another question on when an alert is necessary

[EricK]

I would take the word "must" in the phrase "natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be alerted" as implying that the alert is mandatory. A reverse after a one-level response in a natural system being non-forcing is about as "unexpected" as I could possibly imagine and is clearly a "weak bid that sounds strong".

Are you mistaking "non-forcing" for "sign-off" or some such? A bid can be non-forcing without being weak - it just means partner can pass with a minimum. A non-forcing reverse is not (necessarily) a "weak bid that sounds strong", but could very well be a "strong bid which sounds (to some) very strong". And I don't know how these are regulated anywhere.

 

As an aside, if responder has a partially mis-fitting 5 or 6 count opposite a "normal" reverse (eg ♠Qxxxx ♥xxx ♦Kxxx ♣J on the bidding sequence 1♣ 1♠ 2♥), what are the chances of game? It doesn't seem totally unreasonable to bail out into a playable part score at a low-level (especially at MP). It doesn't even seem unreasonable for this to be systemic, especially bearing in mind that when partner is strong he is likely to be at the bottom end of his range. So I'm not convinced that such a bid deserves to be ridiculed.

[campboy]

Is a not-quite-forcing reverse really highly unusual "in light of historical usage", which is the ACBL's criterion?

[Trinidad]

Are you mistaking "non-forcing" for "sign-off" or some such? A bid can be non-forcing without being weak - it just means partner can pass with a minimum. A non-forcing reverse is not (necessarily) a "weak bid that sounds strong", but could very well be a "strong bid which sounds (to some) very strong". And I don't know how these are regulated anywhere.

 

As an aside, if responder has a partially mis-fitting 5 or 6 count opposite a "normal" reverse (eg ♠Qxxxx ♥xxx ♦Kxxx ♣J on the bidding sequence 1♣ 1♠ 2♥), what are the chances of game? It doesn't seem totally unreasonable to bail out into a playable part score at a low-level (especially at MP). It doesn't even seem unreasonable for this to be systemic, especially bearing in mind that when partner is strong he is likely to be at the bottom end of his range. So I'm not convinced that such a bid deserves to be ridiculed.

Exactly. If you have never seen somebody pass out a reverse (though technically forcing), you should play more. So, the TD should first examine what the agreements are.

 

Keep in mind that an agreement with partner is not a warranty to the opponents.

 

On the other hand, if opener had a 13 count and responder had a hand with which "everybody" would bid again, then there is a failure to alert.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

I just wonder if clueless players like that even have such an "agreement".

 

That's a matter for the TD at the table to judge. If they have no agreement, there is no requirement to alert.

[barmar]

Is a not-quite-forcing reverse really highly unusual "in light of historical usage", which is the ACBL's criterion?

I don't think so. When I started playing about 2 decades ago, I don't think it was forcing. If responder had a minimum and preferred opener's second suit, they would show it by passing. If opener really wanted to force, they jump shifted (I hadn't yet learned about splinters).

[bluejak]

Please can I remind Bill and others that we request people to state their jurisdiction when asking questions. Many many questions have different answers dependent on where in the world you are, and this one is a good example.

 

I also request that you make clear what you are doing in bidding sequences. It is perfectly possible to use the Hand Editor and show no hands. I understood 1C-1S//2H-P to mean

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp1s2hp]133|100[/hv]

 

and found the whole thread confusing until someone started talking about reverses.

 

Like the players who double 1♥ with any 13 cards holding at least 12 HCP and are surprised if told there is any alternative approach, many poor players reverse because they have a second suit. Since partner has no idea whether they have extra values or not on most sequences it makes no difference. Trying to get them to alert something that sounds to them like natural bidding is a bit pointless.

 

In old-fashioned standard Acol the sequence is non-forcing, you jump to 3♥ if you want to force. I would expect a lot of pairs to play that, so a non-forcing 2♥ is far from unusual in the EBU.

