Alerting "obvious" bids

[awm]

Agree with gnome on this one. To put things simply:

 

(1) The penalty double of 3♠ required an alert.

(2) It was not alerted.

(3) The side which failed to alert obtained a result almost surely better than they would've obtained if they had alerted.

 

Isn't this sort of situation exactly the reason we have directors to restore equity? Even if the failure to ask about the unalerted double is somehow a "failure to play bridge" (which is more or less what the "protect yourself" folks are ruling), shouldn't the offending side have their score adjusted?

[aguahombre]

partner has preempted showing one suit and no opening bid. next hand overcalls and a double is takeout????? what? 6-6 in the other suits? Sounds like penalty to me.

 

It is time to back way up. doubles (very few exceptions) should be alerted if they don't suggest penalty. NT bids should be alerted if they don't suggest NT. suit bids should be alerted if they don't show the suit or if they carry information about other suits. Jump raises should be alerted if they don't show the values for the level.

 

Nobody would then have to decide what the "norm" is for a particular region of the world. Life would be simple.

 

P.s. I would be waiting a long time for partner to reopen with a double after 3d (3S) p (P). so forget penalizing opponents for their ridiculous 3-level overcalls???

[Echognome]

1. If you read our arguments, we're not saying that double should be takeout. We're saying that, in fact, most people play double as penalty. However, the alerting rules (in the EBU) state that a penalty double in this situation should be alerted.

 

5 E 2 Doubles

The rules for alerting doubles are:

(a) Suit bids that show the suit bid.

Double of these bids is not alertable if for take-out; alertable otherwise.

 

Therefore, we have as facts that the regulations state a penalty double should be alerted. The player in question did not think it was a penalty double (or else it makes no logical sense to raise partner). And we are going to say "no adjustment because you should have asked?"

 

2. Your simple rules mean that you would have to alert 1♥ - Dbl if it were for takeout. Seems worse than the current system.

[aguahombre]

2. Your simple rules mean that you would have to alert 1♥ - Dbl if it were for takeout.  Seems worse than the current system.

no, that would fall under "with few exceptions". EBU is smoking it's sox if everyone with a brain thinks a certain double is penalty, yet they require an alert.

[Echognome]

I think your "very few exceptions" clause covers a lot more than you think.

 

(1♥) - 2NT = Minors - Alert or No Alert?

 

1NT - (2♥) - Dbl = Takeout - Alert or No Alert?

 

1♥ - 3♥ = Limit - No Alert I assume.

1♥ - 3♥ = Preempt - Alert I assume.

1♥ - (1♠) - 3♥ = Preempt - Alert or No Alert?

 

1♣ - (1♠) - Dbl = Takeout - Alert or No Alert?

 

I'm sure we can add on to the list. My point is that alerting is a LOT more complicated when you consider all of the auctions with competition.

[aguahombre]

Yes, I over-simplified my position. But it is no more silly than EBu requiring stayman/1NT to be alerted, and some other silly examples.

 

the point is that the ACBL and other organizations have gone wrong with the alert procedures and need to get back to some fallback principles. Like, if it isn't what it sounds like alert it. If it is what it sounds like, don't alert it. A double of an overcall of your partner's 1NT, for instance, if agreed as a takeout, should be alerted. Maybe even pre-alerted, so they can feel free to bid on crap.

[cherdanno]

Yes, I over-simplified my position. But it is no more silly than EBu requiring stayman/1NT to be alerted, and some other silly examples.

 

the point is that the ACBL and other organizations have gone wrong with the alert procedures and need to get back to some fallback principles. Like, if it isn't what it sounds like alert it. If it is what it sounds like, don't alert it. A double of an overcall of your partner's 1NT, for instance, if agreed as a takeout, should be alerted. Maybe even pre-alerted, so they can feel free to bid on crap.

