NT Opening announcement

[Vampyr]

Someone I know plays Blue Club style, and his opening 1NT is 14-16 or 12-13 with clubs. (Please no discussion on whether this is really Blue Club, that is not the point!) Anyway, he thinks that he is supposed to announce his opening 1NT as 12-16. I don't think that's right, and since an announcement for the exact agreement is not prescribed, I think he should alert. Anyway I said I would investigate. Please help, those who are in a position to answer with authority. The OB is unhelpful.

[pran]

Someone I know plays Blue Club style, and his opening 1NT is 14-16 or 12-13 with clubs. (Please no discussion on whether this is really Blue Club, that is not the point!) Anyway, he thinks that he is supposed to announce his opening 1NT as 12-16. I don't think that's right, and since an announcement for the exact agreement is not prescribed, I think he should alert. Anyway I said I would investigate. Please help, those who are in a position to answer with authority. The OB is unhelpful.

Announcements are a matter of regulation so you really have to consult your (EBU?) regs for this question.

 

But my guess is that your regs are pretty similar (if not identical) to our Norwegian regs on announcements, and here the announcement on 1NT opening bids shall include the HCP strength and any special additional information like "can have 5 cards major".

 

So in Norway the announcement here must be (if I understand you correct): "14-16, can be down to 12 with at least 5 clubs".

[blackshoe]

Can the hand with clubs be unbalanced or semi-balanced? Can it contain a second suit?

 

In general, announcement of the NT range applies, IMO, to "normal" 1NT openings, that is, balanced hands (4333, 4432, or 5332) in some particular point range, so that the distinguishing characteristic of the bid is only the range. I think the EBU pretty much takes the same approach as the ACBL with regard to openings which don't fit these criteria for an announcement — they would instead require an alert. So this opening, which has a special criterion for part of the range, should IMO require an alert. But I would defer to actual EBU directors if they understand the EBU approach differently. :D

[Vampyr]

Announcements are a matter of regulation so you really have to consult your (EBU?) regs for this question.

 

Right, sort of mentioned EBU and also that I checked the Orange book.

 

Was looking for EBU answers, but thanks for playing, chaps.

[blackshoe]

I gave you an EBU answer, based on my impression and understanding of EBU regs. The fact that I referred to the ACBL should not lead you to conclude that I'm basing my answer just on ACBL regs. So yeah, thanks for playing. :(

[Vampyr]

I gave you an EBU answer, based on my impression and understanding of EBU regs. The fact that I referred to the ACBL should not lead you to conclude that I'm basing my answer just on ACBL regs. So yeah, thanks for playing. :(

 

Look, I'm sorry. I was just hoping for a definitive answer from those responsible for writing the regulations.

[MickyB]

Look, I'm sorry. I was just hoping for a definitive answer from those responsible for writing the regulations.

 

Are you interested in what the regulation-writers think the regulation says, or what they think the regulation should say? Why should either of those answers be classed as "definitive"?

 

OB 5 C 6 All 1NT openings are announced (if natural) or alerted (if artificial). All responses of

2§, 2¨ or 2© to a natural 1NT opening without intervention are either announced or

alerted except natural weak take-outs.

[Vampyr]

Are you interested in what the regulation-writers think the regulation says, or what they think the regulation should say? Why should either of those answers be classed as "definitive"?

 

I want to tell the player what the "right" answer is. Which is, I guess, what they think it says.

 

Anyway, I think that the artificial/alert thing is right too, but I wanted to make sure because the player seemed somewhat resistant to the idea of alerting, and was convinced that announcing 12-16 was correct. He would change if he found he was mistaken, obviously, and I thought that perhaps word from on high would be reasonable evidence.

 

Also, I did not get all the information I needed, because I wonder if it makes a difference if 12-13 is balanced with clubs.

[blackshoe]

Look, I'm sorry. I was just hoping for a definitive answer from those responsible for writing the regulations.

 

And you may yet get one. :)

 

This is the internet. We (Sven and I) just happened to see your post first. We thought we had something useful to contribute (well, I did, anyway ;) ) so we contributed. Sorry if you feel our answers weren't useful. B-)

[pran]

For the record:

The Norwegian regulation (effective July 1st 2011) specifies explicitly that opening bids in the range 1NT - 2♠ shall never be alerted but always announced (by the opener's partner). The announcement shall include the information that is (to be) found in the system declaration card.

 

With 1NT the announcement shall include HCP range (e.g. "12-14" or "14 good to 17") and any special distribution possibilities.

