awm Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Suppose a pair is playing a fairly basic strong club system in an ACBL event. The 1♣ opening (artificial, 16+ points) certainly requires an alert. Does responder's "natural and game forcing" response require an alert? For example 1♣-P-1♠ where 1♠ shows 8+ points and 4+♠? I'm most interested in the ACBL regulation about this, although I'm also curious as to the rules elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 My reading of the ACBL Alert Procedure is that these responses should be alerted because they are game forcing. They're alertable in England for the same reason [OB 5G2{c}{6}]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duschek Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 I don't think I have ever seen anybody alert it in Denmark, and I would not expect it either. My partner and I have switched the meanings of responses to 1♣ completely, so we don't have the problem :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 I don't think I have ever seen anybody alert it in Denmark, and I would not expect it either. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily mean that the rules in Denmark don't require an alert. :) OTOH, I have no idea what the Danish alert regulations actually say. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duschek Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily mean that the rules in Denmark don't require an alert. :) OTOH, I have no idea what the Danish alert regulations actually say. ;) The Danish alert regulations are basically a translation of the WBF alerting policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted November 18, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 The opposite to Blackshoe's view would be something like this. The alert procedure is pretty clear that natural bids are usually not alertable. The exception is a natural bid with highly unexpected implications about strength or shape. However, this particular bid shows very much the same shapes that one would expect for a 1♠ response. The strength of the bid is very close to normal also (very slightly higher minimum than in standard). The bid is forcing and unlimited, but that's not unexpected either. In fact the only thing that might be at all unusual about this call is that it's forcing to game. Of course, anyone with a marginal familiarity with a strong club system would expect this. And the alert procedure makes it very clear that 1♠-P-2♣ does not become alertable simply because the 2♣ call is game forcing. So it doesn't seem clear why a natural call which everyone plays as forcing and showing a hand of this approximate shape and strength should suddenly become alertable simply because it is forcing to game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 18, 2009 Report Share Posted November 18, 2009 You asked for a reading on the ACBL regulation, I gave you one, and now you want to argue with me? :( If you believe it's not alertable, why didn't you say that in the first place? I stand by my reading. If you want a more "official" one, call Memphis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I have not read the regulations, but... It would seem to me that it would be more useful to alert 1♣-1♠ when 1♠ is not game forcing. Game forcing is the expected meaning after a strong club. After I read the opening post, I wondered if a non-game forcing (but natural) 1♠ response to a Polish 1♣ ought to be alerted. Edit: I now have read the alert regulations that Blackshoe linked. I think a natural and game forcing 1♠ response to a strong 1♣ opening falls into the "natural calls not specifically noted" that are "about expected strength and shape". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted November 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Well, I personally have always alerted these. But Elianna recently encountered a player at her club who didn't alert them. She thought they were alertable (which matched my intuition) and this player argued with her. She asked me about it later and even though both of us have this vague feeling these things are alertable, looking through the regulations there isn't really a lot of support for that position. Since "two over one game force" is not alertable, it seems like just because a call is game forcing when it might not be game forcing in "standard" is not be sufficient to make it an alert. When I posted this, I was kind of hoping for some discussion of exactly what makes this call alertable from the alert procedures, or at least some range of opinions from different folks, rather than just Blackshoe's opinion that it's alertable without a lot of basis in the regulations (which is sort of what I had to begin with, if we substitute Awm for Blackshoe). