1N-3NT alert?

[aguahombre]

In our partnership, 1NT-3NT is to play. However, because of the rest of our style, there is a very strong implication that Opener should consider removing to 4m if she is wide open in a Major.

 

We believe we should alert this when the 3NT bid is made, and do so. We believe others have this same inference, and will inquire when on opening lead to protect ourselves. Should others be alerting this situation? The problem from our standpoint is that we must inquire every time, so as to not give the appearance of giving UI --and when we know the opposing pair's methods we don't. If partner knows their methods, but I don't --she cannot ask just to alert me. Sure, I can ask when it is my turn to play 3rd after dummy --but the UI issue is still out there in appearance, if not in fact.

[blackshoe]

Whose alerting regulations are in force?

[aguahombre]

Let's say ACBL, although the considerations might apply anywhere and am trying to get a feeling for what feels right in addition to what might be enforceable.

[blackshoe]

They might, but the answers might be different. Let's take your questions one at a time:

We believe we should alert this when the 3NT bid is made, and do so.

My reading of the ACBL Alert Procedure leads me to disagree. OTOH, there's no great crime in alerting when that is not required, at least not when your intent is pure. :rolleyes:

Should others be alerting this situation?

I don't think so, no.

We believe others have this same inference, and will inquire when on opening lead to protect ourselves… The problem from our standpoint is that we must inquire every time, so as to not give the appearance of giving UI --and when we know the opposing pair's methods we don't. If partner knows their methods, but I don't --she cannot ask just to alert me. Sure, I can ask when it is my turn to play 3rd after dummy --but the UI issue is still out there in appearance, if not in fact.

 

Clearly you and your partner are both sufficiently aware that if either of you thinks the other may not know their agreement, you are also aware that your partner will ask if she (or he) does not know. So I wouldn't worry too much about that. If you already know, don't ask. If you don't know, ask. You can ask before you play to the first trick, or you can ask before the opening lead is faced. I cannot see UI being a problem in either case.

 

As for "what feels right" it sounds there like you're asking us to validate your opinion of that (clearly you think it feels right to alert here) regardless what the regulations say. I don't think that's the right approach.

 

More interesting, to me, is whether there should be a delayed alert after opener pulls 3NT to 4m. One could make a case for that.

[aguahombre]

Actually, the question arose out of a delay alert at the end of the auction, pretty much as described. When declarer announced what had occurred, before the opening lead to 5m, the opponents decided to call the TD. Although, he ruled no harm, no foul --he did state his opinion that 3NT should have been alerted.

 

We agreed that "felt right", but since that time we seem to be the only ones who do it. Hence, the real agenda for the question. We are considering going back to not alerting 3NT. I gather from your wording that the delayed announcement should only occur after a pull, not if 3NT is passed.

[blackshoe]

Life would be a lot simpler if TDs would state the legal basis for their opinions in such cases. I'm willing to bet, though, that he didn't. :rolleyes:

 

If he was right that 3NT should have been alerted, then why did he rule "no harm, no foul"? OTOH, if there really was no harm nor foul, then why would he say that 3NT should have been alerted? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

And yes, only after a pull.

[duschek]

If 1NT-3NT can be removed with a hand which fits reasonably into your definition of a 1NT opening, I believe it should be alerted (using Danish regulations), though I can hardly imagine a non-alert causing damage.

 

Alerting 1NT-3NT-4m to say "actually, we do know what is going on - he does not show a psyche of sorts" seems reasonable, but it could surely cause some confusion.

[TimG]

I'm curious what the systemic agreements are that lead to this.

[Jlall]

I'm curious what the systemic agreements are that lead to this.

Ya, and why you think there are others who play this way Oo

[aguahombre]

Ok...For the purpose of this discussion about alerts:

 

two kinds of stayman: one with 4-? in majors or strictly invite w/0 major. If GF, will not be 4-3 in majors.

