alerting rules

[jddons]

As a club TD in the UK, I would value advice on some alerting issues.

1. 1NT (12-14) X. the double was described after the hand as having hcp at the maximum of the openers range (i.e. 14 or even 13). is this alertable? (I would normally expect a minimum of 15 hcp).

2. Auction 1C P 2C* P, 2D P 2H P, 3N PPP. 2C was alerted and described as "inverted". 2D and 2H were not alerted. It transpired that 2H was bid on Axx, to show a stop, and the next hand would have doubled for a lead if it had understood that the term "inverted" was meant to indicate that the possession of a 4 card major was denied. I would like to give authoritative guidance to the players as to whether "inverted" is an adequate description of their methods and whether 2D/2H should be alerted or not.

3. A pair have decided to play "Fantunes" following the book by Jacobs about the Fantoni - Nunes system. 1 level openers are natural and unlimited in strength. My view is that, although natural bids, the unlimited nature of the openings make them alertable. Is this correct? The suit 2 level openings show 10-13 hcp and 5 or more cards in the suit. can these bids be announced as 10-13; 5 or more cards, or does an announcement have to be "weak/intermediate/strong"? "intermediate" seems a misdescription when 6 cards are not guaranteed but many people play weak 2's having only 5 cards. Instead, should these openers be alerted?

[WellSpyder]

As a non-TD, I probably shouldn't try to give you definite advice on these, but as far as Fantunes is concerned (your Q3) my approach when playing the system is:

a) 1-level bids definitely alerted for the reason you state - they are unexpectedly forcing.

b) (Following advice from an EBU TD at a national competition) 2-level bids are announced as intermediate. It is true this isn't a full description of the bid, but that is a possibility with any announcement and oppo can always ask for more info.

 

In practice, of course, we will have given oppo a very brief introduction to the system when they or we arrive at the table, so neither of these should come as much of a surprise to them.

[Cyberyeti]

3. I believe the 1s are alertable because they're forcing. Announcing the 2s as intermediate is fine. There is nothing to stop you adding a little info to the announcement (I know the OP, and he will know the sort of off the wall weak 2s I play, until the rules were changed last year, we were advised to announce as weak, but add "may be as short as 4").

 

1. A penalty double of 1N is not alertable and I don't think unless you're doubling a mini that the range is so unexpected that you require one.

 

2. You don't alert long suit game tries, and 2♥ shows that sort of holding so I don't think that's alertable, whether when asked about the inverted minor you should say that it denies 4M I'm not sure. Ours doesn't deny 4M and that seems to come as a surprise to a number of people so I'd have thought denying 4M is normal.

[helene_t]

Not sure if "inverted" is the right explanation. I don't think many players at my club would understand what it means.

[gordontd]

Not sure if "inverted" is the right explanation. I don't think many players at my club would understand what it means.

I think it should be described as "natural & forcing to...game/2NT/3m" according to agreement.

[gnasher]

I think it should be described as "natural & forcing to...game/2NT/3m" according to agreement.

I agree with that, but I think that the description should include the words "denying a four-card major". That's certainly "relevant information".

 

2. You don't alert long suit game tries, and 2♥ shows that sort of holding so I don't think that's alertable

In general, it's not alertable if it shows 3+ cards, but it is alertable if it might be shorter.

 

In jddons's club, if you haven't already explained that 2♦ denies a four-card major, it "has a potentially unexpected meaning" to the sort of opponents you would meet there. Hence it's alertable.

Edited March 13, 2014 by gnasher

[Vampyr]

1. A penalty double of 1N is not alertable and I don't think unless you're doubling a mini that the range is so unexpected that you require one.

 

I am not so sure about this. Gordon?

[VixTD]

My answers:

 

(1) If the double just shows a hand with the stated point count and partner takes it out on hands that would normally pass a penalty double then it should be alerted [bB4H4(a)]. If the double is made on hands of 13 or 14 points only when it has significant distribution it is not alertable, but it should be shown on the convention card [bB3H2].

 

(2) I agree with Gordon about how it should be described. BB3C1 refers to naming of conventions on the card, the same standard should apply to oral explanations. New suit bids thereafter are not alertable if they show 3+ cards in the suit [bB4C1(a)]. Many pairs play these bids as showing a stopper, which might be only two cards (e.g AQ) in which case it really should be alerted, but hardly anyone does this.