Where I play you would need to alert the penalty double! And feel free to overcall on crap, my partner will usually reopen when I have 4 trumps behind you ;)

[gnasher]

But it is no more silly than EBu requiring stayman/1NT to be alerted

They don't.

[gnasher]

It is time to back way up. doubles (very few exceptions) should be alerted if they don't suggest penalty. NT bids should be alerted if they don't suggest NT. suit bids should be alerted if they don't show the suit or if they carry information about other suits. Jump raises should be alerted if they don't show the values for the level.

That is approximately what the EBU's rules were until about five years ago, except that there were no exceptions. It was a rule which was very easy to understand, but it meant a lot of useless alerts, and (for the diligent) a lot of questions about bids where both the normal and the abnormal meanings would be alertable.

 

I think your "very few exceptions" might turn out to be quite a long list. For example:

- Negative doubles

- Responsive doubles

- A takeout double after (1x) p (1NT)

- Stayman

- Jacoby transfers

- A 2C opening which doesn't promise clubs

- A 1C opening that doesn't promise four cards

- A 1C opening that denies a four-card major if it's balanced.

- 1C-1D-1S when it promises four clubs rather than the original three

- 1♠-2♣ which might a 3433 shape

- 1D (1S) 2S, whatever it means

- A Michaels cue-bid

 

Once you start making exceptions, you also have to define when they apply, and what happens when someone isn't playing the non-alertable method. For example, if you say that Stayman isn't alertable, presumably people should alert a natural 2♣ bid. That sounds OK if you're talking about a 1NT opening, but what about:

  1NT 2C

  2NT 3C

  (1S) 1NT (p) 2C

  (2S) 2NT (p) 3C

  (1D) p (p) 1NT (p) 2C

  (1D) dbl (2D) p; (p) 2NT (p) 3C

 

Your rules are starting to get quite complex, and I've only just started.

[helene_t]

In Amsterdam I played at a very non-serious club where people would never alert a strong artificial 2♣ opening, although the rules probably say you should. (There is some contradictory advice from the BF here, but the regulations say that all artificial calls are alerted with a few exceptions which do not include the 2♣ opening). As a consequence, we would alert our natural 2♣ opening although the regulations clearly say that purely natural 2-openings (i.e. not Muiderberg etc) are not alertable. This makes sense since there is a general rule saying that calls with unexpected meaning must be alerted, and given that people don't alert the artificial 2♣ opening it is fair to say that a natural 2♣ opening is unexpected.

 

I don't think I have ever had a bad ruling because of such things. That said, with the exception of international events where differences in predominate bidding systems, alert regulations and languages causes tons of MI issues, director calls due to lack of alerts are extremely rare.

 

So I voted no. I don't see a serious problem. It only comes up in international events, and there players are aware that they need to study convention cards carefully, ask all the time, and alert all the time.

[Fluffy]

In Spain they have ruled that alerting of doubles is forbidden, you've got to ask for them.

 

But nobody will get penalized for alerting them, so I guess some people could make special agreements on that.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, in attempting to show that my suggestion for simplifying can get complicated, has illustrated exactly what has happened to the whole alert process.

 

I would vote for rules which are "easy to understand" and be willing to hear a few extra alerts. sounds like the EBU five years ago had a good thing, easy to understand, so they decided to complicate it.

 

I believe there are very few who believe the current alert procedures, different in different places of the world, are ok as they are.

[gnasher]

I would vote for rules which are "easy to understand" and be willing to hear a few extra alerts. sounds like the EBU five years ago had a good thing, easy to understand, so they decided to complicate it.

Are you the same Aguahombre who described it as "silly" to require an alert of Stayman over 1NT? That's what we used to do when the EBU's rule was essentially "alert anything that's conventional".

[aguahombre]

yes, alerting stayman seems silly to me. But there must be some way to simplify and to get out of the quagmire that the alert system has become. And, if that means suffering through a few alerts of obvious callls which are not natural --then maybe that should happen. there has to be something that is universal and easy to comply with.

