Disclosing a nonstandard 1NT opening (ACBL)

[barmar]

Are announcing and alerting mutually exclusive? If not, why not do both?

Yes, they are. When you alert, you just say the word "Alert", and provide details if an opponent asks for an explanation. When you announce, you say the specific phrase in the alert regulations, such as the NT point range.

 

Having read the relevant pages on the ACBL site I can see nothing which prohibits an announcement of the form "11-14, no 4-card major". On the other hand the regulations definitely do require an announcement of some form, since this is a natural 1NT opening.

You're right, they don't specifically say that you can't add additional information to your announcements, beyond what's required. However, they also don't say that you can't say other things during the auction -- e.g. it would be improper to announce the meaning when partner makes a double. Such spontaneous, unrequired announcements are generally prohibited by the laws on extraneous information.

 

The only things you're allowed to say during an auction are the calls themselves, alerts and announcements as required by regulations, skip bid warnings as allowed/required by regulations, and questions/answers. Adding extra information to an announcement is not allowed, just as announcing a non-announceable bid is not appropriate.

[gnasher]

Yes, they are. When you alert, you just say the word "Alert", and provide details if an opponent asks for an explanation. When you announce, you say the specific phrase in the alert regulations, such as the NT point range.

 

You're right, they don't specifically say that you can't add additional information to your announcements, beyond what's required. However, they also don't say that you can't say other things during the auction -- e.g. it would be improper to announce the meaning when partner makes a double. Such spontaneous, unrequired announcements are generally prohibited by the laws on extraneous information.

 

The only things you're allowed to say during an auction are the calls themselves, alerts and announcements as required by regulations, skip bid warnings as allowed/required by regulations, and questions/answers. Adding extra information to an announcement is not allowed, just as announcing a non-announceable bid is not appropriate.

 

So far as I can see, the ACBL rules don't require you to state the range only. They say "An announcement is one word or a short phrase which tells the opponents directly the meaning of partner's call.". Then they give an example of how to announce a 15-17 notrump. They dont say that "x to y" is the only form in which announcements can be made.

 

If we say "15-17, no 4-card major", we're not adding extra information to an announcement - that phrase in its entirety is the announcement.

[blackshoe]

Are announcing and alerting mutually exclusive? If not, why not do both?

Technically, proper procedure for announcements is to make the announcement and at the same time tap the alert strip or show the alert card. Nobody does either of the last two, IME (alert strips are rare to non-existent around here anyway). I'm not sure this answers your question, though. B-)

[barmar]

The annoucement procedure is further clarified on the Alert Chart. For NT openings, it says specifically "State the agreed range for

all natural 1NT openings".

[Trinidad]

Yes, I have heard of those. And I am easy on these matters. But when I am thinking through an opponent's likely holding, part way through the hand after an auction where NT was never bid, I don't think it would occur to me to pick up their convention card and see if the fact that declarer holds four hearts might be the explanation for why 1NT was not opened. If at that point I was convinced that he had a point count in the opening NT range, and had not opened 1NT, I would expect more dramatic distribution than the possession of a four card major.

Before I would conclude anything from opener not opening 1NT, I would look at the CC what their 1NT range is. Then I expect to see unusual distributional requirements right next to the range. It would be very hard to miss.

 

Rik

[barmar]

Before I would conclude anything from opener not opening 1NT, I would look at the CC what their 1NT range is. Then I expect to see unusual distributional requirements right next to the range. It would be very hard to miss.

On the ACBL CC? Right next to the range is the descriptions of 3-level responses. There's a line labeled "Other" 9 lines down and to the right, which can be used for free-form information.

 

There's also a "5-card Major common" checkbox. Maybe these guys could write over that with "not even close". :)

[barmar]

If you're unfamiliar with the ACBL CC, you can view it here: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/ConventionCard.pdf

[blackshoe]

Before I would conclude anything from opener not opening 1NT, I would look at the CC what their 1NT range is. Then I expect to see unusual distributional requirements right next to the range. It would be very hard to miss.

 

Rik

Sure. If you had a magnifying glass. There's no room for it on the ACBL card, and when there's no room, folks won't write anything.

[barmar]

Sure. If you had a magnifying glass. There's no room for it on the ACBL card, and when there's no room, folks won't write anything.

To be fair, most players don't have any special information about their NT opening style that needs to be disclosed; the 5-card major checkbox is the only usual variation. I'd hope that the pair playing this unusual style WOULD note it somewhere on their CC.

[kenberg]

Before I would conclude anything from opener not opening 1NT, I would look at the CC what their 1NT range is. Then I expect to see unusual distributional requirements right next to the range. It would be very hard to miss.

 

Rik

 

I can sometimes astound the worls with my ability to see what is in front of me. But anyway, I would not fuss. If I missed it I would miss it.

 

We are all supposed to read the opponent's cc carefully. Shifting tables every two rounds, I sometimes do, I sometimes don't. The auction goes 1♦-1♠-3♠-Pass. I suppose opener has a minimum. Then I notice they are playing weak no trump. I suppose he has some shape. We have to get the hand played, we have to score it, we have to move on tto the next hand and finish the round. I may notice some more words somewhere, I may not. The brain has a lot to do, and not much time to do it.

 

Ideally I review the auction, I review the play, I add up the high card points I have seen, I work out the distribution of the unseen hands, I review their cc to see if it all fits together, and then, if no one has yet accused me of a Sominex coup, I select a card to play. That's the theory anyway.

 

Back to basics: An announcement will be fine, I won't gripe.

