Must this raise be alerted

[mangurian]

The bidding has gone:

 

1♣- P - 1♥- 1♠

2♥

 

Must 2♥ be alerted as promising 4+ ♥ because

a support dbl would show 3 card support.

 

I disagree with an alert.

 

By logical extension, if I play WJSs not in competition and I respond 1S to partners 1D opener,

should I alert that since pard did not make a WJS he does not have.....

[Lorne50]

Alert rules depend on where you play. (but the answer is probably no).

[ArtK78]

In the ACBL the answer is no. And the pass showing 2 or fewer hearts is not alertable. Only the double showing 3 hearts is alertable.

[Finch]

In the EBU (England), where support doubles are rare among non-tournament players, both 2H promising 4 hearts and pass denying 3 hearts are alertable.

 

Your 'logical extension' also says that a 1S opening should be alerted as denying the strength for a 2C opening.

The difference is that the vast majority of players are aware of the existence of specialised bids to show particular hands. In this case, many players would not be aware of the inference that the 2H bidder has promised 4-card support. The alert helps them.

[aguahombre]

And yet, I find that most experienced and respected pairs in the ACBL tourneys do alert both the raise and the Pass -- not expecting the opponents to just naturally assume they are playing Support Doubles which are alertable. I have heard it described by them as a common courtesy.

 

Similarly, they alert:

 

1m (1H) X (P)

2S...as a simple 4-card raise of partner's equivalent of a 1S response, not a true jump shift or jump raise.

[ArtK78]

And yet, I find that most experienced and respected pairs in the ACBL tourneys do alert both the raise and the Pass -- not expecting the opponents to just naturally assume they are playing Support Doubles which are alertable. I have heard it described by them as a common courtesy.

 

Similarly, they alert:

 

1m (1H) X (P)

2S...as a simple 4-card raise of partner's equivalent of a 1S response, not a true jump shift or jump raise.

They should not alert either the raise or the pass in a support double situation, as ACBL alerting regulations are quite clear that neither bid is alertable.

 

I have had this discussion with more than one respected ACBL National Tournament Directors, and this is absolutely clear.

[mangurian]

In the EBU (England), where support doubles are rare among non-tournament players, both 2H promising 4 hearts and pass denying 3 hearts are alertable.

 

 

 

Now I see...... In the USA the vast majority of "serious" players use support doubles even at the club level.

[aguahombre]

Now I see...... In the USA the vast majority of "serious" players use support doubles even at the club level.

Actually, the difference is that some people don't understand the difference between something which is expressly stated as alertable and the purpose of an alert and/or disclosure.

 

What I see from high level players is disclosure, rather than looking for looholes/excuses not to disclose. Alerting natural calls which carry extra meanings or inferences is not forbidden; and I appreciate the efforts of those who realize that.

 

They don't concern themselves with whether 40% or 70% of pairs currently bid the way they do; they don't worry about the line between highly unexpected and a little bit unexpected. Behind screens it is even more prominent ---flashing fingers to their peers about the number of cards shown by the suit they bid, etc.

[TylerE]

There's an amount of quid pro quo there though - they expect (and get) the same respect in return. Unlike at the club level where I will frequently see crap like 2♣ - p - 2♥ (Alert) - and if they ask, a double shows ♥, and if they don't ask, a double is takeout of hearts. Maybe not the best example since 2♥ Bust is an alertable treatment, but I think yo take my meaning.

[Bbradley62]

They should not alert either the raise or the pass in a support double situation, as ACBL alerting regulations are quite clear that neither bid is alertable.

Since it's not clear what precipitated the OP:

when in doubt Alert (there is no penalty for Alerting unnecessarily but there may be one for failing to Alert when one is required)

[ArtK78]

The problem with "When in doubt Alert" in live play is that alerts convey UI. Of course this is not a problem if partner remembers your agreements, but that is not always the case.

 

And, since the alerting rules are that the raise and the pass are not alertable, it is best to follow the rules. If the ACBL wanted players who play support doubles to alert the raise and the pass, then the ACBL could have required alerts.

 

Furthermore, even if you follow "When in doubt Alert," you should not alert a nonalertable call if you are not in doubt.

[blackshoe]

And yet, I find that most experienced and respected pairs in the ACBL tourneys do alert both the raise and the Pass -- not expecting the opponents to just naturally assume they are playing Support Doubles which are alertable. I have heard it described by them as a common courtesy.

 

Similarly, they alert:

 

1m (1H) X (P)

2S...as a simple 4-card raise of partner's equivalent of a 1S response, not a true jump shift or jump raise.

On that logic, it's "common courtesy" to alert every call.

 

What these folks are really saying is "we ignore the rules, and do what we think is right".

[mycroft]

It's not clear that 2♥ promising 4, or pass *denying* 3, is not "unusual and unexpected" enough to be not Alertable, from the Alert Chart. Note that neither of these necessarily follow from the fact that one plays support doubles.

 

The ACBL LC have ruled that they are not (of course, they also don't think that Constructive raises (or not) are Alertable, or a number of other things that seem wrong to me, like 1M-4M Precision).

 

There are much more clearly not Alertable calls that I Alert anyway, like 1♥-(2NT minors)-3♣ (good heart raise). Yes, I know it's technically wrong, but I haven't had anyone complain.

[barmar]

The ACBL rule about alerting these inferences seems to be a compromise between full disclosure and UI. There have probably been enough incidents where players forgot about the implications of not using a support double that they decided it was more important to avoid this UI than to alert opponents.

 

They did a similar thing in one of the last few alert procedure revisions, when they decided not to require alerting of Walsh-style sequences over 1♣.

[Endymion77]

It's not clear that 2♥ promising 4, or pass *denying* 3, is not "unusual and unexpected" enough to be not Alertable, from the Alert Chart. Note that neither of these necessarily follow from the fact that one plays support doubles.