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 If 1♠ was not forcing then it would be alertable. If it is forcing then I don't think it's alertable. Whether or not it's forcing to game is moot imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sadie3 Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Does it promise a spade suit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Under "Responses to suit bids" the Alert Regulation gives the example 1♣-(p)-1♥/1♠ and says "Not Alertable if it is natural (four or more cards in the suit) and forcing one round." Since it specifically says "one round" I think in Precision, where the bid is forcing to game, it's alertable. That said, I would not be surprised to find that (a) the regulation actually in force is not the one on the ACBL website, or at least not this one on the ACBL web site, or {b} someone in Memphis will say it's not alertable, probably without explanation (even if asked for one). Edit: Given the high quality :blink: :( of the ACBL Alert Regulation, I don't think you're going to find a better basis in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I should add that while I do not consider the Alert Chart to be definitive (I consider it a summary, and if there is a difference between what it says and what the Alert Procedure (the actual regulation) says, the latter governs) it does not say anything about these responses to a Precision 1♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I looked through the Tech Files in ACBL Score and didn't find anything new about this particular question - but I did notice that in discussing 2/1 bids (1♠-2♣, for example, uncontested) the regulation says that a 2/1 which is "forcing for at least one round" (emphasis mine) is not alertable, and goes on to emphasize that a 2/1 which is forcing to game is not alertable. I have to wonder why, if they intended the same interpretation of the 1M response to Precision 1♣ about which we're talking here, they didn't use the same words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Suppose a pair is playing a fairly basic strong club system in an ACBL event. The 1♣ opening (artificial, 16+ points) certainly requires an alert. Does responder's "natural and game forcing" response require an alert? For example 1♣-P-1♠ where 1♠ shows 8+ points and 4+♠? I'm most interested in the ACBL regulation about this, although I'm also curious as to the rules elsewhere. Well there are other bids to that are iffy in strong club too. Consider (opponents silent): p - 1♣* - 1♠* Now since it is a passed hand and natural in standard it would not be forcing (although not often passed), but in a strong club that could be 100% forcing and thus require an alert. The other one that comes up for me is, playing weak nt (opp silent): 1♣-1♦-1nt* The 1nt is alertable showing 15-17 and balanced. Playing precision the same auction: 1♣*-1♦*-1nt* showing 16-18 and balanced and I know some people who don't alert the 1nt, but do alert the 1♣ and 1♦. The theory being if the 1♣ guaranteed 16 points, then it is not surprising that the 1nt shows 16-18 balanced. My default if just to alert all of these bids, erring on the side of over alerting. I think that jives with the way the ACBL encourages alerting and hasn't lead to anything too strange or anyone too upset. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 The alert regulation does say that alerting when it's not needed is okay, while not alerting when one should is not okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 While I am not arguing whether the ACBL regulation requires an alert, I think it is clear that commonsense says you do not alert. If someone ignores the alert of 1♣, does not know that opponents are playing a strong club, it is true they will be surprised to find that a 1♠ response [a] shows 8+ shows 5+ cards and [c] is game forcing. But I really do not believe that anyone who discovers the 1♣ opening is strong would expect a non-alerted response to be based on Standard bidding. It is not alertable in England, in my view. The basis for alerting a natural bid is that it "has a potentially unexpected meaning". Once you know the 1♣ is strong, I do not believe that a Precision 1♠ response is potentially unexpected. The same applies to 1♠ after passing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Earlier, I referred to OB 5G2{c}{6}: Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert: ...© Responses to an opening bid of one of a suit: ...(6) A new suit without a jump that is forcing to game. This seems pretty clear to me. OTOH, David's interpretation is no doubt current English practice- he's been directing there for quite a while, after all, and he is the editor of the OB. It wouldn't be the first time I've read what seemed to me plain English, only to have David tell me I'm reading it wrong. :P I understand the argument that hearing an alert of 1♣ (and presumably then getting an explanation of the bid) a sensible player not be surprised that a 1♠ response is GF - but I've always understood alert regulations as not considering any dependency on previous alerts or explanations. So whether 1♠ in this auction requires an alert depends only on the meaning of 1♠, not on the meaning of the previous 1♣ bid. No doubt I'm wrong about that, too. :blink: Perhaps the argument is that once a player understands that the opponents are playing Precision, 1♠ being forcing to game would not be unexpected. But that, it seems to me, violates the principle stated in the previous paragraph. :ph34r: :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duschek Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 