 

(3) Fantunes one-level suit openers should be alerted because they are forcing [bB4H2(a)]. Two-level suit openers should be announced as "intermediate" [bB4F]. There is a tendency to add more information to announcements to make them into full explanations, but that is not the purpose of announcements. Opponents are expected to ask if they require further information.

 

[bB = Blue Book, Handbook of EBU permitted understandings.]

[mycroft]

I am not English, and do not rule to the EBU, but clearly "inverted" is an insufficient explanation (even though we get it here a lot, too. I wonder how loud they'd scream were we to explain 1♦-2♦ as "inverted" and then have it go 3♦-p (not 2NT-p, we play a weak NT); because "everybody" plays inverted minors as "raise to 2 is game forcing" - even the people who don't deny a 4cM, or even "deny" one (may choose to hide suits like 8xxx). A name of a convention is de facto incomplete explanation, and perhaps misinformation if it turns out that the opponents play the same convention differently from you.

[gordontd]

I agree with that, but I think that the description should include the words "denying a four-card major". That's certainly "relevant information".

It wouldn't be unexpected, at least not to me. I've only ever had one partner with whom it didn't deny a four-card major, and then I certainly included that in my description.

[nige1]

IMO...

 

EBU regulations about doubles seem to be a confusing mess.

 

eg1. A top Scottish pair double 1N with 10+HCP and any 2 or 3-suiter. The high frequency of this double means that when their side holds the balance of the points, they achieve far more penalties than those who need a stronger hand to double. In EBU country is that double alertable?.

 

eg2 2♦ (* Multi) (2♥) X (Pass or correct). Under EBU regulations Is that double alertable? The answer may seem obvious until you are told that 2♦ (* Multi) (Pass) 2♥ (pass or correct is not alertable).

 

Fantunes 1-openers are alertable because they are systemically forcing

 

Typically, Inverted raise is a woefully inadequate description. You should also admit to any other relevant understandings about the bid (including whether the raise can include a 4-card major).

[Vampyr]

2♦ (Multi) - 2♠ (pass or correct) is not alertable.

 

Where did you get this idea?

[nige1]

Where did you get this idea?

A reply to a query in another thread, I think. But perhaps the auction was

 

2♦ (* Multi) (Pass) 2♥

 

And I've corrected my example above.

[Vampyr]

A reply to a query in another thread, I think. But perhaps the auction was

 

2♦ (* Muti) (Pass) 2♥

 

And I've corrected my example above.

 

This is also alertable in the EBU.

[nige1]

2♦ (* Multi) (Pass) 2♥

This is also alertable in the EBU.

OK, sorry :( I find EBU regulations confusing :( I hope I haven't confused anybody else :(.

[gnasher]

It wouldn't be unexpected, at least not to me. I've only ever had one partner with whom it didn't deny a four-card major, and then I certainly included that in my description.

The Blue Book (2B7) tells us that in reply to a question you should provide all relevant information. It doesn't say that you should limit your explanation to that which is unexpected.

[gordontd]

The Blue Book (2B7) tells us that in reply to a question you should provide all relevant information. It doesn't say that you should limit your explanation to that which is unexpected.

OK, but there must come a point where something is so widespread that it becomes reasonable to omit it from an explanation unless specifically asked about. If asked about a forcing NT response to a 1H opener, should one have to say "forcing for one round but not necessarily strong, denies four spades, denies four or more hearts, won't have three hearts unless very weak or with invitational values"?

[helene_t]

The Blue Book (2B7) tells us that in reply to a question you should provide all relevant information. It doesn't say that you should limit your explanation to that which is unexpected.

I don't think this is realistic. When the opponents ask about FSF I just say game forcing. The complete negative inference depends on what other gameforcing bids would mean. I don't volunteer that information because opps probably aren't interested.

 

When not playing with screens I would take the opposite view: don't say too much, you don't want to remind partner about your agreements.

[Trinidad]

OK, but there must come a point where something is so widespread that it becomes reasonable to omit it from an explanation unless specifically asked about. If asked about a forcing NT response to a 1H opener, should one have to say "forcing for one round but not necessarily strong, denies four spades, denies four or more hearts, won't have three hearts unless very weak or with invitational values"?

To people who ask I usually explain:

 

"We play 2/1 GF, therefore, 1NT is forcing for one round.

