Some basic questions

[Vampyr]

 

Also, it might be good to learn which bids are "self-alerting". You shouldn't ever get into trouble for alerting too much, but at least you can relax knowing no matter what it means you don't need to alert it. These bids include bids of the opponent's suit, all doubles, 2♣ after a 1NT opening, and a 2♣ opening bid. There are probably others.

 

 

Where did you get this info? I have been trying to get into the English section of the Israeli Bridge Federation website but without success.

 

 

Wait, it said in an earlier post that Stayman is announceable in Israel. So I think that your source for the above information may not be reliable.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Vampyr

[Antrax]

Which side is the offending side when time runs out? More importantly, what happens when the partnerships disagree about this? (not out of malice, time just goes by faster for someone deep in thought)

[dan_ehh]

Which side is the offending side when time runs out? More importantly, what happens when the partnerships disagree about this? (not out of malice, time just goes by faster for someone deep in thought)

Then you have an argument and the director has to decide... when I have to decide, I usually don't choose, and leave them both at a=. You can call the director in the middle of the board and tell him that "this guy is taking WAYYYYY too long to play" and then he may observe and agree with you (or not) at the end.

 

 

 

Quantumcat,

I'm glad you apologized, however you are doing the same thing again. What you wrote is blatantly wrong and misleading.

Alert regulations change from country to country, and since you are obviously not Israeli, you shouldn't comment on what you don't know to be true.

For example, cuebids are alertable in Israel, and a 2♣ opening is an announcement.

Doubles are not alertable (under any condition), but I am certain this is different in other jurisdictions.

[the hog]

Then you have an argument and the director has to decide... when I have to decide, I usually don't choose, and leave them both at a=. You can call the director in the middle of the board and tell him that "this guy is taking WAYYYYY too long to play" and then he may observe and agree with you (or not) at the end.

 

 

 

Quantumcat,

I'm glad you apologized, however you are doing the same thing again. What you wrote is blatantly wrong and misleading.

Alert regulations change from country to country, and since you are obviously not Israeli, you shouldn't comment on what you don't know to be true.

For example, cuebids are alertable in Israel, and a 2♣ opening is an announcement.

Doubles are not alertable (under any condition), but I am certain this is different in other jurisdictions.

Well I agree with the "QCat". To announce the name of your convention eg "Stayman", is indeed ridiculous imo as well.

[barmar]

Well I agree with the "QCat". To announce the name of your convention eg "Stayman", is indeed ridiculous imo as well.

Why? What's the difference between that and the ACBL requirement to announce Jacoby and Texas transfers (I think EBU adopted this a few years ago, too)? Or do you think ALL announcements are ridiculous.

 

Announcements are a compromise. Before the announcement procedure was created, these bids were alerted. But these conventions are so common that everyone just assumed that this was what the opponents were using, and no one would ever ask for an explanation. But if a pair was using a different convention, the opponents wouldn't find out.

 

ACBL first tried "special alert". You would say "alert" if you were using the common convention, and "special alert" if you were using something really unusual. But this didn't catch on. They replaced it with announcements, which have worked very well.

 

Announcements are only used for conventions that almost everyone plays, or for some very common treatments (forcing NT, short minors). They're very unlikely to cause UI problems between the partners, and simply confirm to the opponents that the bid means what they expect. If someone alerts one of these bids, they know that an unusual convention is being used, so they should ask for an explanation.

[NickRW]

Well I agree with the "QCat". To announce the name of your convention eg "Stayman", is indeed ridiculous imo as well.

 

 

Why? What's the difference between that and the ACBL requirement to announce Jacoby and Texas transfers (I think EBU adopted this a few years ago, too)?

 

 

It is "ridiculous" to announce, say, "Stayman", when elsewhere in most regulations it seems that the authorities want us to NOT use the names of conventions but say what the bid actually shows.

 

Of course, saying the name of something as well known and widely played as Stayman is the more pragmatic solution.

 

Nick

[Vampyr]

Well I agree with the "QCat". To announce the name of your convention eg "Stayman", is indeed ridiculous imo as well.

 

Do you also agree with picking a set of alert regulations seemingly at random and deciding that they are somehow relevant to the OP's jurisdiction?

[Quantumcat]

I'm glad there are some people that see the absurdity of announcing what you are playing. The point of bidding is communicating through the codes of your bids, not through any other means.

 

Here are some quotes from the Laws of Contract Bridge:

 

Law 73 A 1: Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves.