I understand the argument that hearing an alert of 1♣ (and presumably then getting an explanation of the bid) a sensible player not be surprised that a 1♠ response is GF - but I've always understood alert regulations as not considering any dependency on previous alerts or explanations. So whether 1♠ in this auction requires an alert depends only on the meaning of 1♠, not on the meaning of the previous 1♣ bid. No doubt I'm wrong about that, too.I find it obvious that alertability depends on the meaning of the previous auction. Consider the following auction: 2♣-(pass)-2♥. In Precision, 2♥ is probably either non-forcing or forcing for one round. In standard bidding, 2♣ being a strong artificial bid, 2♥ is probably game-forcing. Should 2♥ be alerted if it is not forcing to game, or if it is forcing to game? (in case you say "neither", we can probably find a different example with the same point). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted November 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Maybe a clearer example than duschek's: 2♣-P-3♣. If 2♣ is strong and artificial, then the expected meaning of 3♣ is natural and game forcing. If 3♣ shows five or more clubs and game values, it would not be alertable. On the other hand, if 3♣ showed some sort of very weak hand (i.e. to play opposite 22-23 balanced) and was not forcing, it would require an alert. On the other hand, if 2♣ is natural and intermediate (i.e. precision), then the expected meaning of 3♣ is some sort of non-forcing raise. Normally such a raise would not be alertable (although there might be an exception if it shows serious "limit raise" values or something). On the other hand, if 3♣ is a forcing raise, that would be alerted. Thus the "expected" meaning of 3♣ as well as which meanings are alertable changes substantially based on the meaning of 2♣. Of course, one of these two meanings of 2♣ should be alertable (2♣ intermediate is the alertable one in ACBL). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremy69 Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 They're alertable in England for the same reason [OB 5G2{c}{6}]. I don't think 1C(Strong) -1S (Natural and FG) is alertable in England on the basis of the above quoted bit of the Orange Book. It refers to a new suit being forcing to game in response to an opening bid of one of a suit. 1S is not a new suit. It is the first suit bid. 1C is not an opening of one of a suit. It is an artificial noise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 19, 2009 Report Share Posted November 19, 2009 Oh, boy. That's an interpretation that didn't occur to me. I wonder how many unfortunate results of the Law of Unintended Consequences we can generate from it. B) IAC, while I agree with "artificial" wrt to 1♣, i cannot agree with "noise". Noise does not convey information, 1♣ does. That part of the OB does not say, afaics, that the opening bid in such sequences must be natural. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 No, it does not, it just seems obvious. What is more, Jeremy and I are in agreement, and that is rare enough! B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 Maybe a clearer example than duschek's: 2♣-P-3♣. Sure, or there is the auction 2♦-P-2♥. In standard unalerted ACBL the 2♦ was natural and weak and the 2♥ was natural and forcing. If the 2♥ is not forcing it requires an alert. If 2♦ is either a precision 3-suiter short in diamonds or some flavor of mini-roman the 2♥ would be expected to be not forcing. But again I tend to alert the 2♥ bids anyways here on the assumption that my call doesn't mean what it would in the ACBL standard, and it might be surprising to someone that this was non-forcing. The problem, as blackshoe points out, is that opponents aren't supposed to have to know your agreements or system and aren't supposed to have to figure out, wait, over a precision 2♣ is 3♣ forcing or not. In addition, you create a problem where if your partner forgot to alert your initial bid (2♣ say) the lack of alert of his 3♣ is going to further disadvantage your opponents. So surely you need to alert it if partner forgot to alert your 2♣. But it is very weird to me that whether you alert a bid or not depends on if partner remembered to alert a previous bid or not. I must admit that I too would read 5G2c6 the way blackshoe did, just based on the English text. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duschek Posted November 20, 2009 Report Share Posted November 20, 2009 1C is not an opening of one of a suit.In that case, I would recommend changing the wording of the regulation to "a natural opening bid of one of a suit" or the like. Clubs are definitely a suit, so 1♣ is an opening of one of a suit, Precision or not. It is necessary to follow this path when making a ruling, regardless what was intended by the regulation-makers. As was stated in a recent thread here, we cannot know whether the entire board of regulation-makers thought they agreed to a meaning other than the meaning actually implied by the wording, so should assume that they meant what they wrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.