 

The alert system should not change every time a certain convention becomes accepted by the majority, rather than just a significant minority. This happened with negative doubles, and might happen soon with support doubles. What about those people who don't know what the majority plays in a particular place at a particular time? Should a double which suggested penalty 40 years ago, and still suggests penalty to some people today be alerted and subject to penalty if not alerted?

 

Where it becomes ridiculous, I don't know. Takeout doubles of opening bids, unusual NT, and other common non-natural bids would fall under that category. but, The list of non-natural calls which do not require an alert, and the list of natural calls which require an alert should be very short -- shorter than now.

[barmar]

The purpose of the alert system is to inform opponents that a call probably doesn't mean what they think it does, and they may want to ask for an explanation. This is why it's intimately tied with what the majority of people play in a particular area at the current time.

 

Players are expected to know what's common in the area they play. Yes, this places visitors from foreign lands at a disadvantage, since they may not realize that some non-alerted calls are conventional, or may not know which calls of their require an alert. Sorry, that's the price we pay for not having alerts that are silly and useless for all the locals, who are the majority of players. It's similar to the problem they have in the outside world of not knowing the language well. Bidding is a language, and each country has its own dialect.

[Tcyk]

It seems to be common that there are some calls which officially require an alert, but where no adjustment will ever be made for a failure to alert regardless of potential damage.

If an alert is required and damage exists from failing to alert, then an adjustment should be given.

 

Nonetheless this is seemingly policy in a lot of places, for example:

 

Alerting stayman in the EBU

 

Stayman is not alertable in the EBU.

We always alerted Stayman, "Does not promise a 4+card major." Similarly, we alerted 1NT, "Does not contain two 4-card majors."

 

My pet peeve is those that only promise two clubs when the open 1C (or two diamonds when they open 1D for that matter) and never alert the bid. Directors seem to be unwilling to adjust a board for this infraction although they are more likely to adjust a board when the opening is an unalerted short diamond.

[se12sam]

We always alerted Stayman, "Does not promise a 4+card major." Similarly, we alerted 1NT, "Does not contain two 4-card majors."

a. The Stayman does not need an alert even if it does not promise a 4-card major.

You alert 2NT if bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦/2♥/2♠ - 2NT, alerted as "need not promise 4-card in either major / other major".

b. You only announce range of 1NT opening. If the partnership opens 1NT with singletons, the announcement should include this fact. Opener cannot have both majors is not alertable.

[Cascade]

We always alerted Stayman, "Does not promise a 4+card major." Similarly, we alerted 1NT, "Does not contain two 4-card majors."

a. The Stayman does not need an alert even if it does not promise a 4-card major.

You alert 2NT if bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦/2♥/2♠ - 2NT, alerted as "need not promise 4-card in either major / other major".

b. You only announce range of 1NT opening. If the partnership opens 1NT with singletons, the announcement should include this fact. Opener cannot have both majors is not alertable.

This depends on where you play.

 

I would have thought a special agreement like "denies two four-card majors" definitely needs some disclosure somehow everywhere. If it is not alerted then it would need to be on your system card or part of a pre-alert. It seems completely wrong that you can keep this sort of thing secret.

[paulg]

We always alerted Stayman, "Does not promise a 4+card major." Similarly, we alerted 1NT, "Does not contain two 4-card majors."

a. The Stayman does not need an alert even if it does not promise a 4-card major.

You alert 2NT if bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦/2♥/2♠ - 2NT, alerted as "need not promise 4-card in either major / other major".

b. You only announce range of 1NT opening. If the partnership opens 1NT with singletons, the announcement should include this fact. Opener cannot have both majors is not alertable.

This depends on where you play.

 

I would have thought a special agreement like "denies two four-card majors" definitely needs some disclosure somehow everywhere. If it is not alerted then it would need to be on your system card or part of a pre-alert. It seems completely wrong that you can keep this sort of thing secret.

