alert explanations

[Cascade]

It seems to me the camps are those who (when asked about 1♦ by someone knowing nothing about SA) would say something like, "Generally 11-21 HCPs and at least 4 diamonds, 3 if specifically 4-4-3-2" and those who would say something like, "It's non-forcing."

I think everybody would say something like your first version. In fact I would give a little more information if playing at the local club where everyone assumes weak notrump.

 

Anyway, it's a very far cry of "all information" that the 1♦ opening conveys to me otbo special agreements.

I am not so sure. I frequently hear things as brief as "could be short as two" for a Standard American 1♣ opener or Precision 1♦.

[jdonn]

It seems to me the camps are those who (when asked about 1♦ by someone knowing nothing about SA) would say something like, "Generally 11-21 HCPs and at least 4 diamonds, 3 if specifically 4-4-3-2" and those who would say something like, "It's non-forcing."

I think everybody would say something like your first version. In fact I would give a little more information if playing at the local club where everyone assumes weak notrump.

 

Anyway, it's a very far cry of "all information" that the 1♦ opening conveys to me otbo special agreements.

I am not so sure. I frequently hear things as brief as "could be short as two" for a Standard American 1♣ opener or Precision 1♦.

That's because that is all that is required by ACBL regulations. It's an announcement, not an alert. Obviously if the opponents ask for the details, they should be given.

 

I know you're probably playing somewhere where ACBL regulations don't apply, I'm just saying that's why people explain those bids that way.

[Cascade]

It seems to me the camps are those who (when asked about 1♦ by someone knowing nothing about SA) would say something like, "Generally 11-21 HCPs and at least 4 diamonds, 3 if specifically 4-4-3-2" and those who would say something like, "It's non-forcing."

I think everybody would say something like your first version. In fact I would give a little more information if playing at the local club where everyone assumes weak notrump.

 

Anyway, it's a very far cry of "all information" that the 1♦ opening conveys to me otbo special agreements.

I am not so sure. I frequently hear things as brief as "could be short as two" for a Standard American 1♣ opener or Precision 1♦.

That's because that is all that is required by ACBL regulations. It's an announcement, not an alert. Obviously if the opponents ask for the details, they should be given.

 

I know you're probably playing somewhere where ACBL regulations don't apply, I'm just saying that's why people explain those bids that way.

I am not referring to announcements I am referrign to answers to questions.

 

My experience with ACBL announcements is purely online and pretty much they seem to be ignored. For example noone seems to announce their strong no trump and often not their transfers, and almost never their short 1♣.

[blackshoe]

Actually, the correct form of announcement for a minor opening that could be shorter than 3 cards is "could be short", not "could be as short as 2" or whatever.

[barmar]

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

 

That is the reality. That players disregard it, either willfully or through ignorance, does not make it any less real.

I think what confuses people is the vague "matters generally known to bridge players." For instance, in Helene's extreme example of explaining a 1♦ opening, many would consider all those details to be general bridge knowledge, and unnecessary to disclose explicitly. But her point is that this assumes the opponents are familiar with your basic system. Is there anything about bidding systems that can really be considered general bridge knowledge, especially in an international context like BBO? About the only thing I can think would fall under this is the approximate strength required in a partnership to expect a reasonable chance of making various contracts (e.g. about 25-26 combined HCP with balanced hands for 3NT). But even then, someone would need to know your system to know when a bid is to play rather than conventional.

 

What I think saves us from having to go into the details that Helene asks about is that there isn't really that much variation in bidding systems. They all fall under a few broad categories: 5-card majors, 4-card majors, strong ♣, Polish ♣, Canape, Strong/Weak/Mini NT, etc. If you know the basic approach of the opponent's system, you can generally make all the right inferences without requiring the opponents to spell them out. So all someone really needs to know about SA is that it's 5-card majors with strong NT.

[helene_t]

My point is more that I cannot disclose all the finer details of our understanding, such as which borderline hands p could or could not have. Not only because it would take too much time, but also because much of my perception of partner's calls is at the subconscious level.

 

We play a 2♣ opening as either weak with diamonds, or certain strong hands. That is exactly how I disclose it. Of course they can ask what those strong options are, but nobody has ever done so. They sometimes ask in next round when it has been revealed that my p has a strong hand. Of course I alert those strong rebids if they say something more than just a strong hand with length in the suit named.