 

the other with 3-? in majors, could be 4-3 (1nt-3C). But we would use 3C with bulky doubletons in the majors so pard will not worry.

 

I know of other pairs who do this, also, and don't know if pairs we don't know have similar agreements. This is just to satisfy your curiosity. I am sure you have better methods.

[bluejak]

I would alert it under most jurisdictions alerting. I am surprised that others do not see how damage occurs: most people play 1NT - 3NT as an instruction to do nothing with any thirteen cards, but when this pair passes 3NT they have now an agreement about certain things in opener's hand. That is quite likely to affect the defence. The alert is far more important when opener passes than when he does not.

[blackshoe]

I don't have the chutzpah to instruct my partners. For me, 3NT says "given your opening bid, I think this is the best spot." Granted I would not expect partner to pull it (if he does, he didn't have his 1NT bid) but I'm not going to say it means "shut UP, partner, I'm in charge here".

[gnasher]

I would alert it under most jurisdictions alerting. I am surprised that others do not see how damage occurs: most people play 1NT - 3NT as an instruction to do nothing with any thirteen cards, but when this pair passes 3NT they have now an agreement about certain things in opener's hand. That is quite likely to affect the defence. The alert is far more important when opener passes than when he does not.

Me too.

 

Under ACBL regulations, doesn't it fall into the category "All other conventional and/or artificial bids"? If it invites opener to bid under certain circumstances, it seems hard to argue that it's not conventional.

[blackshoe]

What does "conventional" mean any more?

[blackshoe]

[W]hen this pair passes 3NT they have now an agreement about certain things in opener's hand. That is quite likely to affect the defence. The alert is far more important when opener passes than when he does not.

Fair enough. Under which provision of, since it's the example we started with, the ACBL Alert Procedure, does this fall?

[aguahombre]

Now it is getting interesting, but alerting the pass of 3NT vs voluntarily disclosing an agreement prior to the opening lead are two separate things. Perhaps a distinction without a difference in effect, on this auction.

[barmar]

None of this seems conventional to me. It's bridge logic, based on inferences from bids that could have been made instead of jumping directly to 3NT.

 

In the ACBL, it's generally not required to alert negative inferences. So you have to alert Puppet Stayman, but you don't have to alert that responder probably is at most 2-2 in the majors when they don't use it.

[gnasher]

None of this seems conventional to me.  It's bridge logic, based on inferences from bids that could have been made instead of jumping directly to 3NT.

When I play Puppet Stayman, 1NT-3NT doesn't show a specific shape. It doesn't deny a 3-, 4- or even 5-card major, and it doesn't invite opener to bid. It simply says "I want you to try to make nine tricks without a trump suit". That, to me, seems both the logical meaning and the only non-conventional meaning.

 

In any case, I don't see what bridge logic has to do with it. Which ACBL regulation says "You should alert conventional bids, unless it is bridge logic that makes them conventional"?

[lamford]

In England, in my opinion, it is alertable under OB 5E1( b ):

 

<snip> ( b ) it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.

 

Is there an equivalent clause in the ACBL regulations, as, if so, that would seem to be the catch-all rule under which it should be alerted? Nothing to do with whether it is conventional or not.

[bluejak]

How should I know without looking? :D :lol: :(

[lamford]

How should I know without looking?

By previous knowledge of case law as to how from (http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/acbl_alt.htm):

 

1. Conventions that are not exempted below and all highly unusual calls

 

is interpreted (and whether a raise to 3NT which shows a shortage in a major is highly unusual):

 

for which the link

 

"ACBL Alert Regulations"

 

on the first page does not work. Also you might know whether the stated regulations, dated 2002, are current.

[barmar]

In any case, I don't see what bridge logic has to do with it. Which ACBL regulation says "You should alert conventional bids, unless it is bridge logic that makes them conventional"?

But I'm saying that it's NOT conventional. 3NT is natural and to play, but there are inferences from not using some other sequence to arrive there.