Precision

[dickiegera]

Does an opening bid of1♦ require an alert if one is playing Precision?

 

Most say after 1♦ opening "could be short and 11-15 pts".

Is this required?

Assuming yes, why is one of a major [playing precision] 11-15 pts not alertable?

 

Thank you

[jnichols]

"Could be short" is the required announcement. for a 1♦ opening. ♥♠ won't be short, so no announcement

 

 

[mycroft]

In the ACBL, you must Announce - not Alert - any 1m opening that is ostensibly natural [Edit: and non-forcing], but could be shorter than 3 cards. The proper Announcement is "could be short".

 

After any Announcement or Alert, a question asking for more information - the recommended phrasing is "please explain" - all relevant information is to be provided - in the case of a short minor, how short, what strength, potentially under what circumstances it could be short, and so on. In fact, a question about an unAlerted call should also get that response (there are other issues there, but not in the reply).

 

There are issues with the above, two big ones:

 

- there are many who believe that a "2+" minor should be treated differently from a "1+" or "0+" minor, and that even if they don't do that in the bidding, it's always worth knowing in the play. After way too many asks, and gripes after the opponents "assumed" their 0+ 1♦ was the usual 2+ and didn't ask, they just start changing the official Announcement to be "could be short as X" or "could be X". Not legal, officially, but nobody "should" have a problem with it.

 

- there are different defences allowed to a "could be short" 1♣ if it could be some other distribution than 4=4=3=2 if it's short. Unfortunately, there's no way short of asking, every time, if that's the case. I expect to start hearing "could be 4432" soon, provided enough people start using said different defences.

 

and a third, not so big (but really irritating) one:

 

- the people who play these systems don't know their obligations, and frankly, frequently don't know their system either. "could be short" - "please explain" - "it could be short." "How short? What strength?" "All I have to say is it could be short." (or "I don't know, all I know is I have to tell you it could be short")... and "could be short" - "will it be anything other than 4=4=3=2 if it's short?" "uhh..."

 

So, the answer to why the 1M calls are not Alertable is that they don't fit any Alertable categories. It's not the range limitation (of 1♦) that's Alertable (Announceable, but yeah), it's the minimum length. But the *explanation* of the 1♦ bid - and the 1M bid, if asked about - needs to include the range, because that's part of the meaning of the call.

[dickiegera]

My question is : "is it enough to say it could be short'? or does the 11-15pts need to be stated?

[mycroft]

When 1♦ is opened, partner is to Announce "could be short". Many people say "could be 2" (or 1, or 0); technically not legal, but I can't see anyone complaining about it.

 

When asked about their 1♦ opener (whether in response to the Announcement or otherwise), the pair needs to provide complete information about the call. In my Precision partnership, I state "11-15, at least 2 diamonds, 1NT would be 14-16" or "11-15, or bad balanced 16, at least 2 diamonds, 1NT would be 10-12", whichever is correct for this vulnerability. If asked about it, or for more information, I will add that our 2♣ opener promises 6, so xx25s out of NT range or shape are opened 1♦. Others will provide correct information about their diamond opener, whatever it is.

 

Note that this applies just as much to people playing more "normal" systems: if you open 1NT, partner will Announce "15-17" (I assume). If asked, partner should detail your agreements: "15-17 balanced, will upgrade 14s with a decent 5-card suit, could be 5422 or 6322, unlikely to be 5♠, but could be 5♥." It doesn't happen, mostly because since "everyone" plays this, nobody asks...

 

Other note: in the ACBL, the name of the convention is explicitly *not* sufficient disclosure. So, should you be playing Flannery 2♦, partner will Alert. When asked, "11-15, exactly 4 spades and 5 hearts." <= assuming you're playing it in the traditional manner - not "Flannery."

[blackshoe]

Today, my partner opened 2♥ (standard weak 2). RHO bid 2♠. LHO alerted. I asked. "Um, Fishbein?" The interrogative was pretty clearly "is that enough info?" rather than "I'm not sure". I said "and so?". She said "takeout". I passed, she passed, partner started asking questions (he never heard of Fishbein). She said "takeout" about three times. I finally leaned over to her and whispered "tell him it's like a takeout double of hearts". Nope. "It's takeout". Sheesh. B-)

[barmar]

You don't need to alert the Precision 1♦, for the same reason you don't have to alert your 1♥ or 1♠ openings just because they're limited to 15 points. You just announce it because it could be short. But if you're asked to explain, you should include all the details.

 

Although I've noticed this week in Atlanta that most Precision players do alert their 1♦ openings. If you're unsure what to do, it's generally better to err on the side of over-alerting.

[blackshoe]

You don't need to alert the Precision 1♦, for the same reason you don't have to alert your 1♥ or 1♠ openings just because they're limited to 15 points. You just announce it because it could be short. But if you're asked to explain, you should include all the details.

 

Although I've noticed this week in Atlanta that most Precision players do alert their 1♦ openings. If you're unsure what to do, it's generally better to err on the side of over-alerting.

Agree that it's better to err on the side of over-alerting. I do find it annoying, however, when I explain the actual rules to a Precision pair, and they continue to alert these openings anyway. :(

[aguahombre]

Agree that it's better to err on the side of over-alerting. I do find it annoying, however, when I explain the actual rules to a Precision pair, and they continue to alert these openings anyway. :(

Perhaps you could explain to me. I am not a precision player at present, but I thought I could read the Alert Procedures. They seem to indicate that an opening bid which ---in addition to showing x cards in that suit---also shows an unexpected point range (or limitation), should be alerted.

