Should we alert?

[paulg]

Just looking for advice on the final 2♦ bid in the following non-competitive sequence, which occurred in the EBU but it looks like a fairly generic question to me.

 

1♣ (2+♣, non-forcing) - 1♥ (4+ spades)

1♠ (11-13 bal, 2-3♠) - 2♦ (to play)

 

There is no doubt that our method is uncommon and it's not clear whether a natural 2♦ is forcing or not. On the other hand, it is extremely common for 2♦ to be artificial in this auction and I expect the vast majority of pairs would alert 2♦. It seems to me that our opponents will be less damaged by not alerting since they are far more likely to ask, whereas alerting a non-forcing bid may catch them out with no recompense.

 

I should have asked one of the EBU directors at the weekend, but it occurred late in the day when they, and I, had other things on our minds.

[helene_t]

Walsh style is alertable (OB 5G2C2) so when explaining the meaning of 1♥ you probably should say that it could be a weak hand with longer diamonds than spades.

[NickRW]

Well, I can't quote a rule. But similarly, if you play natural weak take outs over 1NT, for example, I've always been told that they are not alertable - unusual though they may be in most company.

[gordontd]

Walsh style is alertable (OB 5G2C2)

We're on to the Blue Book now, and I understand that the L&E committee consider that Walsh style is not alertable, so as to distinguish what is essentially a natural method from the increasingly common transfer responses to a 1C opening, which do get alerted.

[helene_t]

We're on to the Blue Book now, and I understand that the L&E committee consider that Walsh style is not alertable, so as to distinguish what is essentially a natural method from the increasingly common transfer responses to a 1C opening, which do get alerted.

Thanks. Sounds reasonable, especially considering that many weak-notrumpers will rebid 1NT with anay 15-16(17) balanced even if that means bypassing a 4-card major (Scotish style). My impression is that many ordinary club players play Walsh without knowing that it is is called Walsh and that it used to be alertable.

 

OK in that case I think it's clear that Paul's 2♦ bid is not alertable.

[blackshoe]

We're on to the Blue Book now, and I understand that the L&E committee consider that Walsh style is not alertable, so as to distinguish what is essentially a natural method from the increasingly common transfer responses to a 1C opening, which do get alerted.

Hm. What of

BB4H2{b}: Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert: {b} The first bid in a potential canapé sequence

It seems to me this makes 1♥ (Walsh style) alertable, since a minor suit rebid could be longer. Have the L&E issued anything official exempting Walsh from this provision? I get the idea, but the EBU are generally better than the ACBL at disseminating these things, so I'm wondering. B-)

[helene_t]

So in the standard (Acol or SA) sequence

1♥-(pass)-1♠

you also have to alert the 1♠ bid if you have a method to show a longer minor suit in the next round?

[gordontd]

Hm. What of

It seems to me this makes 1♥ (Walsh style) alertable, since a minor suit rebid could be longer. Have the L&E issued anything official exempting Walsh from this provision? I get the idea, but the EBU are generally better than the ACBL at disseminating these things, so I'm wondering. B-)

I think that responder bidding a four-card major at the one level before a five-card minor with a weak hand is not considered to be canapé - certainly I can't find any definitions online that would make it such.

[RMB1]

I think the potential canape stuff is meant to apply to opening bids.

[1♦-1M and 1♥-1♠ were always potential canape and never alerted]

 

Have the L&E issued anything official exempting Walsh from this provision? I get the idea, but the EBU are generally better than the ACBL at disseminating these things, so I'm wondering. B-)

 

Sometimes, if we decide that something is no longer unexpected and is therefore not alertable, it just gets dropped for the list of examples of things that are natural-but-unexpected-and-therefore-alertable. The only way to demonstrate that such a bid is now unalertable is to compare with a previous edition.

[aguahombre]

I know better than to discuss what should be alertable or not alertable in the EBU. However, it can be very confusing to refer to "Walsh Style" in a thread where "T-Walsh" is stipulated.

 

These are two different things.

[gordontd]

I know better than to discuss what should be alertable or not alertable in the EBU. However, it can be very confusing to refer to "Walsh Style" in a thread where "T-Walsh" is stipulated.

 

These are two different things.

And both are being discussed.

[blackshoe]

Sometimes, if we decide that something is no longer unexpected and is therefore not alertable, it just gets dropped for the list of examples of things that are natural-but-unexpected-and-therefore-alertable. The only way to demonstrate that such a bid is now unalertable is to compare with a previous edition.

Ugh. Not good. :(

[lamford]

I think the Blue Book indicates that it is not alertable unless it has a potentially unexpected meaning. That does not seem to be the case here.

[Vampyr]

I know better than to discuss what should be alertable or not alertable in the EBU. However, it can be very confusing to refer to "Walsh Style" in a thread where "T-Walsh" is stipulated.

 

These are two different things.

 

Is "T-Walsh" similar to transfer responses to a 1♣ opening?

[Vampyr]

The only way to demonstrate that such a bid is now unalertable is to compare with a previous edition.

 

Ah, but there is no previous edition of the Blue Book...