 

Law 73 B 1: Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

 

Law 73 F 1: if the Director determines that a player chose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by his partner's remark, manner, tempo, or the like, he shall award an adjusted score (i.e. if you have to announce everything you play, there are going to be a LOT of adjusted scores when the explanations may be wrong)

 

Law 74 B 2: making gratuitous comments during the auction and play.

[Vampyr]

g

I'm glad there are some people that see the absurdity of announcing what you are playing. The point of bidding is communicating through the codes of your bids, not through any other means.

 

 

This is true in theory, but in actual practice it is an ideal that is impossible to achieve without screens. Yes, you could eliminate alerts, but the opponents are entitled to a full description of a partnership's agreements, should they request one.

[barmar]

It is "ridiculous" to announce, say, "Stayman", when elsewhere in most regulations it seems that the authorities want us to NOT use the names of conventions but say what the bid actually shows.

 

Of course, saying the name of something as well known and widely played as Stayman is the more pragmatic solution.

 

Nick

When EXPLAINING bids you shouldn't just give the name of the convention. But announcements are not explanations. Announcements are used when you're using a common convention that everyone understands. In ACBL we announce Jacoby/Texas Transfers, Forcing NT, and Short Club (Stayman is so common that we don't alert or announce it at all). Other jurisdictions announce some other common conventions.

 

Announcements are supposed to be short -- it would be inappropriate to describe the meaning as part of an announcement. If an opponent does need an explanation, they can always ask.

[barmar]

I'm glad there are some people that see the absurdity of announcing what you are playing. The point of bidding is communicating through the codes of your bids, not through any other means.

 

Here are some quotes from the Laws of Contract Bridge:

 

Law 73 A 1: Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves.

 

Law 73 B 1: Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

Announcements don't violate this. Announcements are for the benefit of opponents, not partners. Yes, you can hear them (unless you're playing with screens or online), but you're supposed to ignore partner's announcements, alerts, and explanations. That's the point of Law 73F1, to handle cases where you don't ignore them.

[Cascade]

Announcements don't violate this.

 

Indeed even if they did so do alerts and I am sure everyone agrees that alerts are part of the game.

[Antrax]

A new question came up - do you ever give an alert for pass? Last night we had the following auction:

1NT-(X)-P

Partner's pass of a penalty double to 1NT requests opener to redouble, at which point he passes for penalties or we look for a fit etc. Is that alertable?

What about the following situation:

1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠)

Double now would show 3-card support for hearts. Is a pass in this situation alertable? (since partner now knows I don't have 3 hearts)

[blackshoe]

When EXPLAINING bids you shouldn't just give the name of the convention. But announcements are not explanations. Announcements are used when you're using a common convention that everyone understands. In ACBL we announce Jacoby/Texas Transfers, Forcing NT, and Short Club (Stayman is so common that we don't alert or announce it at all). Other jurisdictions announce some other common conventions.

 

Announcements are supposed to be short -- it would be inappropriate to describe the meaning as part of an announcement. If an opponent does need an explanation, they can always ask.

 

You left out short diamonds. B-)

[Vampyr]

A new question came up - do you ever give an alert for pass? Last night we had the following auction:

1NT-(X)-P

Partner's pass of a penalty double to 1NT requests opener to redouble, at which point he passes for penalties or we look for a fit etc. Is that alertable?

 

I don't think that many forum members are familiar with the alert regulations in your NBO. This pass, though, is probably alertable everywhere.

 

 

What about the following situation:

1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠)

Double now would show 3-card support for hearts. Is a pass in this situation alertable? (since partner now knows I don't have 3 hearts)

 

Without specific knowledge of the local regulations, I would alert.

[barmar]

In ACBL, you're not required to alert negative inferences. So you don't have to alert when partner makes some call other than a support double. You also don't have to alert a raise because it promises 4-card support. You only have to alert the support double itself. I think the reason for this is that this meaning of double is artificial and relatively unusual. But pass and raise are pretty close to the meaning they have if you're not playing support doubles.

[Vampyr]

A new question came up - do you ever give an alert for pass? Last night we had the following auction:

1NT-(X)-P

Partner's pass of a penalty double to 1NT requests opener to redouble, at which point he passes for penalties or we look for a fit etc. Is that alertable?

 

I don't think that many forum members are familiar with the alert regulations in your NBO. This pass, though, is probably alertable everywhere.