[gnasher]

The annoucement procedure is further clarified on the Alert Chart.

Does the Alert Chart further define the alert procedures, or does it summarise what is defined elsewhere?

[ArtK78]

I would tell the opponents when I sat down (before drawing cards) and alert if it came up.

 

I agree with this 100%. At the beginning of the round, I would announce that 1NT openings are a particular range at various seats and vulnerabilities AND THAT THEY DENY A 4-CARD MAJOR OR A 6-CARD MINOR. I would want this to be quite clear.

 

Then, if and when a 1NT opening comes up, I would alert it. I would not announce the range because the announcement would be an insufficent description of the bid, and if you try to make an announcement AND alert the bid your will generate a great deal of confusion.

[blackshoe]

Does the Alert Chart further define the alert procedures, or does it summarise waht is defined elsewhere?

The chart is a summary; the procedure is definitive. If they conflict, the chart is wrong.

[blackshoe]

I agree with this 100%. At the beginning of the round, I would announce that 1NT openings are a particular range at various seats and vulnerabilities AND THAT THEY DENY A 4-CARD MAJOR OR A 6-CARD MINOR. I would want this to be quite clear.

 

Then, if and when a 1NT opening comes up, I would alert it. I would not announce the range because the announcement would be an insufficent description of the bid, and if you try to make an announcement AND alert the bid your will generate a great deal of confusion.

It's certainly within the spirit of the rules to pre-alert this. Whether it's actually required is another question - and difficult to answer, given how ambiguous the "pre-alert" section of the alert procedure is.

 

I definitely agree with alerting the bid when it comes up.

[barmar]

The chart is a summary; the procedure is definitive. If they conflict, the chart is wrong.

IMO, they complement each other. There are some places where the chart has no room for details, and is just a summary. There are other places where it seems more definitive.

 

If there's a true contradiction, I would go by the procedure. But this case doesn't seem to be an example of that.

 

As for it describing the announcements using "examples", I think that just refers to the specific range, not the wording of the announcement; in the description of announcing transfers, they say "examples" because they only show the 2-level Jacoby transfers, but the wording above indicates that the same procedure also applies to 4-level Texas transfers. In other words, the form of the announcements are intended to be complete, the cases where it gets used are examples.

 

There's more information in the alert procedure that suggests that distribution information shouldn't be mentioned in the NT announcement. Part V has the following example:

EXAMPLE: 1NT (showing 14 HCP with a five-card suit to 17- without a five-card suit)

Partner says immediately, "fourteen plus to seventeen minus."

The "plus" and "minus" apparently are due to upgrading/downgrading due to distribution, and you would presumably explain this if asked for a more detailed explanation, but you're not expected to announce it immediately.

[Vampyr]

 

The "plus" and "minus" apparently are due to upgrading/downgrading due to distribution, and you would presumably explain this if asked for a more detailed explanation, but you're not expected to announce it immediately.

 

The categorical shape constraints in the OP have nothing to do with upgrading/downgrading.

[Siegmund]

So far the thread has confirmed nicely that a disclosure problem exists and it is not clear how best to fix it :) Somehow I am not surprised that the answer from rulings@acbl.org appears to be the worst of all possible worlds.

 

It will certainly be featured on the CC (replacing the 5-card major common line, which can be done with a good computer editor, is a good place for it.) It does feel to me like it doesn't rise to the level of requiring a pre-alert -- though when I played modified Polish Club (and had a 3-line description of 1C pasted over the 'general approach' block on my CC) I did have people (not directors) wanting me to pre-alert that.

[3for3]

See case 30 from New Orleans, 2003. Bottom line is that one should alert.

[gnasher]

See case 30 from New Orleans, 2003. Bottom line is that one should alert.

Thanks, that was an entertaining story. It's here, in case anyone has trouble finding it:

http://web2.acbl.org...eans_Fall03.pdf

[Cthulhu D]

Thanks, that was an entertaining story. It's here, in case anyone has trouble finding it:

http://web2.acbl.org...eans_Fall03.pdf

 

How did north not get a ZT penalty for those antics? What an idiot.

[Cthulhu D]

Thanks, that was an entertaining story. It's here, in case anyone has trouble finding it:

http://web2.acbl.org...eans_Fall03.pdf

 

How did north not get a ZT penalty for those antics? What an idiot.

[barmar]

The editor makes a good point in that writeup: "Announcements are reserved for disclosing a small handful of familiar agreements". This isn't specifically stated in the Alert Procedures, but it's well known that this was the intent of creating the announcement process in the first place, and it's pretty obvious from the list of announced agreements. So even if I accept the argument that the announcements in the Alert Procedure are just examples, I don't think anyone would consider "no 4-card major" to be a common agreement that merits just an announcement.

[mgoetze]

How did north not get a ZT penalty for those antics? What an idiot.

Isn't ZT an abbreviation for "Plenty of Tolerance, unless we actually dislike you"?

[barmar]

How did north not get a ZT penalty for those antics? What an idiot.

There was a little discussion of this in the writeup. I think they felt it didn't quite rise to the level that ZT is intended to address.

[blackshoe]

Ultimately, the Committee concluded that an Alert was correct, or at least not incorrect, and that, as with all Alerts, the opponents have the right to refuse the information.

 

This is interesting. First, this "right" does not exist, or at least is not mentioned in any regulation, AFAIK. Second, East was asked to explain his alert, and only when he started with the range did North attempt to shut him up. Seems to me that if this alleged right exists, it requires the alerted side to not ask in the first place, not to interrupt the explanation in the middle.