Another Alertable?

[Phil]

(1♠) - pass - (2♠) - 3N

 

Under what circumstances would you expect 3N to be an alertable call?

[Gerben42]

If and only if the bid does not suggest partner to pass with a nondescript hand.

[peachy]

Only if it is something other than "to play". In ACBL, unusual NT overcalls of 2NT or four level or higher are not alertable, but if 3NT is "unusual", that 3NT needs an alert.

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertchart.html

[TylerE]

To be pedantic, the chart reads

 

Jumps to 2NT or any four-level or higher notrump bid that is unusual

 

No, I've never been screwed by an unalerted 2NT bid over a weak 2, and gotten no redress. Never.

[peachy]

To be pedantic, the chart reads

 

Jumps to 2NT or any four-level or higher notrump bid that is unusual

 

No, I've never been screwed by an unalerted 2NT bid over a weak 2, and gotten no redress. Never.

Yes, that is what the chart reas as Not Alerted.

 

Not sure what you are saying and how it is relevant.

2Nt over a weak two is a) natural and B) not a jump.

[Phil]

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

 

Perhaps the 1♠ opener expected a running minor and a spade stopper, which why he bid a sick vulnerable 4♠ on JT9xx AQxxx Ax x.

 

However, he didn't ask for redress, so this question never really came up.

[TylerE]

To be pedantic, the chart reads

 

Jumps to 2NT or any four-level or higher notrump bid that is unusual

 

No, I've never been screwed by an unalerted 2NT bid over a weak 2, and gotten no redress. Never.

Yes, that is what the chart reas as Not Alerted.

 

Not sure what you are saying and how it is relevant.

2Nt over a weak two is a) natural and B) not a jump.

My point is that A: Some poor misguided souls actually play 2X-2NT as minors B: Don't bother to alert that an in fact become rather indignant when you call the director after the hand.

[jdonn]

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

The point being...?

[Phil]

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

The point being...?

That if the 4♠ was a bit more legitimate that they've been damage by the FTA?

[jdonn]

I still don't get it, sorry.

[peachy]

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

 

Perhaps the 1♠ opener expected a running minor and a spade stopper, which why he bid a sick vulnerable 4♠ on JT9xx AQxxx Ax x.

 

However, he didn't ask for redress, so this question never really came up.

If the 3NT was *unusual*, it needed an alert. What the partner of the 3NT bidder is going to do, is irrelevant to the alertability of the 3NT, right?

[dburn]

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

 

Perhaps the 1♠ opener expected a running minor and a spade stopper, which why he bid a sick vulnerable 4♠ on JT9xx AQxxx Ax x.

 

However, he didn't ask for redress, so this question never really came up.

If the 3NT was *unusual*, it needed an alert. What the partner of the 3NT bidder is going to do, is irrelevant to the alertability of the 3NT, right?

Not quite right. If 3NT was minors by agreement, then it needed an alert. But if it was not discussed, and partner happened to have ♠AKQx so that he knew it was not natural, he was under no obligation to alert it.

[pran]

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

 

Perhaps the 1♠ opener expected a running minor and a spade stopper, which why he bid a sick vulnerable 4♠ on JT9xx AQxxx Ax x.

 

However, he didn't ask for redress, so this question never really came up.

If the 3NT was *unusual*, it needed an alert. What the partner of the 3NT bidder is going to do, is irrelevant to the alertability of the 3NT, right?

Not quite right. If 3NT was minors by agreement, then it needed an alert. But if it was not discussed, and partner happened to have ♠AKQx so that he knew it was not natural, he was under no obligation to alert it.

I have never liked this "undiscussed so it is not alertable" theory.

 

And what South can or cannot see from his own cards is completely irrelevant in the question of whether a call is alertable or not. A player must alert partner's call that by agreement is artificial even if he from his own cards can see that partner must have forgotten agreements and made the call as a natural call.

 

Opponents are entitled to a complete and accurate description of a partnership's agreements.

 

A missing alert then literally means that this situation is discussed and the call is natural (or not alertable).

 

Consequently an udiscussed call should IMHO always be alerted and then (if asked) be described as undiscussed.

 

Remember that an alert means that the call may contain some unexpected meaning. A missing alert means that the call certainly not contains any meaning that should be artificial and/or unexpected.

[blackshoe]

A missing alert then literally means that this situation is discussed and the call is natural (or not alertable).

 

Consequently an udiscussed call should IMHO always be alerted and then (if asked) be described as undiscussed.

 

Remember that an alert means that the call may contain some unexpected meaning. A missing alert means that the call certainly not contains any meaning that should be artificial and/or unexpected.

Nonsense. You are required to explain agreements, not non-agreements. You are not required to disclose to your opponents that your partnership is in unfamiliar territory, unless they ask. You are not required to alert non-agreements. Not in the ACBL, anyway, and I can't see that it makes sense elsewhere unless you have a regulation that specifically says so.

[Phil]

A missing alert then literally means that this situation is discussed and the call is natural (or not alertable).

 

Consequently an udiscussed call should IMHO always be alerted and then (if asked) be described as undiscussed.

 

Remember that an alert means that the call may contain some unexpected meaning. A missing alert means that the call certainly not contains any meaning that should be artificial and/or unexpected.

Nonsense. You are required to explain agreements, not non-agreements. You are not required to disclose to your opponents that your partnership is in unfamiliar territory, unless they ask. You are not required to alert non-agreements. Not in the ACBL, anyway, and I can't see that it makes sense elsewhere unless you have a regulation that specifically says so.