[barmar]

I also request that you make clear what you are doing in bidding sequences. It is perfectly possible to use the Hand Editor and show no hands. I understood 1C-1S//2H-P to mean

 

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp1s2hp]133|100[/hv]

 

and found the whole thread confusing until someone started talking about reverses.

I agree with your general recommendation regarding bidding diagrams. But you must have overlooked where the OP said "our side silent".

[bluejak]

Fair enough: it did and I did. But it is much easier to make such a mistake with a confusing auction.

[barmar]

Regarding "weak bids that sound strong", I had this auction today and I was wondering whether it counts:

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1sp1np2hp2sppp]133|100[/hv]

If you're playing New Minor Forcing (or some other checkback), 2♥ is a weak bid. I can't remember what it means without NMF -- is it forcing? And if so, does this auction need to be alerted in a NMF context? I've never done so.

[blackshoe]

If I'm not mistaken, it's not forcing. Opener has limited his hand, responder is just showing shape.

[barmar]

Thanks. I wasn't sure how responder distinguished between invitational and game forcing when showing his shape.

 

Which is, of course, one of the reasons why NMF was created.

[gordontd]

 

In old-fashioned standard Acol the sequence is non-forcing, you jump to 3♥ if you want to force. I would expect a lot of pairs to play that, so a non-forcing 2♥ is far from unusual in the EBU.

I agree with your first sentence, but I would expect very few pairs still to play that and would regard it as quite unusual. I remember someone who played that way by agreement - it was about 15 years ago. Of course there may well be others who play it like that but have not had the hand to pass it when it's come up against me, or who don't really know how they play it, but I would certainly still regard it as unusual in most fields in England.

[Cyberyeti]

I agree with your first sentence, but I would expect very few pairs still to play that and would regard it as quite unusual. I remember someone who played that way by agreement - it was about 15 years ago. Of course there may well be others who play it like that but have not had the hand to pass it when it's come up against me, or who don't really know how they play it, but I would certainly still regard it as unusual in most fields in England.

We play it as NF, but only if you'd shaded the 1♠ response, if you have a "real" 1♠ response it's F1.

[gordontd]

We play it as NF, but only if you'd shaded the 1♠ response, if you have a "real" 1♠ response it's F1.

You play that you have to bid 3♥ if you really want to force?

[Cyberyeti]

You play that you have to bid 3♥ if you really want to force?

No, we play a GF unbalanced (alerted) 2N rebid after which we show hand type over a 3♣ relay for really big hands so the reverse is limited.

[bluejak]

I agree with your first sentence, but I would expect very few pairs still to play that and would regard it as quite unusual. I remember someone who played that way by agreement - it was about 15 years ago. Of course there may well be others who play it like that but have not had the hand to pass it when it's come up against me, or who don't really know how they play it, but I would certainly still regard it as unusual in most fields in England.

The problem is, Gordon, that you are in London. I think if you were to play in clubs away from London you would find many pairs who do not play it as forcing [including several who have no idea that any non-jump is ever forcing].

[Vampyr]

The problem is, Gordon, that you are in London. I think if you were to play in clubs away from London you would find many pairs who do not play it as forcing [including several who have no idea that any non-jump is ever forcing].

 

 

Sometimes it seems like the EBU govern two very disparate bridge cultures.

[mamos]

Experienced and knowledgeable tournament players generally know when methods they use are unusual. Blakjak tells us that there are many poor players who don't understand basic bidding theory, who reverse accidentally and have little idea whether their methods (or lack of them) is unusual or not. I think we should not concern ourselves with the latter group here. I play in the same geographical area as Blakjak and in some of the same games. Much of the bridge is weird and wonderful and I would attach no great significance to any alert or lack of it in these kinds of game. It would certainly not occur to me to claim damage in such an auction.