True, it does depend on where you play. They do not have pre-alerts in England so I'd expect it to be on the front page of the convention card in the box for 'Shape constraints of 1NT'*.

 

Of course, on many convention cards such a handy little box is not available and disclosure would need to compete with the myriad of other conventions that you play. 'Keeping it a secret' is not the same as 'not alerting because it is not required and there is no room for it to fit on the CC, given everything else we play'.

 

Paul

 

*of course many of us believe that this box should not exist, since few use it and it consumes a lot of space, but Tcyk must be in seventh heaven :P

[Free]

I've seen a lot of situations where asking about a call gives information to opponents when you don't want that. For example, (3♦)-3♠-(X)-? If you now ask if this Dbl is penalty, you pretty much imply that you'll raise if it's not. Even asking for carding methods in the middle of the hand may have this effect.

 

This gives information to opps, which they are allowed to use! Asking about calls which weren't alerted is always suspicious, asking about alerted calls is never suspicious. So I think asking more is not the best solution. Imo it's better to alert more, the "when in doubt, alert" principle. This protects people during the auction.

[gnasher]

*of course many of us believe that this box [shape constraints for 1NT] should not exist, since few use it and it consumes a lot of space

I think it needs a better name. In practice, it gets filled in by people whose openings have few constraints, and left blank by those who have many.

 

For example, for me that box usually reads "Includes all 5332s/4441s in range. 6m/5422 common." Taking the wording of the card literally, I should be writing "none", and other people should be writing "Denies singleton, 6m rare, 5M only if bad suit ..."

Edited August 17, 2009 by gnasher

[skjaeran]

We always alerted Stayman, "Does not promise a 4+card major." Similarly, we alerted 1NT, "Does not contain two 4-card majors."

a. The Stayman does not need an alert even if it does not promise a 4-card major.

You alert 2NT if bidding goes 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦/2♥/2♠ - 2NT, alerted as "need not promise 4-card in either major / other major".

b. You only announce range of 1NT opening. If the partnership opens 1NT with singletons, the announcement should include this fact. Opener cannot have both majors is not alertable.

b. We don't announce range in Norway (yet). However, 1NT which can't contain (one or) both 4-card majors as non-alertable is insane IMO.

[barmar]

I've seen a lot of situations where asking about a call gives information to opponents when you don't want that. For example, (3♦)-3♠-(X)-? If you now ask if this Dbl is penalty, you pretty much imply that you'll raise if it's not. Even asking for carding methods in the middle of the hand may have this effect.

If you don't ask about carding habitually at the start of the play, the best thing to do is wait until AFTER the trick whose carding you're concerned about. If you ask earlier, the opponents will be warned that you watch their carding, and they'll be less likely to give true count or attitude. If you don't ask, they're more likely to give accurate carding.

[aguahombre]

I've seen a lot of situations where asking about a call gives information to opponents when you don't want that.  For example, (3♦)-3♠-(X)-?  If you now ask if this Dbl is penalty, you pretty much imply that you'll raise if it's not.  Even asking for carding methods in the middle of the hand may have this effect.

If you don't ask about carding habitually at the start of the play, the best thing to do is wait until AFTER the trick whose carding you're concerned about. If you ask earlier, the opponents will be warned that you watch their carding, and they'll be less likely to give true count or attitude. If you don't ask, they're more likely to give accurate carding.

or maybe a trick or two later, when you are going to use the information ---less likely to get a lie. :)

[AnJoe]

I quote from a previous post:

This seems a bit weird to me, because it would be advantageous to the "offending side" to simply never alert such calls, on the off chance that the opponents forget to ask (or are afraid to ask because of the potential information asking gives to the opponents or to partner). Nonetheless this is seemingly policy in a lot of places, for example"

 

 

The foregoing attitude bothers me a lot. Are we playing ethical bridge or gotcha? :D

 

Is it the intention of sneaking through a convention that may be misinterpreted by opponents?? I hope I don't play at your table. :o

 

love

joan