Alertable in ACBL

[Elianna]

An argument came up between me and an opponent. Whom I can't stand. What's your opinion?

[blackshoe]

First, arguing with opponents is (a) a waste of time and (:) not in accordance with the laws of the game. If you have a disagreement, call the TD and let him settle it.

 

Second a 2♣ response to 1NT is never alertable if it asks opener to show a four card major. Read the alert procedure.

[rogerclee]

We'll never get a unanimous poll about a bidding decision, but let's hope we can at least get a unanimous poll about this.

[jdonn]

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

[matmat]

and there we have it. a non-unanimous vote...

[jchiu]

Mateusz just had to click on the monkey option!

[matmat]

Mateusz just had to click on the monkey option!

i didn't.

[Elianna]

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

[matmat]

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

what is the problem with this, exactly? :blink:

[gwnn]

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

All the more reason to opt for choice 3. :blink:

[rogerclee]

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

THIS GUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

 

Yes, I hate him.

[Elianna]

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

THIS GUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

 

Yes, I hate him.

No, you hate his partner. :P

 

Whereas, I think that his partner is nice, and that this guy is highly annoying.

[jdonn]

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

It may or may not have been clear, but my post was a pathetic attempt at humor, I have no idea who the person is that you are talking about.

[rogerclee]

I'm not sure why you can't stand this person. They seem nice!

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

THIS GUYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.

 

Yes, I hate him.

No, you hate his partner. :P

 

Whereas, I think that his partner is nice, and that this guy is highly annoying.

I dislike both of them pretty strongly.

[jillybean]

Rubbish! We do seem to have a number of different interpretations of the laws, by both players and TD’s and its frustrating.

[blackshoe]

Rubbish! We do seem to have a number of different interpretations of the laws, by both players and TD’s and its frustrating.

Don't pay any attention to those other people. If they disagree with me, they're clearly wrong. :P

[helene_t]

Well, this is also an opponent who explained his partner's 1NT overcall as "12-15, and we play systems on".

I wonder what the TD is supposed to do about this. A procedural penalty, adjustment to 2♥ in a 2-2 fit when advancer has spades, or both?

[mycroft]

Helene, start with education. Always.

 

If after two explanations of "you just Alert weak NT overcalls, and when asked, state 12-15" (frankly, I wouldn't mind if this were an Announcement, and I wouldn't mind if they did Announce, but if you call me over, I'll give the Book ruling" *by the TD*, they still do it, then we hit 'em with a PP. As a TD, I'd be watching and making sure I'd seeded the field with players who would call the TD for "overactive Alerting" on this pair.

 

You can't say "partner would forget" in this situation, but I guess you could threaten them with it :-) But I'd rather just tell them the rule, and make sure they follow it. There's enough hair-triggering and antagonism in the game as it is.

 

Michael.

[mycroft]

In the original case, of course, the rule is:

 

"No Alert is required for any bid of 2C over partner's 1NT opening ... if it requests opener to bid a four-card major, regardless of whether the Stayman bidder promises a four-card major."

 

... or if it promises or does not promise strength.

 

Having said that, I Alert my EHAA 1NT-2C auction, as its primary statement is "I can't place the contract, but I have at least INV values"; the fact that opener will reply with a 4-card major if he has one (or 2NT or 3C with both) is usually ancillary (Yes, I know it gives away information, but it allows *everything* else to be Pass/Correct, including 4C; opposite 10-12, I think it's a winner). Probably not necessary, but it's not going to confuse anyone. We Alert our weak 2 openers as well, mostly because the standard response to our Pre-Alert is "you'll just Alert them when they come up, right?"

[blackshoe]

Helene, start with education. Always.

 

If after two explanations of "you just Alert weak NT overcalls, and when asked, state 12-15" (frankly, I wouldn't mind if this were an Announcement, and I wouldn't mind if they did Announce, but if you call me over, I'll give the Book ruling" *by the TD*, they still do it, then we hit 'em with a PP. As a TD, I'd be watching and making sure I'd seeded the field with players who would call the TD for "overactive Alerting" on this pair.