It can be from 4 upto 12 points, could still have 3 card heart support, denies 4 or more spades unless it is a weak hand with 3 hearts."

 

I do not add that hands with 3 card heart support and 7-10 do not bid 1NT, but raise to 2♥.

 

More generally speaking, often, I will start my explanations by giving some context ("we play 2/1 GF"), so a somewhat experienced player knows what is going on. Then I will explain the bid itself ("forcing for one round"). And then I give the details. I think that is fairly normal, most experienced players here explain in a similar way.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

I don't think this is realistic. When the opponents ask about FSF I just say game forcing. The complete negative inference depends on what other gameforcing bids would mean. I don't volunteer that information because opps probably aren't interested.

If you really describe it simply as "game-forcing", I think that's quite bad. You risk misleading anyone who hasn't heard of Fourth Suit Forcing, or who doesn't think FSF applies in the given auction, or who thinks that "game-forcing" means "natural and game-forcing". A proper description would be "Artificial and game-forcing".

 

In general there are three ways to explain a convention:

(1) Using its name.

(2) By describing it incompletely, relying on the opponents to know what you actually mean.

(3) By describing it completely.

 

Against someone who is already familar with the convention, any of these will do.

 

What matters is what happens when you play against someone who doesn't know the convention. Against such a player, (2) is by far the worst, because he will quite reasonably assume that he's had a complete explanation. (1) is better than (2), because the opponent will ask you to explain what you mean.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Andy here - and I would say that unless you are familiar with opponents, you have to assume they are not familiar with any conventions you might be playing. I once had a partner who did not "get" Stayman. If we were bidding, she opened 1NT, and I bid 2♣, she would inevitably either pass or bid 3♣, usually the latter. I'm pretty sure that if the opponents bid 1NT-2♣, she assumed responder had clubs. And I couldn't ask, because I would be asking for her benefit. She wouldn't ask, because it would not occur to her to do so - she seemed not to remember from one week to the next that there had been a problem. Of course, the fact that neither of us asked let opponents off the hook, but I suspect that if she had asked, the answer would have been "Stayman" - after all, everybody knows Stayman, right? B-)

 

I also don't agree with the idea one should be "sparse" with explanations absent screens, in order to minimize UI to partner. Players have an obligation to provide full disclosure. That obligation supersedes any desire to minimize UI.

[Vampyr]

This highlights a problem with the philosophy of the ACBL's alerting rules - neither a weak takeout into clubs nor Stayman is announced or alerted. In the EBU there are never two non-alertable/-announceable meanings for a call. This helps a lot with basic disclosure.

 

Actually I suppose that there is one exception: after 1m-(1♥), double is not alerted whether it is just takeout or promises exactly four spades.

[barmar]

This highlights a problem with the philosophy of the ACBL's alerting rules - neither a weak takeout into clubs nor Stayman is announced or alerted.

A natural 2♣ response is alerted. From http://www.acbl.org/play/AlertPamphlet.pdf: "ALERT: Next level higher of clubs if other than asking for four-card (or longer) major and rebids." And from http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html: "RESPONSES TO ONE NOTRUMP OPENINGS: 2♣: If it requires partner to bid a four-card major it is not Alertable; all other uses must be Alerted."

[gnasher]

This highlights a problem with the philosophy of the ACBL's alerting rules - neither a weak takeout into clubs nor Stayman is announced or alerted. In the EBU there are never two non-alertable/-announceable meanings for a call. This helps a lot with basic disclosure.

 

Actually I suppose that there is one exception: after 1m-(1♥), double is not alerted whether it is just takeout or promises exactly four spades.

There are at least three four more exceptions:

- Notrump bids above 3NT

- Suit bids above 3NT after the first round

- A sequence like

     1x-pass-pass-dbl

     rdbl-pass

- A game-try after agreeing a major (neither strength-showing nor help-suit game-tries are alertable)

Edited March 17, 2014 by gnasher

[blackshoe]

There are at least three four more exceptions:

- Notrump bids above 3NT

- Suit bids above 3NT after the first round

- A sequence like

     1x-pass-pass-dbl

     rdbl-pass

- A game-try after agreeing a major (neither strength-showing nor help-suit game-tries are alertable)

Suit bids above 3NT after the first round that would otherwise require an alert must be alerted — but the alert is delayed until after the final pass. That's not quite the same thing as "not alertable". I haven't looked at the other examples.