically, about a 1 diamond opener which will virtually always have two doubletons or a singleton. I was told not to alert it.

[ralph23]

Assuming that (like most people) you don't raise to 2♥ with most  balanced hands with 3 card support, the most common hand that you'll have to raise to 2 with is the same as theirs.

Well, I've only worked on the spreadsheet for about 40 minutes on this with the help of the Pavlicek bridge calculator etc., and it probably merits about 5 times that much but my ragged conclusions were:

 

1. When I, the weak notrumper, open 1m and then raise partner from 1M to 2M, I am a favorite (better than 2-to-1) to hold an unbalanced hand.

 

The reasons are basically two:

(i) the only balanced hands I can have are 15-16 HCP hands with a four-card ♥ suit, 4=4=3=2, 4=4=2=3, 4443 (with the 3 anywhere but ♥), and on some days 2=4=5=2 (the very popular 5332 distribution can't be one of them); and

 

(ii) 11-12-13-14-15 HCP count is a lot more likely than 15-16 HCP. While balanced hands (listed in (i) above) are still more likely than unbalnced ones, this is way outweighed by the big disparity in the 11-12-13-14-15 HCP versus the 15-16 HCP range frequency.

 

2. When Sam, the strong notrumper, opens 1m and then raises his partner from 1M to 2M, I believe that he is more likely to hold a balanced hand that was not strong enough to open 1nt, than an unbalanced hand.

 

I haven't tried to calculate the probabilities on this one. My guess is that it's not that wide a margin, however. You are basically comparing 12-13-14 balanced versus 11-12-13-14-15-maybe-16 unbalanced. If anyone cares to calculate it, I'd love to see your results.

Edited September 4, 2007 by ralph23

[awm]

The point about constructive raises isn't that they exclude the "bad single raises." This is a negative inference. The reason I see most people alert them is that they are frequently played as including hands on which standard bidders would make limit raises. Certainly 1M-2M as 3-card limit raise has to be alertable. Exactly where the boundary lies is probably a matter of opinion, and I'm sure you could get different directors to rule differently on it.

[blackshoe]

As one poster noted, ACBL Alert Regulations are deliberately fuzzy. Here's my take:

 

Announce the range of partner's opening 1NT bid, whatever it is.

If partner's 1NT rebid is strong, alert it.

If partner opens 1m and raises your 1M to 2, don't alert it unless it could be on 16-17 (with which strength most would expect a jump raise).

 

Nobody will shoot you if you always alert 2M in that auction. Nobody should shoot you if you don't, but nothing that happens at the bridge table really surprises me anymore.

[glen]

If the bidding went 1M-Pass-2M, would you alert 2M if it could be 6-12 points, 6-9 only if shapely?

 

If you would, you would also alert 1m-Pass-1M-Pass;-2M if it could be 11-17 points, 11-14 only if shapely.

[the hog]

♣♦♥♠

 

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."

Sorry I am very late for this reply.

 

This is 100% not alertable ANYWHERE. You are not at the table to give bridge lessons. You explain your opening bids and artificial bids, not negative inferences.

[zasanya]

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.....

My apologies.As you rightly point out it has nothing to do with alertability.

Was just curious because I play 12-14 NT and we never have faced this issue because with 15+ hand which lack support for P we rebid 1NT/2NT and which do have 4 card support for P will jump in responders suit.

[ralph23]

So..... does anyone think that an alert is actually REQUIRED by ACBL Rules, i.e. that if you fail to alert a 2♥ raise by opener after 1♦-1♥, then that was a violation of the alert rules, and consequently you may be subject to some sanction/correction for a failure to alert?

 

I know that you CAN alert it, if you feel like it; or if you want to "be safe" or whatever, you are permitted to alert it; and I know you won't get in trouble if you DO alert it.

 

My question is, however, does anyone believe that a failure to alert it will subject you to sanction?

 

I've not seen anyone express that particular belief, at least not straightforwardly.

 

If you do hold that belief, then:

 

(1) Art set out a pretty convincing argument, based on the actual alert rules, that the 2♥ rebid is not a required alert in ACBL-land. How do you refute that argument?

 

(2) Do you also think a 1♦ opener, by a player who COULD have opened a weak NT, but didn't, is also a required alert?

[jtfanclub]

So..... does anyone think that an alert is actually REQUIRED by ACBL Rules, i.e. that if you fail to alert a 2♥ raise by opener after 1♦-1♥, then that was a violation of the alert rules, and consequently you may be subject to some sanction/correction for a failure to alert?

No.

 

 

(2)  Do you also think a 1♦ opener, by a player who COULD have opened a weak NT, but didn't, is also a required alert?