 

Agreed. So you raise to 2♥ with 4 (which seems to be standard with or without support doubles), and pass without hearts - seems normal enough to me. An alert would only create confusion and unnecessary delay of the game.

[barmar]

Agreed. So you raise to 2♥ with 4 (which seems to be standard with or without support doubles), and pass without hearts - seems normal enough to me. An alert would only create confusion and unnecessary delay of the game.

The issue is that if you don't play support doubles, you're more likely to make a 3-card raise. If there had been no interference, you might have bid 1NT, but you need a stopper in the opponent's suit to do that in competition. So people think that the opponents should be alerted to the fact that the raise specifically denies this possibility, because you have a way to distinguish them.

 

Also, consider the auction:

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1c1h1s2h2s]133|100[/hv]

Most play that this 1♠ bid promises 5+ cards, so it's standard to raise with only 3. But many play that support doubles are on here, in which case the raise implies at least a 9 card fit.

 

So there are certainly good arguments for why the opponents should know about these implications. But ACBL has decided that other factors are more important, and this should not be alerted.

[aguahombre]

"In all Alert situations, Tournament Directors should rule with the spirit of the Alert procedure in mind and not simply by the letter of the law." (Are we disclosers "ignoring the rules" and making up our own?)

 

"If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary." (Not necessary doesn't mean forbidden.)

 

"Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted." (Unexpected is highly subjective. If a meaning would be unexpected to a pair without our methods, that seems to be enough to require an alert; we shouldn't have to guess whether the opponents know our methods.)

 

"In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable." (This one is right on target to the inferences of other natural calls when a Support Double was available but not used.)

 

The stuff in bold is from the ACBL Alert Procedures; the stuff in parentheses is mine.

[barmar]

In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable. Some such agreements have become expected and are fairly common, therefore no Alert is required.

[italics from the document]

This is then followed by some examples. While they don't specifically include a support double-related example, I think it's in this category. I'll bet far more pairs use support doubles than Flannery, but the first example they give is 1♥-1♠ promising 5 spades because you use Flannery.

 

Agua seems to be right that the Alert Procedures never says that non-required alerts are prohibited. But that implies that you can alert anything, which clearly isn't in the spirit.

[jeffford76]

The ACBL LC have ruled that they are not (of course, they also don't think that Constructive raises (or not) are Alertable, or a number of other things that seem wrong to me, like 1M-4M Precision).

 

I'm a little turned around by this sentence structure, so maybe it's what you meant, but 1M-4M Precision *is* alertable.

 

From the alert pamphlet here:

Natural opening bids at the three level or higher which convey an unusual message regarding HCP range or any other information which might be unexpected to the opponents must be Alerted.

 

EXAMPLE:

1H-P-4H when playing a forcing club where the 4H call may have, by agreement, values for game but not slam.

 

(Yes, this example is part of a section on unusual openings which isn't where I'd have put it.)

[blackshoe]

In the example 1♥-(P)-4♥ there is no opening bid at the three level or higher, so the example, as you say, does not fit the rule of which it is supposed to be an example. IOW, the ACBL screwed the pooch. Again.

[fromageGB]

In the EBU (England), where support doubles are rare among non-tournament players, both 2H promising 4 hearts and pass denying 3 hearts are alertable.

This is absolutely amazing! I know the EBU has daft policies, but the idea of alerting a natural 2♥ seems crazy. Luckily no-one has ever pulled me up for not alerting this. Is it not time the EBU changed to a more understandable and logical method? It seems that they rely upon everybody knowing the details of some arbitrary "EBU system" and if you make any call that deviates from this unknown basic, then it is supposed to be alerted.

 

"Potentially unexpected meaning" is meaningless if you don't know what they expect. There is confusion wherever you look. Take a natural jump overcall. Alert if it is weak, or alert if it is strong? What if it is a strength in between whatever those two extremes mean? What point count boundary separates alert from no alert? Does the shape of the hand affect this, and if so, in what way?

 

The whole idea seems completely impractical. A natural jump overcall should not be alerted. A natural suit raise of 3+ cards (the EBU got the definition of "natural bid" right) should not be alerted. I would leave it at that, and let the opponents ask if they want. However, if this is felt to be insufficient, I think if a partnership has a specific agreement about length or strength, then there should be unrestricted announcements. In the case of a suit raise after opponent's overcall you announce "4 cards" if you play that, or "11-15 points" for the jump overcall if you play that.

 

Then I can understand it.

[TMorris]

Re the EBU I assume you only alert the 2♥ bid as 4 when you are playing support doubles. If you are not playing support doubles I can't imagine it is alertable. This seems reasonable enough as it's common to raise with 3 card support so if you guarantee 4 card support at all times many would find this unusual.

[paulg]

In the EBU (England), where support doubles are rare among non-tournament players, both 2H promising 4 hearts and pass denying 3 hearts are alertable.

 

Now I see...... In the USA the vast majority of "serious" players use support doubles even at the club level.

The difference is that England is a weak notrump country, particularly at club level but also amongst the majority of tournament players, and so the double is needed to show a strong notrump.

[paulg]

This is absolutely amazing! I know the EBU has daft policies, but the idea of alerting a natural 2♥ seems crazy. Luckily no-one has ever pulled me up for not alerting this.

Perhaps no-one has been aware that you were concealing a partnership agreement? Of course the likelihood of detection is small unless it is a long match and, whatever, the likely damage is small, but in these Law-driven days some people like to know.

[ArtK78]

The difference is that England is a weak notrump country, particularly at club level but also amongst the majority of tournament players, and so the double is needed to show a strong notrump.

If you say so. I use support doubles with a mini-NT structure.