Alertable?

[mikegill]

After a round in a club game the other night, my RHO was discussing with the director who was kibbing our table her thoughts about opening weak twos. Anyway, it came out that she doesn't open weak twos with a 3-card side major, and she (quite vehemently) encourages her partners to do the same. She admitted she "might" open it anyway with 3-small. Both my partner and I commented that this ought to be alerted, since it's information that they have but you don't. The player thought that this was standard and thus should not be alerted (I'm pretty sure this isn't true, although it may have been in the past). The director who was just a club director seemed to vaguely agree with us, but not forcefully enough to convince her of anything. In response, she countered that we ought to alert ours because we would do it with a 4-card major on the side whereas standard is to not do that. I felt that these were not the same but I'm curious to hear what people have to say on this subject.

[jdonn]

I do not think it's alertable. It's simply a matter of style. I am willing to open a weak 2 with a three card major on the side, but it's a negative factor that gets weighed, just like a four card major on the side, a bad suit, bad spot cards in my suit, adverse vulnerability, etc.

[MFA]

No alerts of style issues within the ordinary. One can ask if interested.

[Rossoneri]

I don't think an alert is needed, but it needs to be disclosed if asked about style.

[Cascade]

... it needs to be disclosed if asked.

 

The question does not need to be specifically about style. You must disclose all relevant information including style information if asked about a bid or auction.

[kfay]

Don't need to alert negative inferences.

[P_Marlowe]

Don't need to alert negative inferences.

Sry, but we dont speak about neg. inferences here.

 

We just speak about the precise definition of a weak

two hand.

And as others have said, if a question gets asked, it

needs to be told.

 

As a matter of fact: A competent player, and I would say

that the original poster belongs to this group, will know,

that there are different styles out there.

Some play the rule of 2-3, some the rule of 2-3-4, some

allow a void, a 4 card major side suit, some dont.

Some allow 5 card suits, some not.

 

A competent player will know, that those styles exist, and

if it matters for the current deal he can ask, and if he does

not well, than he cant later on claim, that he was hurt.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe.

[matmat]

the op asked whether this was alertable, not whether it should be disclosed when asked about.

[cherdano]

... it needs to be disclosed if asked.

 

The question does not need to be specifically about style. You must disclose all relevant information including style information if asked about a bid or auction.

Come on, we know this doesn't work in practice. If we have the auction 1D 2H* 4H and the opponents ask "Can you explain the auction?", do you really expect us to start explaining how light we open, how strong our 3-suiters need to be until we open 2♣, and how good our balanced hands need to be to be upgraded to a 1NT opening?

[Fluffy]

some people get mad about alerts at local level, their importance is really slim, and you should pay less attention to it. With people who will refuse to answer if they open a weak 2, because they didn't open a weak 2 its really ridicoulous to alert things like lenght in the other major.

[glen]

In the move to less ACBL alerts, most style alerts (or alerting anything non-standard, if you could figure out what standard was) were eliminated - thus, for example, if you frequently open weak twos with five card suits, but not awful suits, it is no longer alertable. As mentioned above, all style implications should be disclosed if the bid is asked about (BBO provides a short white text box for this full disclosure - I guess short was the old full). Also it should be marked on their convention card, imo.

[blackshoe]

Come on, we know this doesn't work in practice. If we have the auction 1D 2H* 4H and the opponents ask "Can you explain the auction?", do you really expect us to start explaining how light we open, how strong our 3-suiters need to be until we open 2♣, and how good our balanced hands need to be to be upgraded to a 1NT opening?

Relevant information requires disclosure. If it's not relevant to the auction, it doesn't need to be disclosed. What is relevant is a judgment matter - and the person whose judgment first applies is the one making the explanation. A TD or AC may apply a different judgment, of course.

 

That said, the most common response to "please explain your auction" that I hear is "well, he opened 1♦, and I jumped to 2♥..."

 

some people get mad about alerts at local level, their importance is really slim, and you should pay less attention to it. With people who will refuse to answer if they open a weak 2, because they didn't open a weak 2 its really ridicoulous to alert things like length in the other major.

 

Getting mad about something that happens in bridge, at any level, is just plain stupid. Particularly if it's a matter of law or regulation.

 

If a player is asked to explain the auction, or some part of it, and willfully refuses, he deserves (and will get, if I'm the TD) a disciplinary penalty. Their opinion that the regulation is "ridiculous" is irrelevant.

[Cascade]

... it needs to be disclosed if asked.

 

The question does not need to be specifically about style.  You must disclose all relevant information including style information if asked about a bid or auction.

Come on, we know this doesn't work in practice. If we have the auction 1D 2H* 4H and the opponents ask "Can you explain the auction?", do you really expect us to start explaining how light we open, how strong our 3-suiters need to be until we open 2♣, and how good our balanced hands need to be to be upgraded to a 1NT opening?

The law requires "...a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience ...".

 

I think that a weak two is less likely to have three cards in the other major is such "special information".

 

I would normally expect a relevant range for the opening bid. On the auction you gave some of the answers you suggest would no be relevant. Opener jumped on the second round if this shows extra strength then the minimum openings are irrelevant and if it shows a minimum then then stronger openings are not relevant. Perhaps some might think that technically that information is still required however omitting it is then unlikely to create a problem that causes damage. However I think that it is reasonable to interpret a general question about the auction to require only information relevant to this entire auction in the answer. This would include details about a minimum opening if a minimum opening is still a possible hand type etc.

[JoAnneM]

Conventions are alerted, treatments are not.

[mikegill]

I guess my issue with all this is that, while I ask about people's style of weak twos all the time, most people do not ask (in fact, once they know it's a weak two, most people don't even think to ask about anything else). This seems like it is the biggest problem when they're on defense - they have information about one of their hands that you do not that could be valuable to either side. And, they can't even volunteer this information because they're on defense. If they're declaring, it seems like they really ought to offer this information after the auction, but I really haven't ever seen anything like this volunteered. Now, I know it's a club game so who cares, but these people do play in sectionals and regionals too. Certainly, it seems like in the spirit of the game there should be some way for this information to get to the opponents without them having to ask (the rules may be another story entirely, I certainly believe those who say this is not actually alertable).

[jdonn]

I don't understand your issue. If they want to know about style they can ask about style, or at least ask something. Dare I ask wtp?

[Cascade]

Conventions are alerted, treatments are not.

That is not true.

 

There are some conventions that need not be alerted e.g. Takeout doubles, Stayman, Blackwood, Gerber etc.

 

There are also some natural bids (treatments) that need to be alerted e.g. negative free bids, light openings etc.

 

The ACBL alert procedures state

 

"Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted. "

 

and

 

"This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage. To ensure full disclosure, however, at the end of the auction and before the opening lead declarers are encouraged to volunteer to explain the auction (including available inferences). "

 

and

 

" Bridge is not a game of secret messages; the auction belongs to everyone at the table.

Remember that the opponents are entitled to know the agreed meaning of all calls. "

 

I would expect that if you have a specific agreement about shapes that are excluded or included from you opening bids that you would need to disclose this freely at some point - either pre-alert, alert, delayed alert or on your convention card.