 

Cyberyeti tells us that he has methods which allow his partnership to force in a situation where I would bid say 1♣ Pass 1♠ Pass 2♥ and expect partner to keep bidding. Cyberyeti knows his methods are unusual and I would expect him to alert. It's not very obvious how damage might occur in such a sequence so I'd need a lot of convincing before I'd even think about adjusting, but if I played 2♥ here as NF, I'd want to tell my opponents and if my opponents played this I'd like them to tell me because frankly it would not occur to me that this was NF

[aguahombre]

Blakjack is really one person with a split personality.

[Cyberyeti]

Experienced and knowledgeable tournament players generally know when methods they use are unusual. Blakjak tells us that there are many poor players who don't understand basic bidding theory, who reverse accidentally and have little idea whether their methods (or lack of them) is unusual or not. I think we should not concern ourselves with the latter group here. I play in the same geographical area as Blakjak and in some of the same games. Much of the bridge is weird and wonderful and I would attach no great significance to any alert or lack of it in these kinds of game. It would certainly not occur to me to claim damage in such an auction.

 

Cyberyeti tells us that he has methods which allow his partnership to force in a situation where I would bid say 1♣ Pass 1♠ Pass 2♥ and expect partner to keep bidding. Cyberyeti knows his methods are unusual and I would expect him to alert. It's not very obvious how damage might occur in such a sequence so I'd need a lot of convincing before I'd even think about adjusting, but if I played 2♥ here as NF, I'd want to tell my opponents and if my opponents played this I'd like them to tell me because frankly it would not occur to me that this was NF

My 1♦-1♠-2♥ still shows a very good hand, just the absolute monsters are filtered out, so this means my 2♥ is pretty much the same as it would be for somebody playing an acol 2♦ so what my hand is should be covered by general bridge knowledge in the UK. 2♥ is "forcing" but if partner has improved the contract by bidding 1♠ with QJ10xx, xxx, void, xxxxx then he's entitled to pass if he chooses, it's probably a better spot than 1♦. As such we don't alert this, but do alert the 2N GF unbalanced rebid.

[barmar]

Someone started a thread today in rec.games.bridge, asking if reverses are 100% forcing.

[jh51]

In reality, when incompetent opponents pass a forcing bid the hugely percentage play is to pass quitely and hope that they have missed a cold game.

I had a partner (who I shall not identify to avoid embarrasment to same) who I was playing with at a time when said partner had playing for about a year. In the same tournament I twice found my forcing bids had been passed by partner. On one occassion I had reversed into a 2 card suit (just to create a forcing auction - I thought that slam was possible) and played in a 3-2 fit. I made the contract but it was worth very few match points. We had in fact missed a slam.

 

On the other occasion, partner had bid a weak 2 and I (an unpassed hand) bid a new suit. This time your advice did not work out so well for our opponents. 2 of my suit made, but not 3, and 2 of my partner's suit would have been down at least 2 tricks. If partner had known that my bid was forcing we might still have had a decent result going down 1n my suit, but this was better. The director was called, but I pointed out that the convention card indicated that this was forcing (actually I think it fails to indicate that a new suit is not forcing). I was as suprised as my opponents that parter had passed.

[phil_20686]

 

In the ACBL: "Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them".

 

 

I'm not sure how a bid is meant to sound? Does this mean a weak bid is alertable only if partner slaps it meaningfully upon the table in the way that LOLs do to make sure their partner knows its forcing?

[blackshoe]

No. It means that if a pair have an unusual agreement, such that "a weak bid sounds strong" or the like, it's alertable. An example would be a jump shift by responder in an uncontested auction. If it's a WJS, it requires an alert.

[Jeremy69A]

I understand that the director can have his own standards on what is alerted, but shouldn't they be posted somewhere?

 

I don't think he can. In England the club can opt out of following the Orange Book regulations but very few do. If they did decide to to so so then it is for the club committee or owner to decide what is being done. It would be normal behaviour to publish it if you decided on something different to the mainstream. Not all club owners are normal!