Do you alert cue bids (Michaels, UCB etc)

[Liversidge]

Under EBU regulations, are cue bids such as Michaels, UCB and Cue Bid Raises alertable? I can't find anything in EBU sources that specifically says so, but I have read somewhere in a US publication that the Unusual 2NT is alertable but its 'sister' Michaels, is not, which seems slightly odd. Maybe it's because although a cue bid is artificial it is so obviously unnatural that opponents can ask, whereas the 2NT overcall could well be natural.

If the UCB is not alertable, does it need to be shown on a convention card (we are not yet playing at a level where convention cards are used but we have one anyway)

[HardVector]

In the US, unusual nt is not alerted and cuebids are not alerted. By definition, a cuebid is something the opponents should be asking about if they have any interest in the meaning.

[weejonnie]

EBU bidding regulations are provided in "The Blue Book" Link to Blue Book

 

All calls (that are not announceable) that are not natural by agreement or have a potential unexpected meaning below 3NT (together with suit calls above 3NT in the first round of the auction and lead directing doubles (that do not suggestthe suit being doubled is led)) are alertable.

 

So Michaels, UCB, UNT and cue-bid raises are alertable. Opponents have the right to assume that a call that is not alerted is natural by agreement -however players are also expected to protect themselves if a call that could well be non-natural isn't alerted when it should be. (Provided they can do ths without giving UI or waking the opponents up)

 

All conventions should be on the system card. Even if they have a reognised name, a brief description of what the call means must be provided. The EBU 20b card is the recommended one to complete Word version

 

On the card there is specidic areas for "2NT" - both in direct and protective position, as well as cue bids. I would expect to see something like

 

2NT Direct: Unusual :5+ 5+ in lowest two suits 6-11 points

Protective: 18-20 (pseudo) Balanced, conventional responses same as 2NT opening bid

 

Cue Bid: Michaels: over Minor - Majors, Over Major = other Major + unspec. minor 6-11

 

If you need to remove any words then the words to remove are "Unusual" and "Michaels"

[pescetom]

If you need to remove any words then the words to remove are "Unusual" and "Michaels"

 

I endorse this and deprecate the choice of ACBL to consider such bidding non-alertable. Coherently, I deprecate the choice of most RAs to announce "Stayman" rather than "Majors Ask" or something similar. Conventions are conventions and they should be described not named.

[Vampyr]

I endorse this and deprecate the choice of ACBL to consider such bidding non-alertable. Coherently, I deprecate the choice of most RAs to announce "Stayman" rather than "Majors Ask" or something similar. Conventions are conventions and they should be described not named.

 

I don’t really care what the ACBL do; their system and alert regulations have long been known as the worst in the world, and I don’t expect that any improvement is likely anytime soon.

 

Here, the only thing announced by convention name is “Stayman”, and it seems OK since everyone knows what at least basic Stayman entails.

 

I have heard a rumour that there is no bridge at club level in Italy (alerts are not allowed). Is this true?

 

Edit: meant to say “psyches are not allowed”

[blackshoe]

I don’t really care what the ACBL do; their system and alert regulations have long been known as the worst in the world, and I don’t expect that any improvement is likely anytime soon.

I suppose my only quibble with that is that I don't know every RA's alert regulations, so I don't know if the statement is true - though it wouldn't surprise me if it is.

 

I was told in 2016 that the alert regulations were "under review" and new regs would be proposed to the BoD "ASAP". Three plus years later, and I haven't seen it yet. No idea what the problem is, except I suppose they held up while the new convention charts were being developed. However, those have been in place for what, seven or eight months now? :(

[pescetom]

I have heard a rumour that there is no bridge at club level in Italy (alerts are not allowed). Is this true?

Untrue, there is still bridge at club level and alerts are allowed B-)

 

Edit: meant to say “psyches are not allowed”

True, at club level only.

But we already thrashed that to death in another thread.

[pescetom]

Here, the only thing announced by convention name is “Stayman”

Here too (together with "Puppet Stayman"), but it may still be the thin end of a wedge - see how many conventions are unalerted (and even unannounced) in ACBL.

 

it seems OK since everyone knows what at least basic Stayman entails.

I'm opposed on principle to stating a convention name, it engenders confusion about the way agreements should be explained. And I don't think that everyone agrees on what basic Stayman entails either, at least around here - for some responder must have at least invitational strength, for some she must have at least one 4-card major, for some both of these and for others neither.