[helene_t]

It is sort of moot because we don't announce 1NT strength in EBU land anymore.

 

Anyway, I think the treatment is unusual enough to require an alert.

 

If playing in a club where announcements are still used, announcing it as "12-16" is clearly misleading. You have to provide full disclosure. So either announce it with the full explanation (if you consider it a natural 1NT bid) or alert it (if you consider it artificial).

[RMB1]

It is sort of moot because we don't announce 1NT strength in EBU land anymore.

 

Which "we"?

 

Did I miss a memo?

[PeterAlan]

Someone I know plays Blue Club style, and his opening 1NT is 14-16 or 12-13 with clubs. (Please no discussion on whether this is really Blue Club, that is not the point!) Anyway, he thinks that he is supposed to announce his opening 1NT as 12-16. I don't think that's right, and since an announcement for the exact agreement is not prescribed, I think he should alert. Anyway I said I would investigate. Please help, those who are in a position to answer with authority. The OB is unhelpful.

Disclaimer: I have not been involved in writing the regulations and am in no position to give you a definitive answer. Having said that:

 

As MickyB says, you can start with

 

5 C Announcements – 1NT Openings and Responses

5 C 1 Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying “12 to 14”.

5 C 2 Where a 1NT opening which is in principle natural may be made by agreement on some hands which contain a singleton, it is announced by stating the range followed by “possible singleton”.

...

5 C 6 All 1NT openings are announced (if natural) or alerted (if artificial).

which is amplified by

 

5 F ‘Natural’ bids and passes

5 F 1 The following are considered ‘natural’ for alerting purposes:

...

(b) A bid of no trumps which shows a preparedness to play in no trumps, and which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings; it must not be forcing unless a forcing auction has already been created. Note that certain ostensibly natural no trump bids are permitted to allow a shortage by agreement.

 

I think, therefore, that the first question to ask (OB 5 C 6) is: Natural or Artificial? If the "12-13 with ♣" option is not restricted to hands which would be regarded as natural 1NT openings if they were the only option, then I think it's clear that the criteria in 5 F 1 (b) are not met and the opening should be alerted.

 

If the option is so restricted, so that in effect you've got an extension of a natural 14-16 range together with a selection from the natural 12-13 range that is limited to hands with some (undefined by you) sort of ♣ suit, then arguably it could be announceable, and the sensible announcement would be "14-16 or 12-13 with ♣" (NB OB 5A4: "Announcements are not intended to provide comprehensive explanations – matters of detail will still be disclosed by means of information on convention cards and the answers to questions"). However, it's still questionable whether the bid "conveys ... unusual information about suit holdings", and I would have thought it should be safe to alert even in this case too. The downside is that this says that the NT opening is "artificial", and a picky opposition who don't ask might complain when the hand in question turns out to be one that conforms to the natural NT opening parameters.

 

5 E Basic alerting rules

5 E 1 Passes and bids

Unless it is announceable (see 5 C and 5 D), a pass or bid must be alerted if

(a) it is not natural; or

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

Finally, it seems to me that the familiar 5 E 1 (b) (alert if it's natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning) is essentially irrelevant, since it only kicks in if the bid is not announceable (first words of 5 E 1), and in that event it's alertable anyway under 5 C 6.

[campboy]

If it is natural it should be announced, not alerted, for the reasons Peter gives. If it is not natural then it is not permitted at EBU level 4: the only permitted meanings are i) natural ii) artificial and strong iii) artificial guaranteeing 4+ cards in a specified suit and iv) three-suited.

[gnasher]

It's obviously wrong to describe it simply as "12-16", because that is very likely to mislead the opponents. If your friend cares about playing the game fairly, he should find a way to avoid that, even if it means bending the rules.

 

Luckily, though, we don't have to bend any rules. When announcing, the rules require you to "state a range", but they don't specify that it should be a range only of high-card points. It is proper to announce it as "14-16, or 12-16 with clubs" or "12-16, but if 12-13 he will have clubs".

 

I had an official response from the L&EC about a similar question a few years ago. I wrote to them asking how I should announce a 1NT opening which was 15-17 if 4333/4432, but would routinely be a 5332 14-count or a 6322 13-count. I was advised to announce it as "15-17; maybe slightly less with a 6-card minor", with the comment that "we don't specify the exact form of words which must be used".

[helene_t]

Which "we"?