 

 

What about the following situation:

1♦-(P)-1♥-(1♠)

Double now would show 3-card support for hearts. Is a pass in this situation alertable? (since partner now knows I don't have 3 hearts)

 

Without specific knowledge of the local regulations, I would alert.

[barmar]

Is there an echo in here? :)

[Antrax]

Well, dan_ehh is a forum member and he seems fairly knowledgeable :)

I'm not sure in Israel you alert support doubles, I think there's a regulation that says you never alert any double or redouble (and never a call above 3NT).

[aguahombre]

The good pairs seem to always alert a pass when a double would show 3-card support. they alert any other bid, too if they would always double with 3-card support.

[dan_ehh]

Well, dan_ehh is a forum member and he seems fairly knowledgeable :)

I'm not sure in Israel you alert support doubles, I think there's a regulation that says you never alert any double or redouble (and never a call above 3NT).

 

Thank you for the compliment. I'd like to consider myself knowledgeable, yes...

As to your questions, the redouble-demanding pass is very much alertable. Whether the 2nd one (denying 3 card support) is alertable is not clear in the regulations (as far as I know). This is mainly because the regulations are not written in details anywhere visible. I personally alert it, and I think it doesn't hurt to alert. The principle of "when in doubt - alert" is strong in the IBF regulations.

You're right about the doubles and redoubles - they are never alertable regardless of their meaning (another silly regulation in my opinion).

 

 

 

I'd like to add something about announcements. As several posters already said, announcements do not violate the UI laws any more than alerts and explanations do.

The difference is basically what barmar said - announcements are used in very common bidding sequences such as a 1 or 2 level opening bid, stayman, transfers, or other very simple situations. These are auctions where it's extremely unlikely that the announcement will give partner any meaningful UI.

Quantumcat, do you really think someone will forget they play stayman? Or weak 2s? And in the unlikely event that someone is such a weak player that they actually do forget that 2♣ is stayman, not clubs, and the announcement wakes them up, they've probably already misbid that it won't help much, plus the director can usually determine that the announcement gave them UI and that they used it (because they'll be holding clubs, not majors, for the 2♣ bid).

 

Finally, an interesting and very important point about the announcements: they are designed to protect the announcing side just as much as the opponents.

Example: we play better minor. Occasionally, I open a 3 card minor suit, and LHO has a real suit in this denomination. He wants to overcall it, but obviously can't because that would be artificial.

Under the old regulations, better minor was not alertable in Israel, so LHO would make the pseudo-cheating remark "is that really a ♣/♦ suit?" and then you'd say "promises at least 3" and they'd pass. Then their partner would magically lead the opening bid suit against 3NT...

Under the new regulations, the opening bidder's partner quickly says "at least 3 cards" and the opponent has to shut up. The announcement serves to reduce UI because it negates the element of questioning the opening bid.

[mycroft]

Ah, the dreaded "how many cards does that show?" "Fewer than you, obviously" sequence.

 

I used to see that before the weak NT Announcement here in the wilds of Canada.

• 1NT - Alert - X was the nuts;
  
• 1NT - Alert - "what is it?" - "12-14" - X was "equal values";
  
• 1NT - Alert - "what is it?" - "12-14" - p was "feel free to balance, partner";
  
• 1NT - Alert - pass was "got nothin', pard"
  

with similar gredations on overcalls. Our score on weak NT auctions in 1991 went up about 20%. I can't imagine why.

 

And as for QuantumCat (besides the arguments that Alerts do the same thing, even without explanations, and the law around it), L40B2a says in part, "The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnerships methods" - so if they say ya gotta Announce, ya gotta Announce (and, more importantly, and unfortunately, not always adhered to, if they don't say ya gotta Announce, then ya better not Announce!)

[blackshoe]

I get "could be as short as 2" and similar variants here for "short club". The one pair here (in their 80s) who always plays Precision alerts 1♦, apparently on the grounds that it's limited to 15 HCP (though they don't alert the similarly limited major openings).

 

I get "weak" when a weak 2 is opened. Sometimes I get "weak" or "preemptive" for a WJS not in competition. Announcements, not explanations of alerts.

 

I've given up trying to get players to change, or trying to get the TD to do anything about it. :blink: :o :(

[mycroft]

I am willing to live with "could be as short as X" for "could be short", mostly because if they don't tell me, I ask - and because it is important, the difference between 2 and zero. My partner for years Alerted 1D because that's what he had to do back when he learned; he now Announces, but it wasn't a big deal.

 

Having said that, Announcement creep does bother me, too.