4243 alertable?

[jillybean]

You routinely open 4243 hands 1♣ - is it alertable under ACBL regulations?

 

It falls within the definition of an opening bid:

Definition of expected length for natural bids for the Alert Procedure are:

 Suit bids:

 3+ in a minor and 4+ in a major for opening bids, rebids and responses.

 

or It is alertable being "highly unusual and unexpected” ?

 

And please post a link to the regulations that support your answer :P

[matmat]

just out of curiosity, what do you open a 4=3=4=2 hand?

[jillybean]

just out of curiosity, what do you open a 4=3=4=2 hand?

I open 4342 and 4243 hands 1♦

[matmat]

just out of curiosity, what do you open a 4=3=4=2 hand?

I open 4342 and 4243 hands 1♦

well... i don't routinely open 4=2=4=3 1♣, so the original question is irrelevant.

 

 

seriously, tho, the partnership that opens the above 1♣, what do they do with 4=3=4=2 hands, or 4=4=3=2...

[jdonn]

Of course you alert, you quoted your own regulation of "highly unusual and unexpected". Would you ever expect an unalerted 1♣ to be shorter than the diamonds? What if they open 1♣ when 6223, it's still a natural bid but it would be insane to say it shouldn't be alerted.

 

The "highly unusual and unexpected" is intentionally vague, and for good reason. If you open 1♦ when 1345 that should not be alertable but if you open 1♣ with 1354 that should be alertable. It's tricky to cover cases like that in a specific rule, which is why common sense has to be involved.

[Echognome]

With Phil, we routinely open minimum balanced hands 1♣ and do alert. We consider it a multi-way 1♣ system, but it is not Polish club.

 

I think if you are routinely opening a shorter minor, it would fall under the "highly unusual and unexpected" category. I don't think you need anything more than that.

 

Of course if they opened 1♣ on Kxxx Qxx xxxx AKQ, I would just consider they used "judgment".

[blackshoe]

you already have the link to the only regulations I know of that deal with this - the ACBL alert reg.

 

I don't think it's "highly unusual and unexpected", though it does seem a bit unusual. I would not think it's alertable.

[TimG]

What if they open 1♣ when 6223, it's still a natural bid but it would be insane to say it shouldn't be alerted.

I've been told in the past that the first bid in a potential canape sequence is not alertable so long as it is natural (ie 3+ in a minor, 4+ in a major). Regulations may have changed, or I may have been misinformed, but I don't think it is "insane" to think it unalertable.

[Echognome]

you already have the link to the only regulations I know of that deal with this - the ACBL alert reg.

 

I don't think it's "highly unusual and unexpected", though it does seem a bit unusual. I would not think it's alertable.

Ok. So if you don't think opening 1m with your shorter minor is not "highly unusual", what about:

 

1. Opening 1♥ with 5-5 in the majors

2. Opening 1♥ with 5♠ and 4♥ playing 4-card majors

3. Opening 1♥ with 4♥ and 5♣

4. Opening 1♦ with 3♦ and 5♣

5. Opening 1♦ with 4♦ and 6♣

 

I mention these, because they all seem a "bit unusual" and I would consider them all alertable.

[Echognome]

What if they open 1♣ when 6223, it's still a natural bid but it would be insane to say it shouldn't be alerted.

I've been told in the past that the first bid in a potential canape sequence is not alertable so long as it is natural (ie 3+ in a minor, 4+ in a major). Regulations may have changed, or I may have been misinformed, but I don't think it is "insane" to think it unalertable.

I guess that answers my questions. I find that bizarre, to say the least.

[jdonn]

What if they open 1♣ when 6223, it's still a natural bid but it would be insane to say it shouldn't be alerted.

I've been told in the past that the first bid in a potential canape sequence is not alertable so long as it is natural (ie 3+ in a minor, 4+ in a major). Regulations may have changed, or I may have been misinformed, but I don't think it is "insane" to think it unalertable.

I still find it insane to believe that should neither be alerted nor pre-alerted, whether someone told you it's the case or not. I even managed to find backup from the ACBL website.

 

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.

 

However, and I hate for it to always come to this but I feel the need to say it. If you make a bid, by agreement, on a hand the opponents are unlikely to expect, why in the world wouldn't you alert? Sure there are plenty of people out there who don't know any better or don't understand the spirit of the alert procedure, and all they need is education. But for those (hopefully few) who don't alert things they think their opponents will neither know about nor think to ask about, simply because they believe the letter of the law allows them to get away with it....I won't finish the sentence about what should happen to them. Of course I would never assume a particular person thinks that way unless I have good reason, but there are definitely some out there.

[matmat]

...of the law allows them to get away with it....I won't finish the sentence about what should happen to them. 

wuss.

[jillybean]

just out of curiosity, what do you open a 4=3=4=2 hand?