[jallerton]

Just looking for advice on the final 2♦ bid in the following non-competitive sequence, which occurred in the EBU but it looks like a fairly generic question to me.

 

1♣ (2+♣, non-forcing) - 1♥ (4+ spades)

1♠ (11-13 bal, 2-3♠) - 2♦ (to play)

 

There is no doubt that our method is uncommon and it's not clear whether a natural 2♦ is forcing or not. On the other hand, it is extremely common for 2♦ to be artificial in this auction and I expect the vast majority of pairs would alert 2♦. It seems to me that our opponents will be less damaged by not alerting since they are far more likely to ask, whereas alerting a non-forcing bid may catch them out with no recompense.

 

I agree. Not alertable. This should be the same as 1NT-Pass-2♦ weak take-out.

 

How about this natural sequence: 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦? Some play this as 5+♠, 4+♦. Some play this as 5+♦, usually only 4 spades. Is either of these sequences alertable? I'd argue that both are potentially expected (as an opponent I know to ask at the end of the auction) so no need to alert.

[Cyberyeti]

I agree. Not alertable. This should be the same as 1NT-Pass-2♦ weak take-out.

 

How about this natural sequence: 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♦? Some play this as 5+♠, 4+♦. Some play this as 5+♦, usually only 4 spades. Is either of these sequences alertable? I'd argue that both are potentially expected (as an opponent I know to ask at the end of the auction) so no need to alert.

 

This sort of thing is a big problem. What is expected is rather different in a big club in London or national event to a sleepy club in Norfolk. Nobody here would consider 2♦ in the 1N auction to ever be anything other than to play, 4♠/5-6♦ weak, 5♠/4♦ would not enter the heads of 99% of the people here so it really should be alerted here.

 

Should what you alert vary by where you are in EBUland ?

[jallerton]

Sometimes, if we decide that something is no longer unexpected and is therefore not alertable, it just gets dropped for the list of examples of things that are natural-but-unexpected-and-therefore-alertable. The only way to demonstrate that such a bid is now unalertable is to compare with a previous edition.

 

If the advice changes from alertable to not alertable then it really ought to be included on a list of examples of not alertable calls. In my opinion, it's unreasonable to expect TDs, let alone players, to carry out the comparison you suggest.

 

Even some avid EBU-baseed readers of this forum do not reaslise when a new version of the Blue Book has come in to force. For example:

 

Ah, but there is no previous edition of the Blue Book...

 

The first edition of the Blue Book came into force on 1st August 2013. A revised edition came into force on 1st August 2014.

[Vampyr]

(as an opponent I know to ask at the end of the auction)

 

There is a vast gulf, Jeffrey, between what you know and what the average player knows. Perhaps the answer is to explain the agreement at the end of the auction, when playing against average or inexperienced players, and at clubs in the back of beyond, as per Cyberyeti's post above.

 

 

The first edition of the Blue Book came into force on 1st August 2013. A revised edition came into force on 1st August 2014.

 

Yes, I had wondered about this after posting, as August is usually the month when these things get updated. It might not be a bad idea for Blue Book changes to be emailed to all EBU members.

[gordontd]

Is "T-Walsh" similar to transfer responses to a 1♣ opening?

Yes.

[gnasher]

I'd argue that both are potentially expected ... so no need to alert.

I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise. "Potentially expected" isn't the opposite of "potentially unexpected", because some meanings fall into both categories.

[richlp]

I think the Blue Book indicates that it is not alertable unless it has a potentially unexpected meaning. That does not seem to be the case here.

 

I could, of course, be wrong, buy my understanding of Standard American bidding is that a new suit by responder is always forcing unless opener's rebid was 1NT (and I've gotten bad results with pickup partners who thought the new suit after the NT rebid WAS forcing). Is that not also true in the UK? If so, wouldn't a non-forcing 2D bid be alertable as having an unexpected meaning? If it were forcing, would that be alertable or is whether or not it is forcing ambiguous enough that neither one should be alerted?

 

Not explaining myself well, I hope you understand my question.

 

Edit: Never mind. Just realized that the 1S bid is the equivalent of 1NT and that 2D would be non-forcing for me.

[aguahombre]

Is "T-Walsh" similar to transfer responses to a 1♣ opening?

Yes, but discussing T-Walsh and Walsh style at the same time is confusing because Walsh Style rebids by Opener after (natural) 1-level responses are completely different than Opener's systemic rebids following a transfer response.

 

This also changes the "expected" vs "unexpected" nature of continuations, when talking about disclosure.

[helene_t]

I don't think one should ever alert a natural bid solely because the expected meaning is artificial. Maybe in a country where stayman is not alerted, a natural 2c response to 1nt should be alerted. But in ebu the failure to alert/announce tells opps that the bid is natural.

[lamford]

I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise. "Potentially expected" isn't the opposite of "potentially unexpected", because some meanings fall into both categories.

Almost all meanings fall into both categories unless one knows what the opponent will expect. It ought to be up to the TD to decide whether it is sufficiently potentially unexpected to merit an alert.