Alert/announce EBU

[Cyberyeti]

No you don't, because they can't infer any useful meaning from the alert. You might be alerting because it shows clubs and a major, shows both minors, shows club shortage, asks for shape, or asks partner what he wants from the bar.

 

Or you might be alerting because you believe that the meaning is "potentially unexpected". In fact, that's what you would be doing. What constitutes an unexpected meaning depends on who is on the receiving end. It's both reasonable and legal to alert this against the people in your local club who have only ever heard of one meaning for 3♣, but not alert against people with broader experience.

 

All that the alert tells them is that they shouldn't assume that they know what the bid means.

Yes but you are entitled to redress if the opps alert the only non alertable option (and it may be clear to you in this case what that is from looking at the CC), and you exclude that from the list of possibilities. I've seen enough rulings made on this basis not to want to put myself in that position.

 

If you notice Stayman is non-prom, and you have to decide whether declarer is 4216 or 3316, you "know" he can't systemically be 3316 as 3♣

is not alertable in that case and misdefend ...

[blackshoe]

Yes but you are entitled to redress if the opps alert the only non alertable option (and it may be clear to you in this case what that is from looking at the CC), and you exclude that from the list of possibilities. I've seen enough rulings made on this basis not to want to put myself in that position.

 

If you notice Stayman is non-prom, and you have to decide whether declarer is 4216 or 3316, you "know" he can't systemically be 3316 as 3♣

is not alertable in that case and misdefend ...

Do I understand you correctly? You are saying that you have an agreement with your partner about a particular call. That agreement includes several possible hand types, some of which require an alert, and at least one of which does not. So you alert. Opps do not ask, they assume. It turns out that the hand contains (one of) the non-alertable meaning(s). The director is called, and he rules that you have provided MI to opps. Is this really what you're saying?

 

If so, the ruling is director error.

[bluejak]

But if I make a technically incorrect alert and they don't ask, I open myself up to being ruled against.

Since no-one knows what an unalerted 3♣ shows, how on earth are you going to get ruled against?

 

Yes but you are entitled to redress if the opps alert the only non alertable option (and it may be clear to you in this case what that is from looking at the CC), and you exclude that from the list of possibilities. I've seen enough rulings made on this basis not to want to put myself in that position.

True as a general comment, irrelevant in this case because no-one knows what the non-alertable meaning is.

 

If you notice Stayman is non-prom, and you have to decide whether declarer is 4216 or 3316, you "know" he can't systemically be 3316 as 3♣

is not alertable in that case and misdefend ...

That is one reason it is not helpful to put non-prom, because some people assume things. But you will not be ruled against when you have done nothing wrong. If opponents wish to make illogical assumptions, that is their affair.

[campboy]

Do I understand you correctly? You are saying that you have an agreement with your partner about a particular call. That agreement includes several possible hand types, some of which require an alert, and at least one of which does not. So you alert. Opps do not ask, they assume. It turns out that the hand contains (one of) the non-alertable meaning(s). The director is called, and he rules that you have provided MI to opps. Is this really what you're saying?

I don't think that's what he's saying. Including one of the types doesn't make the call alertable; it is only the exclusion of type C which would (arguably) make it alertable. But he is going to include type C. If he alerts, knowledgable people might think that it is because type C is excluded. If he doesn't alert, less knowledgable people may think that type C is excluded anyway, because (supposedly) that is a more normal treatment.

[mycroft]

I play in several partnerships what seems to be "non-promissory Stayman", but 3m after Stayman still shows a major (our only "could not have a 4cM" call is 2NT).

 

So I don't think "non-prom" on the note will help with a particular call.

 

(I also play in partnerships where 3m is just "this is the way we make a NF/INV [depending on partnership] 3m call", and it doesn't show 4cM.)

 

This is one place where I think the ACBL has got it right, even if it is "one more stupid Alerting rule I have to remember". We explicitly say that calls after Stayman that may not promise a 4cM are Alertable.

[blackshoe]

I don't think that's what he's saying. Including one of the types doesn't make the call alertable; it is only the exclusion of type C which would (arguably) make it alertable. But he is going to include type C. If he alerts, knowledgable people might think that it is because type C is excluded. If he doesn't alert, less knowledgable people may think that type C is excluded anyway, because (supposedly) that is a more normal treatment.

 

["Bones" Brennan]I'm sorry. I don't know what that means.[/"Bones" Brennan]

[barmar]

I think I understand what he means, let me try an example.

 

In ACBL, direct cue bids are generally not alertable, unless they're natural. If your Michaels cue bid is alerted, the opponents might not bother asking, but will assume that it's natural because that't the only alertable meaning.

[blackshoe]

Okay, I can understand that, even though I think assuming anything is just stupid, but I still don't see how that corresponds with what Cyber originally said.

[barmar]

What Cyber originally said was actually the inverse of my example. Rather than there being only one alertable meaning, his case was that there's only one NON-alertable meaning. So when you mistakenly alert, the opponent assumes it's one of the many alertable possibilities, but NOT the one non-alertable meaning, but that happens to be your actual agreement.

 

I think his case is harder to defend. If the alert suggests several possibilities, and you don't ask, you're setting yourself up to fail whether the alert was correct or not. But if the alert suggests only one likely possibility, you have a better justification for assuming without asking.

[blackshoe]

Okay, I get it now. I think. ;)

[Cyberyeti]

What Cyber originally said was actually the inverse of my example. Rather than there being only one alertable meaning, his case was that there's only one NON-alertable meaning. So when you mistakenly alert, the opponent assumes it's one of the many alertable possibilities, but NOT the one non-alertable meaning, but that happens to be your actual agreement.

 

I think his case is harder to defend. If the alert suggests several possibilities, and you don't ask, you're setting yourself up to fail whether the alert was correct or not. But if the alert suggests only one likely possibility, you have a better justification for assuming without asking.

Exactly, if 2♣ was non promissory, only 3♣ that doesn't guarantee 4M is non alertable, so if you alert that, you could be causing yourself issues.