 

No, and that one's official.

[uday]

Art said

 

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."

 

 

There is a gap. what about when the call shows "unusual strength, shape, etc" that is not "highly" unusual?

 

 

In ACBL land, it is probably unusual for 1m-1M-2M to show a flat 17 with 4 card trump support. Is it highly unusual ? Or equally, is it highly unusual for a single bid to have such a wide range ( 4441 11HCP or 4333 17HCP ) ?

 

i think so, so when i play KS I alert the 2M.

 

Seems the acbl regulation here is unclear, but we could easily ask Memphis & find out. Since we don't know what the rules are, it seems unreasonable to be penalized for failing to follow them but who knows what a TD will come up with at runtime ?

[glen]

Fred had a similar problem in July. It went 1♥-Pass-1NT-Pass;-2♥-All Pass. It turned out that 2♥ was about 14-17. The vugraph operator said the table had a discussion about alert rules when the hand was finished, but we were not told what the conclusion was.

[ralph23]

Art said

 

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."

 

There is a gap. what about when the call shows "unusual strength, shape, etc" that is not "highly" unusual?

Here is Art's argument (apologies to Art in advance for reworking his argument B) ):

 

Part A.

In the category "Natural calls not specifically noted" the following decision rules are stated:

 

1. you do not alert (i.e. you do not NEED to alert) if the call shows "about the expected strength and shape"

 

2. you do alert if the call shows "highly unusual strength, shape, etc."

 

All "natural calls not specifically noted" must be resolved by this rule.

 

Therefore, the only reading of the rule that makes sense -- and that allows the rule to resolve all controversies -- is to conclude that the two terms "about the expected strength and shape" and "highly unusual strength and shape" are collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive ("CE/ME").

 

In short, although semantically you may conclude there is a "gap", --- i.e. if you just use the English language and compare 1 and 2 -- in reality of application, there is not, and cannot be a gap, logically, because the decision rules are clearly intended to be CE/ME. Unless they are CE/ME, they cannot be effective decision rules.

 

Part B.

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.

 

That is, since a specific exception was made to Opener's 1NT rebid ... demonstrating that the powers-that-be knew how to make an exception to the general rule ... but no exception was made to the single raise ... it must be that there's no exception for it.

 

AND since both calls tend to convey almost the same information -- "Opener doesn't have a schlocky balanced hand" -- it must be that one's alertable (the 1nt rebid) and one's not (the simple major suit raise).

 

Anyway, that's my interpretation/unpacking of Art's argument. I would as a judge rule that there is no "semantic gap" as that needlessly introduces an interpretive problem that probably was not contemplated by the authors.

[ralph23]

Seems the acbl regulation here is unclear, but we could easily ask Memphis & find out. Since we don't know what the rules are, it seems unreasonable to be penalized for failing to follow them but who knows what a TD will come up with at runtime ?

I did recently ask a (very experienced) director this question at the Atlanta Labor Day Regional. (Just asked him socially, as an aside -- he wasn't called to the table to adjudicate a real question, we were just chatting during a break).

 

He did not think the opener's 2♥ rebid was alertable.

 

I did email Mike Flader yesterday about this question, but haven't heard back from him.

[ralph23]

So..... does anyone think that an alert is actually REQUIRED by ACBL Rules, i.e. that if you fail to alert a 2♥ raise by opener after 1♦-1♥, then that was a violation of the alert rules, and consequently you may be subject to some sanction/correction for a failure to alert?

No.

 

 

(2)  Do you also think a 1♦ opener, by a player who COULD have opened a weak NT, but didn't, is also a required alert?

 

No, and that one's official.

It's hard or impossible for me to understand how one of these could require an alert, and the other one doesn't. For weak notrumpers, both are conveying the same information about a bid that could have been, but wasn't, made.

[jtfanclub]

It's hard or impossible for me to understand how one of these could require an alert, and the other one doesn't.

I asked about the Precision 1 diamond opening, which had been discussed by the rules committee. That was an official no- as long as it showed a diamond suit and did not tend to be canape with a major, it should not be alerted. I hypothesize that they were concerned that if we sit down and say "we play Precision" and alert the 1 diamond call, that the opponents won't ask because they'll think they know.

 

I strongly believe that the 2 heart bid should not be alerted unless you do something else with schlocky unbalanced hands*, but I have nothing official on it.

 

I do think there's a very real danger in over-alerting. You can cause the opponents to get 'alert fatigue' and miss the important alerts, or they may misunderstand 'could be as many as 17 hcp' as 'frequently has a strong hand'.