[blackshoe]

The Alert Chart, under "no alert" for opening suit bids at the one level says "Natural non-forcing openings with an agreed range of somewhere between 10-21+ HCP". The range of a Precision one level opening (other than in clubs) falls within the stated range, so no alert is required.

[TylerE]

Perhaps you could explain to me. I am not a precision player at present, but I thought I could read the Alert Procedures. They seem to indicate that an opening bid which ---in addition to showing x cards in that suit---also shows an unexpected point range (or limitation), should be alerted.

 

I don't think an 11-15 range is very unexpected...probably 95% of 2/1 1m openings are 11-15. Now, if the range was, say, 9-13 or something that's a different matter.

[aguahombre]

One interpretation might be that (10)11-15 is a common occurance for an opening one-bid, but not a common limit for an opening one-bid --- and that the wording in the alert procedure pertaining to unexpected strength applies to such reduced range from the expected (10)11-21.

 

I am not annoyed, but rather grateful, when Precision players remind me of such limit via the alert procedure and don't really know whether it is (or should be) required. It certainly can't damage us if they alert it. If their memory about their own opening bids needs jogging, they are hopeless anyway.

[TylerE]

I am not annoyed, but rather grateful, when Precision players remind me of such limit via the alert procedure and don't really know whether it is (or should be) required.

 

It's not:

 

No alert: Natural non-forcing openings with an agreed range of somewhere between 10-21+ HCP

[aguahombre]

Still the same semantics issue. It is somewhere between 10-15, rather than the more common somewhere between 10-21. But, again I don't think alerting or not alerting it is a big deal.

 

"Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted." This is the passage which I believe makes the Alert acceptable at the very least...where "unusual strength" might mean unusual limitation of strength.

[TylerE]

It's not semantics. 11-15 or 10-15 as a range is wholly contained in 10-21.

[ArtK78]

Assuming that the Precision pair informed their opponents that they were playing Precision prior to the first board, there should be no reason to announce or alert the unusual range of the one opening bids (other than one club). But if not, then I would go out of my way to make sure that my opponents were aware that the one opening bids are limited to 15 HCP, whether the alert procedure requires this or not.

[aguahombre]

It's not semantics. 11-15 or 10-15 as a range is wholly contained in 10-21.

No matter whose meaning of the words is the correct interpretation, it is semantics.

 

It is not tough for me comprehend that non forcing openings with an agreed range somewhere between 10-21+ are specifically precluded from the alert procedure.

 

An agreed range of 10-15 is a different range within that, and its alertability is unclear. Follow your logic and we conclude that opening 1-bids with an agreed range of 16-21 are also within the 10-21+ and therefore should not be alerted.

[TylerE]

The key words are "somewhere between", the interpretation of which is pretty clear.

[blackshoe]

I sometimes think the ACBL writes these things ambiguously deliberately. Perhaps so that TDs have more options in how to rule. It's a bad idea IMO. Rules of a game should be clear, not confusing. In this case though I agree with Tyler - this one is pretty clear.

[aguahombre]

The key words are "somewhere between", the interpretation of which is pretty clear.

Unbelievable. When my partner opens 1D which by agreement shows 16-21 HCP, you think I shouldn't alert.

[blackshoe]

Unbelievable. When my partner opens 1D which by agreement shows 16-21 HCP, you think I shouldn't alert.

Is this 1♦ opening forcing?

[aguahombre]

Is this 1♦ opening forcing?

no, and that isn't our agreement. I am just pointing out the ridiculous logic of the position.

[blackshoe]

I suspect you will get different opinions from different people on whether this bid requires an alert. What's ridiculous is not the logic of the position (and btw, I would caution you, or any poster, against attributing to others thoughts they may not be thinking) but the ambiguity of the regulations, or perhaps the apparent conflict between the Alert Chart and the Alert Procedure.

[barmar]

Yeah, I don't think the alert procedure really describes what the ACBL intended. I feel certain that they would like opening bids with a lower limit more than a king higher than "standard" to be alerted, but they're less concerned about upper limits. Probably a more accurate way for the regulation to be written would be something like "Natural non-forcing openings with a lower limit between 10 and 13 HCP, and an upper limit between 15 and 21+." They might also want to include something about a minimum allowed range -- a 13-15 1♦ would be pretty unexpected and probably should be alerted.

 

Someone mentioned that Precision pairs should pre-alert this to the opponents at the beginning of the round. First of all, I don't think this falls under the required pre-alerts, although many strong club players do it as a courtesy. Second, inexperienced opponents may not be familiar with the implications.

 

Another case where there seems to be confusion about whether an alert is required is the Precision auction 1M-4M. For standard players, this is usually a weak raise with 5-card support. But Precision players will bid it with either a weak hand or a hand that's strong enough for game but not strong enough to explore for slam opposite the limited opener. Some Precision players alert this, because of the split range possibility. It's not clear whether this is required or not -- it could fall under the "strong bid that sounds weak" requirement, except that it's not necessarily strong, it just might be strong. Or it could fall under the "unexpected point range" requirement.

[blackshoe]

If I were playing Precision, which I haven't in some time, I would not alert the limited openings. I would alert 1M-4M, because someone not familiar with the system might compete after the 4M, thinking the bid is weak, and then be shocked to discover that the points he thought were in his partner's hand are actually in RHO's. I agree though that it's not clear.