How can the opponents know to ask whether or not we are in 'unfamiliar territory' if they are not alerted?

 

AFIAC, if you were to ask this West player without looking at her hand, what is 3N? I don't know if she could give you a straight answer anyway.

[blackshoe]

Nobody is ever going to ask "are you in unfamiliar territory?" or "are you having a bidding mixup?" or the like. They might, in the unlikely event they understand and comply with Law 20, ask for an explanation of the auction. Or they might ask about a particular call, keeping in mind the UI implications of such a question.

 

Define "straight answer". Is "I don't know" not a straight answer? How about "we haven't discussed it"?

[peachy]

Opponents are entitled to a complete and accurate description of a partnership's agreements.

 

A missing alert then literally means that this situation is discussed and the call is natural (or not alertable).

 

Consequently an udiscussed call should IMHO always be alerted and then (if asked) be described as undiscussed.

Absolutely disagree. This to me makes no sense whatsoever and you even contradict yourself in the three statements.

[dburn]

Opponents are entitled to a complete and accurate description of a partnership's agreements.

 

A missing alert then literally means that this situation is discussed and the call is natural (or not alertable).

 

Consequently an udiscussed call should IMHO always be alerted and then (if asked) be described as undiscussed.

 

Remember that an alert means that the call may contain some unexpected meaning. A missing alert means that the call certainly not contains any meaning that should be artificial and/or unexpected.

The total number of possible legal bridge auctions is a rather imposing

 

128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557.

 

Now, suppose my partner and I have detailed agreements about a couple of million of these. Do you suggest that if any of the other

 

128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,120,697,557

 

arises at the table, we should alert?

[Pict]

Many auctions can be reduced to examples of agreements ('ideals'?).

 

But the attraction of Bridge is in part to be taken by surprise. Implementation of the Laws should not be designed to penalise surprise by assuming everything is predictable and can be decided in two seconds.

[zenko]

how about if you play with screens? is than OK to ask "do you have mix up? for example RHO (behind the screen) opens 1H you overcall 1S your screenmate LHO bids 3D (some kind of mix raise), then the tray comes back with 3H by your pard and 5D by RHO which looks very much like a diamond raise?

[Phil]

Define "straight answer". Is "I don't know" not a straight answer? How about "we haven't discussed it"?

Yes these are straight answers. Not particularly helpful, but certainly truthful.

 

I don't think matters are as clear as are others are suggesting. If I don't remember our agreements, but my hand tells me that pard's call means 'x' rather than 'y', then apparently I don't have to reveal this. If I cannot make an inference from my hand, then I'm at a bit of a loss and I'm supposed to dig back into that conversation we had at the coffee shop in 2004 about this jump to 3N.

 

What is bothersome is that if I can remember it after because my hand tells me it matches my memory, then I should be disclosing this to the opponents as well, and make a concerted effort to disclose as if I didn't have the benefit of staring at my own 13 cards.

 

If one of my regular partners made this call, and I held the AKQ of spades among my assets, I would know that they are horsing around without a spade stopper and would have no qualms explaining to the opponents what our agreement is.

[pran]

Without referring to any specific response to my post I read those responses that if I know we have an agreement but I have forgotten which of two (or more) alternative agreements we have, one of which is alertable another one is not, then it is perfectly OK for me to:

 

1: not alert my partner's call

and

2: if asked just answer: "I don't know".

 

Shall this be acceptable disclosure? To me action 1 is definitely not, (action 2 is of course acceptable except that I would prefer: "I have forgotten").

[mjj29]

Without referring to any specific response to my post I read those responses that if I know we have an agreement but I have forgotten which of two (or more) alternative agreements we have, one of which is alertable another one is not, then it is perfectly OK for me to:

 

1: not alert my partner's call

and

2: if asked just answer: "I don't know".

 

Shall this be acceptable disclosure? To me action 1 is definitely not, (action 2 is of course acceptable except that I would prefer: "I have forgotten").

Firstly there's a big difference between 1. Never discussed this at all, 2. We definitely have an agreement, but I've forgotten and 3. Technically we don't have an agreement, but it's basically the same as _this other situation_. The first one is the only one in which you should not alert.

 

The EBU has given guidence on this issue in the Orange Book:

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if tthe player's partner's actions are also consistent with that agreement

and also

Alert any of parner's calls believed to be alertable even if the meaning cannot be explained

 

Now, I know some people criticised my position in this thread, but I still believe that if you cannot remember which of two meanings it is the opponents are entitled to have both meanings disclosed to them along with your uncertainty. If one of them is alertable, that means alerting it.

 

If you deduce which one it is because your hand makes the other impossible, then you should alert and explain the meaning - because it is your agreement and the opponents are entitled to know that however you remembered it. If you deduce that partner is deviating from your hand then the opponents are not entitled to know that, but insert the normal disclaimer about implicit agreements etc.

 

Going back to my three examples above, in case one don't alert and explain it as "we have no agreement" when asked. In case two alert it and say "we have an agreement, but I've forgotten what it is" and, if applicable, "it's one of these things, but I've forgotten which". In case three alert and say "technically we've not discussed this, but in this other situation it would mean this".

 

Matt

[blackshoe]

Which part of which law or regulation speaks to disclaimers?

[mjj29]

Which part of which law or regulation speaks to disclaimers?

I meant "if you frequently deviate in this fashion then you may form an implicit agreement etc ...", just trying to avoid writing it out, given it's frequently expressed here