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

*They do exist. Assuming 1NT is opened with a long minor unless 7-2-2-2 or a singleton or void....

 

1♦-1♥:

1♠ - Natural, weak

1NT - Natural, strong, promises shortness in partner's suit, may have long diamonds.

2♣ Weak, shortness in partner's suit, usually club tolerence, passable.

2♦ - 3 card support, weak

2♥ - 3+ card support in partner's suit, strong but not forcing. Includes upgraded 14-15 hcp hands.

2♠ - Weak splinter, 4+ cards in partner's suit.

2NT - GF

3♣ - Weak splinter

3♦ Natural, weak, short in partner's suit, long suit (7+).

 

So, you're following me in a Pairs game. When the 1♦-1♥-2♥ bid comes up, I say:

 

'14-17 hcp, 3+ card support, not forcing'

 

Then the next round comes up, when the same auction comes up, you say:

 

'Up to 17 hcp if balanced, 3+ card support, 4 if balanced, not forcing'.

 

Is your opponent going to imagine the schlocky 11 count your partner actually has, or the not-quite-enough-to-force-game my partner will tend to have?

[kenberg]

However, the ACBL says that its alerting regs are deliberately fuzzy

Peter

And they have been extremely successful in accomplishing this! No one I know has a clue as to what is alertable and what is not. As to the case at hand, 1m-1M-2M playing weak nt, I would alert but (see above) I have no idea if it is required and my guess is that you will get different answers from different directors, even at the level of NABCs. I would certainly not call a director if my opponents did not alert. Which of course means that those who do alert are spotting the other pairs in their direction who do not alert a bit of an advantage in a pairs event.

 

I had not realized fuzzy regulations were a deliberate goal, I thought the people who made up the regulations just hat their heads up... well never mind. Now that I know, it explains a lot.

[blackshoe]

The problem is that what's "highly unusual and unexpected" in say Rochester, NY may be completely unremarkable in San Diego, CA - and vice versa. So if the goal is to alert those things about which people are likely to want to ask questions, and not to alert those things withy which everybody is familiar, you can't have a regulation covering an entire zone that says "alert X call but don't alert Y call" unless you're sure that X should be alerted everywhere in the zone, and Y should not. So as the writer of the regulation you're kinda stuck, aren't you? :P

[helene_t]

There are very few cases in which you are not allowed to alert (2nd+ round 4+ calls, and in some jurisdictions also dbls and/or rdbls).

 

So if the rules say that natural calls generally do not require an alert and that negative inference generally does not require an alert, the general rule that unusual meanings do require an alert, still takes precedence.

 

But as for all the consequences of playing a weak 1NT, I suppose it's sufficient to pre-alert the notrump range. Advanced players will draw their conclusions, then. Lesser players won't care anyway. I would not alert this unless the laws and/or the local TC or director told me specifically to alert those calls.

[thebiker]

As an English player in EBU land I am amazed at the no of replies to this topic. Don’t bridge players have something better to do than write pages of geeky stuff on this most uninteresting area of the game?. No wonder no one wants to take up bridge any more! Bridge can never be a game of total disclosure, and we should not waste energy on trying to go down that road.

 

Regards

 

The Biker

[jtfanclub]

Don’t bridge players have something better to do than write pages of geeky stuff on this most uninteresting area of the game?

Knowing what parts of your system needs to be alerted for the jurisdiction you're going to be playing in is about as geeky as knowing what time the game starts.

[ralph23]

Don’t bridge players have something better to do than write pages of geeky stuff on this most uninteresting area of the game?

Well, as my Dad used to say, "Some people like ketchup on their watermelon." (Well, I actually never MET anyone who did, but that was his saying.)

 

Or as the Romans said, There's no accounting for taste (taste is not a matter for dispute).

 

Some people are interested in stuff that bores you. And vice versa. C'est la vie.

 

I doubt if it's a function of nationality btw.

[Echognome]

As an English player in EBU land I am amazed at the no of replies to this topic. Don’t bridge players have something better to do than write pages of geeky stuff on this most uninteresting area of the game?. No wonder no one wants to take up bridge any more! Bridge can never be a game of total disclosure, and we should not waste energy on trying to go down that road.

 

Regards

 

The Biker

So let's all give up and play anything goes bridge? I can position my pencil so that partner knows I'm minimum or maximum for my bidding. I can say DOUBLE or double? Why don't we play a different game where we all bid with our hands in full view and then play the contract out? Better yet, we can just get computers to do this for us and we don't even have to go the effort.

 

Sure this stuff may be boring to some, but trying to make yourself aware of the rules of the game so that you can play fair, seems to be a worthy enough venture.