Alerting (ACBL)

[awm]

With one of my partners, I play a 1♠ opening which shows five or more spades and an unbalanced hand. We alert this opening during the auction (actually we also pre-alert, since we play light opening bids).

 

The question here is our 1NT response to 1♠. This shows a fairly wide range of points (5-12). Opener always has a natural rebid, because the 1♠ opening guarantees a 4+ card side suit or a 6+ card spade suit. Opener will never pass the 1NT bid (so in that sense it's forcing) but his rebids all guarantee 4+ in the suit named, and he will have the same sort of pattern that folks playing a non-forcing 1NT response might have. How should we alert/announce this?

[jdonn]

Just say 'forcing', which it is. Given that you have already alerted the opening bid, I believe the onus is then on the opponents to realize opener's rebid is completely natural.

 

Saying nothing and saying 'semi forcing' are both clearly wrong. Alerting is only slightly less clearly wrong. It shows the exact same hands as a forcing 1NT response for anyone, opener's rebids have nothing to do with it.

[barmar]

On a related note, I played with one partner who likes to play that a 2/1 response guarantees 5 cards in the suit, so he uses forcing NT even with game forcing hands when he doesn't have a 5-card suit. Do you think this should be alerted or announced any differently? And should 1M-2m be alerted because it promises a 5-card suit (most players only promise 4, and 1♠-2♣ can occasionally be bid with 3=4=3=3 if you don't have another way to show this shape with GF+ values)?

[bluejak]

In a way the matters in this thread show how the ACBL approach to system cards does not work. These matters would be on an EBU card under 'Things an opponent is likely to want to know' or whatever the current wording is, and system cards are required to be exchanged and in practice often are.

 

Of course, pre-alerts are meant to cover this sort of problem, but my experience has always been that spoken pre-alerts are very inferior.

[Vampyr]

On a related note, I played with one partner who likes to play that a 2/1 response guarantees 5 cards in the suit, so he uses forcing NT even with game forcing hands when he doesn't have a 5-card suit.  Do you think this should be alerted or announced any differently?

 

Yes, unless it is common in your area that a forcing NT can routinely be a game-forcing hand; and somehow I doubt it.

 

  And should 1M-2m be alerted because it promises a 5-card suit (most players only promise 4, and 1♠-2♣ can occasionally be bid with 3=4=3=3 if you don't have another way to show this shape with GF+ values)?

I shouldn't have thought so; I don't think that an alert can possibly be required for a natural, forcing bid.

 

I think that it probably should be alertable, but I doubt whether it is. Anywhere.

[jdonn]

In a way the matters in this thread show how the ACBL approach to system cards does not work. These matters would be on an EBU card under 'Things an opponent is likely to want to know' or whatever the current wording is, and system cards are required to be exchanged and in practice often are.

The acbl card does have space to write extra treatments that don't otherwise have a place.

[Vampyr]

The acbl card does have space to write extra treatments that don't otherwise have a place.

This section appears front and centre on the EBU card. THe more troublesome issue in the ACBL is the lack of exchanging cards. I have, many times, asked for the opponents' convention card, been given it grudgingly, and had it snatched back again (sometimes more than once) before the round or match was over.

 

It is so commonplace that I doubt that the ACBL even has a regulation mandating the exchange of convention cards.

[peachy]

With one of my partners, I play a 1♠ opening which shows five or more spades and an unbalanced hand. We alert this opening during the auction (actually we also pre-alert, since we play light opening bids).

 

The question here is our 1NT response to 1♠. This shows a fairly wide range of points (5-12). Opener always has a natural rebid, because the 1♠ opening guarantees a 4+ card side suit or a 6+ card spade suit. Opener will never pass the 1NT bid (so in that sense it's forcing) but his rebids all guarantee 4+ in the suit named, and he will have the same sort of pattern that folks playing a non-forcing 1NT response might have. How should we alert/announce this?