 

Did I miss a memo?

hmmm our td in Leeds told me. But I can't find it anywhere on the EBU site. So I guess I was wrong.

[gordontd]

hmmm our td in Leeds told me. But I can't find it anywhere on the EBU site. So I guess I was wrong.

Maybe your Leeds club has decided not to use announcements any more, though it would seem a surprising decision. Or maybe your TD just got it wrong.

[paulg]

hmmm our td in Leeds told me. But I can't find it anywhere on the EBU site. So I guess I was wrong.

Or did he tell you last Sunday?

[bluejak]

I have advised Blue Club players to alert their 1NT opening.

 

The main thing to remember is that when giving information to opponents you are meant to be helpful because this is a game in which partnership agreements are freely available to opponents. So if you can find a form of wording that makes it clear to opponents without confusing them or being too long, great, use that as an announcement.

[barmar]

Do I smell a hint of Active Ethics in IBLF????

[jallerton]

I had an official response from the L&EC about a similar question a few years ago. I wrote to them asking how I should announce a 1NT opening which was 15-17 if 4333/4432, but would routinely be a 5332 14-count or a 6322 13-count. I was advised to announce it as "15-17; maybe slightly less with a 6-card minor", with the comment that "we don't specify the exact form of words which must be used".

 

Interesting. The L&EC advised you to disclose the 6322 13-counts but not the 5332 14-counts. Also the "we don't specify the exact form of words which must be used" seems to be in contradiction with the wording of the Orange Book quoted above.

 

Maybe you could announce your 1NT opening as "15-17 or Rule of 22".

[gnasher]

Interesting. The L&EC advised you to disclose the 6322 13-counts but not the 5332 14-counts.

Actually, my earlier post was slightly misleading. My question was addressed to the L&EC, and the reply was from the then secretary to the L&EC, but I believe that it was actually written by Max Bavin without consulting the rest of the committee.

 

Also the "we don't specify the exact form of words which must be used" seems to be in contradiction with the wording of the Orange Book quoted above.

Do you mean the part that reads "Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying '12 to 14'."? The "eg" tells us that this is one possible form of words, not that it is the only permitted form of words.

 

Maybe you could announce your 1NT opening as "15-17 or Rule of 22".

I think that would be allowed, except that my notrump openings have an upper limit, so it would be "15-17 or Rule of 22-24".

[blackshoe]

Do you mean the part that reads "Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying '12 to 14'."? The "eg" tells us that this is one possible form of words, not that it is the only permitted form of words.

 

To me it suggests that you say a minimum point count and a maximum point count, and not that you might add other information that has nothing to do with what the range is. If you feel that full disclosure requires that the additional information be provided, then it seems to me you should alert rather than announce.

 

Around here I frequently hear "could be short, non-forcing" as an announcement of partner's 1♣ opening. My reaction is "of course it's non-forcing; if it was forcing, you'd have to alert it". On the few occasions I've brought that point up, they nodded sagely, and went on doing it their way. :o

[gnasher]

To me it suggests that you say a minimum point count and a maximum point count, and not that you might add other information that has nothing to do with what the range is.

I'm not sure why it would suggest that to you. The only requirement is that you state a "range". There is nothing in that sentence to say that it has to be a range of high card strength.

 

When I wrote my earlier post, I was interpreting "range" as meaning "range of hand-types". However, I now see that the Orange Book defines the term "range" as "The agreed values shown by a call, generally expressed in HCP." It says "generally", so we're not obliged to use HCP. It says "values" rather than "high-card values", so we're not constrained to describing the high-card values only. If appropriate, we can state a range in terms of playing strength, or of combined high-card and distributional values.

 

I think, therefore, that "15-17; maybe slightly less with a 6-card minor" or "15-17 or equivalent playing strength" is clearly allowed, because it describes the range in terms of playing strength (and also because Max said so).

 

However, I've changed my mind about "14-16, or 12-16 with clubs" - this states a range of hand-types, not just of values, so on a strict interpretation of the rules it's incorrect. On a similarly strict interpretation, alerting also appears to be incorrect. But I would do one of these two anyway.

[paulg]

Around here I frequently hear "could be short, non-forcing" as an announcement of partner's 1♣ opening. My reaction is "of course it's non-forcing; if it was forcing, you'd have to alert it". On the few occasions I've brought that point up, they nodded sagely, and went on doing it their way. :o

Of course, around there, you are required to announce AND alert simultaneously. But apparently ignoring the requirement to alert is acceptable.