[Vampyr]

True, at club level only.

But we already thrashed that to death in another thread.

 

Maybe so, but there is no penalty that can be applied, so prohibiting psyches is pointless. Oh, wait, they are “misbids.”

 

I'm opposed on principle to stating a convention name, it engenders confusion about the way agreements should be explained. And I don't think that everyone agrees on what basic Stayman entails either, at least around here - for some responder must have at least invitational strength, for some she must have at least one 4-card major, for some both of these and for others neither.

 

And all of this should be announced when the opponents might not even care? If they do care they can ask.

 

In the EBU “Stayman” is announced if opener would show a major in response. Most of the time this is enough, and most of the time when there are questions they can wait until the face-down opening lead.

[pescetom]

Maybe so, but there is no penalty that can be applied, so prohibiting psyches is pointless. Oh, wait, they are “misbids.”

If the misstatement of strength/length is sufficiently gross and there is no credible alibi of genuine constructive intention then there is a penalty, and a fixed one too, albeit light. Claiming a misbid might escape the penalty, but not restituition of damage.

 

And all of this should be announced when the opponents might not even care? If they do care they can ask.

I agree with you that none of this should be announced, it would be a mess. The convention should be alerted and then explained only if asked, like any other convention.

 

 

In the EBU “Stayman” is announced if opener would show a major in response. Most of the time this is enough, and most of the time when there are questions they can wait until the face-down opening lead.

 

In my Stayman, opener would only show a 5-card major, otherwise respond ♦. Is that still announced as "Stayman" for EBU?

But that's an aside: I'm not against an announcement of that type, but I think it should be phrased in those terms, "Asks for major" or something similar.

[TMorris]

If the misstatement of strength/length is sufficiently gross and there is no credible alibi of genuine constructive intention then there is a penalty, and a fixed one too, albeit light. Claiming a misbid might escape the penalty, but not restituition of damage.

 

 

I agree with you that none of this should be announced, it would be a mess. The convention should be alerted and then explained only if asked, like any other convention.

 

 

 

 

In my Stayman, opener would only show a 5-card major, otherwise respond ♦. Is that still announced as "Stayman" for EBU?

But that's an aside: I'm not against an announcement of that type, but I think it should be phrased in those terms, "Asks for major" or something similar.

 

No, it is alerted in the EBU.

[pescetom]

No, it is alerted in the EBU.

As I expected.

In Italy I can actually announce it as "Puppet Stayman", but then all the replies and developments need alerting anyway so it's hard to see what was gained.

[pran]

In Norway (and I believe the same applies within the entire EBU,) a convention may be explained by its name if this is universally understood within the actual environment.

However the Director shall rule misinformation if it should appear that the players involved had different, however minute, understanding of the actual convention.

[blackshoe]

In Norway (and I believe the same applies within the entire EBU,) a convention may be explained by its name if this is universally understood within the actual environment.

However the Director shall rule misinformation if it should appear that the players involved had different, however minute, understanding of the actual convention.

Seems to me that makes it pretty dangerous to provide a convention's name as an explanation, unless you're absolutely certain that your opponents have the same understanding you do of that convention.

 

Since I'm never absolutely certain of anything, I would not do that.

[barmar]

I was told in 2016 that the alert regulations were "under review" and new regs would be proposed to the BoD "ASAP". Three plus years later, and I haven't seen it yet. No idea what the problem is, except I suppose they held up while the new convention charts were being developed. However, those have been in place for what, seven or eight months now? :(

It took a couple of years for the new convention charts, I'd expect it to take at least a year for the new alert procedure.

 

My expectation is that they're not really going to change the spirit, just make the document more precise -- the current alert procedure is very vague in many places. Maybe something in the style of the Blue Book.

[barmar]

I'm opposed on principle to stating a convention name, it engenders confusion about the way agreements should be explained.

What would you prefer instead? Go back to the old days where the same "Alert" language was used for both unusual agreements and near-universal agreements like Stayman and Jacoby Transfers?

 

In ACBL we don't even alert Stayman (any form) if it's a non-jump club bid immediately over NT.

[pran]

In Norway (and I believe the same applies within the entire EBU,) a convention may be explained by its name if this is universally understood within the actual environment.