Technically, it is not alertable that opener's rebid in a suit, over a forcing NT, promises a 4-card suit although common rebid structure is that it could be a 3-card minor (or even a 2-card club suit). Technically, it is also not alertable if a natural 1S opening guarantees an unbalanced hand. However, these are things *I* would like to know about if I am an opponent and know that my opponents play 2/1 1NT forcing because I may make assumptions that turn out to be false. I know I can ask, but it would be silly to begin asking every opponent after they open 1S or every opponent who rebids a new suit over their partner's forcing NT. I think pre-alert would be nice (for me), but is this unexpected enough to warrant a pre-alert? I don't know. However, when in doubt, alert, covers it all. I know you are an ethical player and would not want to gain through technicality because the alert regulations are imperfect or unclear. Have you contacted the ACBL, and if you intend to, would you mind sharing their response (if you ever get one).

[TimG]

I shouldn't have thought so; I don't think that an alert can possibly be required for a natural, forcing bid.

Isn't an old-fashioned strong, natural and forcing 2♥ opening bid alertable in ACBL-land?

[bluejak]

  And should 1M-2m be alerted because it promises a 5-card suit (most players only promise 4, and 1♠-2♣ can occasionally be bid with 3=4=3=3 if you don't have another way to show this shape with GF+ values)?

I shouldn't have thought so; I don't think that an alert can possibly be required for a natural, forcing bid.

 

I think that it probably should be alertable, but I doubt whether it is. Anywhere.

It is alertable in England, so I think the approach is flawed.

[blackshoe]

I shouldn't have thought so; I don't think that an alert can possibly be required for a natural, forcing bid.

Isn't an old-fashioned strong, natural and forcing 2♥ opening bid alertable in ACBL-land?

Yes.

[nige1]

[sNIP] Opener will never pass the 1NT bid (so in that sense it's forcing)

Hence, IMO, it is "forcing" and should be announced as such, as ACBL regulations prescribe. It is hard for locals to understand their own local regulations, so imagine how much they handicap foreigners :wacko:

[nige1]

In a way the matters in this thread show how the ACBL approach to system cards does not work.  These matters would be on an EBU card under 'Things an opponent is likely to want to know' or whatever the current wording is, and system cards are required to be exchanged and in practice often are. Of course, pre-alerts are meant to cover this sort of problem, but my experience has always been that spoken pre-alerts are very inferior.

I agree with Bluejak but shouldn't this comment be moved to Changing Laws & Regulations along with some of the other Criticisms of ACBL regulations :wacko:

[peachy]

[sNIP] Opener will never pass the 1NT bid (so in that sense it's forcing)

Hence, IMO, it is "forcing" and should be announced as such, as ACBL regulations prescribe. It is hard for locals to understand their own local regulations, so imagine how much they handicap foreigners :wacko:

How many foreigners to ACBL do you know that have said they were handicapped by the ACBL regulations? You imagine foreigners are handicapped. I imagine you are imagining things .

 

Majority, if not all, of the foreigners who play in ACBL, are ACBL members because they play in the nationally rated events where only ACBL members can play. As such, they know and have access to regulation information as much as any other member. Or even a non-member. Or even nige1. So if there is any uncertainty, that uncertainty has nothing to do with whether one is a foreigner, an ACBL member, or a man from Mars.

[awm]

My tendency is just to alert this 1NT bid and explain if people ask. This is unlikely to get me in trouble, although it does seem to annoy some opponents who think I'm alerting too much. If I'm pretty sure that something actually isn't alertable then I'll stop alerting it of course. Realistically, I don't think asking ACBL will get me anywhere since the opinions over at HQ seem to vary pretty widely and also aren't binding on any particular director or committee. But it does seem from this set of responses that people prefer an announcement of "forcing" to an alert.

[jdonn]

Why do you believe saying "forcing" is wrong? Doesn't it show the exact same hands that anyone playing 'normal' 2/1 shows with his 1NT forcing response?

 

If you do perhaps alert too much, this looks like a good place to cut back. :)

[barmar]

Of course, pre-alerts are meant to cover this sort of problem, but my experience has always been that spoken pre-alerts are very inferior.

My experience is that many pairs with complex pre-alerts have them written on index cards, which they hand to the opponents or display prominently on the table if they're stationary. Some even have them printed nicely and laminated.

[awm]

Honestly I find the pairs with index cards annoying. So do a lot of other people. There are frequent demands for them to "take those off the table" and so forth. Plus it's just one more thing to lose when walking around the room.