 

You can't say "partner would forget" in this situation, but I guess you could threaten them with it :-) But I'd rather just tell them the rule, and make sure they follow it. There's enough hair-triggering and antagonism in the game as it is.

 

Michael.

Indeed. In the case at hand, I would explain to the partner of the player who provided UI ("we play systems on") that he is now constrained to make every effort not to take advantage of that UI. I would add to the opponents that if they feel, after the play or when dummy comes down, as appropriate, that they may have been damaged by the player's failure to meet that goal, they should call me back, and I will look at adjusting the score.

 

This is a case, though, where it may be difficult to find a basis for score adjustment. After all, what are, generally speaking, the "logical alternatives" to following your agreed system? B)

[jtfanclub]

Having said that, I Alert my EHAA 1NT-2C auction, as its primary statement is "I can't place the contract, but I have at least INV values

I wouldn't, but I would alert all the responses to 2♣ that show a specific strength (eg., 2♥ showing a weak NT, 3♥ being GF).

 

The rule is pretty clear here- 2♣ is not to be alerted in the U.S. if it's forcing and asking about a 4 card major.

[han]

I don't think the question is ridiculous, but the answer is clear. I also hate these people btw, whoever they are or did.

[mycroft]

Re EHAA 2C - it's not the responses that are weird (except for 2NT - both majors, would refuse a NT invitation, and 3C - both majors, would accept a NT invitation, both of which are clearly Alertable), there isn't a call over 3C, so yeah.

 

It's that 2C is the correct call with AKTxxx Qx Kxx xx (will bid spades invitationally next), AKTxxx AQ AKx xx (will bid spades GF+ next), KQx Txx AKxxx T9x (NT invite, of course), and AKQJxxx x Kx KQJ (4C next for slam if 2 aces); along with any hand that actually has interest in partner's response in the major (and INV+ values). And it specifically denies 4=4=4=1 without 10 high. Yeah, we could (and do) Alert all those weird responses that may deny a 4-card major (or promise more than a 4-card major), but it's odd enough that the opponents may want to know.

 

Our explanation is something like "Ostensibly Stayman, but frequently has no interest in my response. Any hand INV+ that can't place the contract immediately starts with 2C". Yes, I know it's not technically Alertable; I have yet to have anyone complain (as I say, nor have I had anyone complain when we Alert 2D/2H/2S, even though (after the Pre-Alert), we don't have to do that either. I have definitely had pairs who would have complained had we not Alerted it, again, even though we didn't have to).

[Free]

We'll never get a unanimous poll about a bidding decision, but let's hope we can at least get a unanimous poll about this.

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=24966 :P

[blackshoe]

Re EHAA 2C - it's not the responses that are weird (except for 2NT - both majors, would refuse a NT invitation, and 3C - both majors, would accept a NT invitation, both of which are clearly Alertable), there isn't a call over 3C, so yeah.

 

It's that 2C is the correct call with AKTxxx Qx Kxx xx (will bid spades invitationally next), AKTxxx AQ AKx xx (will bid spades GF+ next), KQx Txx AKxxx T9x (NT invite, of course), and AKQJxxx x Kx KQJ (4C next for slam if 2 aces); along with any hand that actually has interest in partner's response in the major (and INV+ values). And it specifically denies 4=4=4=1 without 10 high. Yeah, we could (and do) Alert all those weird responses that may deny a 4-card major (or promise more than a 4-card major), but it's odd enough that the opponents may want to know.

 

Our explanation is something like "Ostensibly Stayman, but frequently has no interest in my response. Any hand INV+ that can't place the contract immediately starts with 2C". Yes, I know it's not technically Alertable; I have yet to have anyone complain (as I say, nor have I had anyone complain when we Alert 2D/2H/2S, even though (after the Pre-Alert), we don't have to do that either. I have definitely had pairs who would have complained had we not Alerted it, again, even though we didn't have to).

I don't think there's anything wrong with alerting things not technically alertable, if you think the opponents will need to know.