I open 4342 and 4243 hands 1♦

well... i don't routinely open 4=2=4=3 1♣, so the original question is irrelevant.

 

 

seriously, tho, the partnership that opens the above 1♣, what do they do with 4=3=4=2 hands, or 4=4=3=2...

I was told "I never open with under 3 clubs" so I assume 4342 and 4432 hands would be opened 1♦ (and not 1M!)

[cherdano]

What if they open 1♣ when 6223, it's still a natural bid but it would be insane to say it shouldn't be alerted.

I've been told in the past that the first bid in a potential canape sequence is not alertable so long as it is natural (ie 3+ in a minor, 4+ in a major). Regulations may have changed, or I may have been misinformed, but I don't think it is "insane" to think it unalertable.

Of course it is insane not to alert. (We never claimed every single ACBL director is sane, did we?)

[awm]

The ACBL rule is very clear about this. Bids with an unusual or unexpected meaning are alertable. What's unusual? Director's discretion.

 

Thus the rule is, if Blackshoe is directing, then you do not have to alert. If Jdonn is directing, then you do have to alert. In some cases the rules may depend on who "you" are as well as who the director is.

 

Don't like this type of rule? Tough, ACBL used to have alert regulations with less leeway for "director discretion" -- they purposely changed it in the last update to be fuzzier.

[Cascade]

Jillybean chatted with me about this (I assume before posting here).

 

I said to her "why would you think that keeping that a secret from the opponents was proper".

 

Opening 1♣ with this hand is not at all usual. Therefore it needs an alert.

[blackshoe]

you already have the link to the only regulations I know of that deal with this - the ACBL alert reg.

 

I don't think it's "highly unusual and unexpected", though it does seem a bit unusual. I would not think it's alertable.

Ok. So if you don't think opening 1m with your shorter minor is not "highly unusual", what about:

 

1. Opening 1♥ with 5-5 in the majors

2. Opening 1♥ with 5♠ and 4♥ playing 4-card majors

3. Opening 1♥ with 4♥ and 5♣

4. Opening 1♦ with 3♦ and 5♣

5. Opening 1♦ with 4♦ and 6♣

 

I mention these, because they all seem a "bit unusual" and I would consider them all alertable.

The last four are canapé, which, iirc, is explicitly alertable. The first may or may not be alertable.

[blackshoe]

The alert regs say that canapé systems require a pre-alert. Apparently the opening bid in a canapé system (if natural) does not require an alert, but a rebid in a potentially longer suit does.

[blackshoe]

What if they open 1♣ when 6223, it's still a natural bid but it would be insane to say it shouldn't be alerted.

Seems to me it's insane to jump from "is opening 1♣ with 4-2-4-3 alertable" to "what if they open 1♣ with 6223?" IAC, as I read the regs, even if they do open 1♣ by agreement with that hand, it's not alertable, although a spade rebid would be - and the method requires a pre-alert.

[blackshoe]

Adam is right. Still, I've thought about it some more, and I now agree that opening 1♣ with only three when you have 4 diamonds is sufficiently unusual as to require an alert. So change my original "no alert" vote to "alert".

 

For a more definitive answer, I suggest asking Rick Beye.

[jdonn]

What if they open 1♣ when 6223, it's still a natural bid but it would be insane to say it shouldn't be alerted.

Seems to me it's insane to jump from "is opening 1♣ with 4-2-4-3 alertable" to "what if they open 1♣ with 6223?"

I agree, which is why I didn't. I made the jump from "canape bids aren't alertable" to "it would be ridiculous if this canape bid were not alertable". And I realize it's a prealert not an alert, the point is it would be nuts if the opponents weren't made aware. Insane even.

[P_Marlowe]

Alert.

 

No discussion.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hotShot]

With a canapé style you bid your 2nd suit first,, you pre-alert your system and you alert the 2nd suit bid.

 

1♣ with 4-2-4-3 is not canapé because you open your 3rd longest suit, this is unusual and should be alerted.

[hrothgar]

Hi Kathryn

 

Many folks refer to this type of opening structure as "short club" or a "phony club".

 

You might find it easier to figure out what's what if you frame the question using one of these expressions...

[awm]

Hi Kathryn

 

Many folks refer to this type of opening structure as "short club" or a "phony club".

 

You might find it easier to figure out what's what if you frame the question using one of these expressions...

I think the point was, ACBL regulations are pretty clear that a 1♣ opening which could be doubleton is supposed to be announced "could be short." Most people who play "short club" or "phony club" are opening 1♣ with a doubleton.

 

This particular pair seems to have agreed that opening 1♣ promises at least three of them, so describing their club bid as "short" or "phony" is not quite accurate, any more than describing the 1♣ opening in SAYC (which is certainly not alertable in ACBL-land even though it could be opener's third-longest suit) as a "short" or "phony" club.