 

As to why I don't think announcing forcing is right, suppose our 1NT response was something like 6-9 points (i.e. basically what SAYC people play). Then our 1NT response is totally "standard" and opener's rebids are also totally "standard" and yet the bid is still effectively forcing. I think announcing forcing in this case would be extremely misleading, and that the right thing to do would be neither alert nor announce, since both the response and opener's rebid show exactly what folks would expect in this case.

 

So I guess the point is that the "forcing" announcement is not really a statement about whether the bid is forcing. Instead, it is a statement about the range of hands responder can hold, and about the nature of opener's rebids (keep in mind that over a forcing notrump, even the auction 1♥-1NT-2♣ which can by agreement be a two-card suit is not an alert). In our case I actually think that "semi-forcing" might be a better announcement, because our 1NT response does not include any fitting hands and because opener's rebid will never be manufactured on a three-card suit (both of these are likely properties of a semi-forcing notrump which do not normally apply to a forcing notrump). Basically we alert because it seems safer than an announcement which might be misleading.

[blackshoe]

Honestly I find the pairs with index cards annoying. So do a lot of other people. There are frequent demands for them to "take those off the table" and so forth. Plus it's just one more thing to lose when walking around the room.

Since the regulation requires a verbal explanation of the methods when pre-alerting, the index cards are outside the law, and I have some sympathy with objections to them. However, I do not have sympathy with the typical surly response to them which I envision from your example. That's a violation of Law 74A2, at least.

 

So I guess the point is that the "forcing" announcement is not really a statement about whether the bid is forcing. Instead, it is a statement about the range of hands responder can hold, and about the nature of opener's rebids…

 

You have a point, I suppose, but the fact is that the regulation simply says that if 1NT is forcing, you so announce it. The regulation doesn't seem to care what kinds of hands may force, or what the rebids may mean.

[Sadie3]

I think you need to take each bid individually. The 1S bid should be alerted because it promises two specific hand shapes. The 1NT response needs to be explained as "forcing" because it is. The new suit rebid by opener needs to be alerted because it promises length of at least 4. Why is this difficult?

[TimG]

Honestly I find the pairs with index cards annoying. So do a lot of other people. There are frequent demands for them to "take those off the table" and so forth. Plus it's just one more thing to lose when walking around the room.

My experience is that those who are truly interested in the pre-alert appreciate the cards. I think it is easier for someone to read at the speed with which they process the information rather than process at the speed with which someone verbalizes the information.

 

I do not think the cards serve to take the place of a verbal pre-alert. But, I do think that saying something along the lines of "we have to pre-alert X, Y and Z, the details are on the cards" serves to meet the regulation that pre-alerts must be verbalized.

[Vampyr]

  And should 1M-2m be alerted because it promises a 5-card suit (most players only promise 4, and 1♠-2♣ can occasionally be bid with 3=4=3=3 if you don't have another way to show this shape with GF+ values)?

I shouldn't have thought so; I don't think that an alert can possibly be required for a natural, forcing bid.

 

I think that it probably should be alertable, but I doubt whether it is. Anywhere.

It is alertable in England, so I think the approach is flawed.

A natural 2/1 is alertable in England if it promises 5 cards in the suit? I am surprised. Also I cannot find it in the Orange Book.

[richlp]

I shouldn't have thought so; I don't think that an alert can possibly be required for a natural, forcing bid.

Isn't an old-fashioned strong, natural and forcing 2♥ opening bid alertable in ACBL-land?

Yes. And a strong, forcing, natural 2♣ is also.

 

I play very rarely now, perhpas two sessions a year and that with my old college roommate. We play Goren and get the strangest looks when 2♣ is first alerted and then explained.

[barmar]

When ACBL first made negative doubles non-alertable, I would play in some tournaments with a rubber bridge crony, and we liked to play our rubber bridge standard, which had very few conventions (Stayman, weak 2, Blackwood, and takeout doubles, IIRC). So we would alert these doubles, and the opponents would remind us that NegX is no longer alertable, and then we'd say "we know."

[Vampyr]

When ACBL first made negative doubles non-alertable, I would play in some tournaments with a rubber bridge crony, and we liked to play our rubber bridge standard, which had very few conventions (Stayman, weak 2, Blackwood, and takeout doubles, IIRC).  So we would alert these doubles, and the opponents would remind us that NegX is no longer alertable, and then we'd say "we know."

Presumably when the ACBL made negative doubles non-alertable, they added an alert to penalty doubles?