However the Director shall rule misinformation if it should appear that the players involved had different, however minute, understanding of the actual convention.

Seems to me that makes it pretty dangerous to provide a convention's name as an explanation, unless you're absolutely certain that your opponents have the same understanding you do of that convention.

 

Since I'm never absolutely certain of anything, I would not do that.

Precisely.

And

During the auction and before the final pass any player may request, at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding. [...]

is pretty "all inclusive" and cannot be limited by regulations.

[barmar]

If you don't agree on the meaning of words, it's not possible to communicate at all.

 

"Stayman" versus "Asking partner to bid a 4-card major" -- why are you more "absolutely certain" that your opponents have the same understanding of the word "major" than you are of "Stayman"?

 

Humpty Dumpty was wrong, words don't mean whatever you want them to mean.

[pran]

If you don't agree on the meaning of words, it's not possible to communicate at all.

 

"Stayman" versus "Asking partner to bid a 4-card major" -- why are you more "absolutely certain" that your opponents have the same understanding of the word "major" than you are of "Stayman"?

 

Humpty Dumpty was wrong, words don't mean whatever you want them to mean.

I have met players who (incorrectly in my world) say "Stayman" when it turns out that they really mean "Asking partner to bid a 5-card major". Follow up calls in the auction will clarify possible 4-card fits.

 

"Stayman" is a correct explanation when you are absolutely sure that your opponents will understand precisely what is meant.

[Vampyr]

If the misstatement of strength/length is sufficiently gross and there is no credible alibi of genuine constructive intention then there is a penalty, and a fixed one too, albeir light.

 

How is this possible? Have the Laws of Bridge not been translated into Italian? I wonder why the WBF allows members which play some other game instead of bridge.

[pescetom]

How is this possible? Have the Laws of Bridge not been translated into Italian? I wonder why the WBF allows members which play some other game instead of bridge.

 

I seem to remember reading that psyches were once banned in other RAs too, and I assure you that when playing without psyches it still feels much like bridge. I think the WBF tolerates decidedly more important deviations than this from RAs, even if less direct in law terms. But I hope and am sure that Italy will get into line on club level psyches sooner or later.

[pescetom]

What would you prefer instead? Go back to the old days where the same "Alert" language was used for both unusual agreements and near-universal agreements like Stayman and Jacoby Transfers?

My own preference would be for clearly formalised announcements for a few very common conventional bids, such as "Asks for majors, does not promise a major or strength" , "Shows hearts", "Shows spades and a minor, at least 4-5". But I could live with going back to the old days. I think either is better than the current ACBL Alert chart.

[jeffford76]

It took a couple of years for the new convention charts, I'd expect it to take at least a year for the new alert procedure.

 

My expectation is that they're not really going to change the spirit, just make the document more precise -- the current alert procedure is very vague in many places. Maybe something in the style of the Blue Book.

 

I think it actually took more than a couple. :)

 

There is a committee working on the new alert rules - I am chairing it. As you suspect, the main goal is not to make major changes, but rather to make the rules more clear, and to make rulings more predictable. It's still too early for me to have any estimate of when a draft might be finished. I'm sure we will provide it for comments once we have it as we did with the new convention charts.

[sanst]

What would you prefer instead? Go back to the old days where the same "Alert" language was used for both unusual agreements and near-universal agreements like Stayman and Jacoby Transfers?

 

In ACBL we don't even alert Stayman (any form) if it's a non-jump club bid immediately over NT.

That’s about the situation in Holland. The regulations are based on the WBF Alerting Policy and there’s no announcing. All conventional bids should be alerted, including Stayman and Jacoby Transfers, but also all calls with an unexpected meaning. The strange result is that 1NT - 2♣/♦/♥ should always be alerted.

[weejonnie]

Had a case on Sunday where the 2♣ response was announced as Stayman and I was called because the opponent thought that Stayman promised a 4-card major (promissory) whereas the person who bid it hadn't a 4-card major at all. (They didn't ask).

 

More interesting is the fact that the 1NT bidder thought that they played promissory Stayman, but the Stayman bidder thought they didn't (or forgot - as he plays non-promissory with other partners). Had there been a requirement to state "Promissory Stayman" or "Non Promissory Stayman", I would have had more work to do than just quote from the Blue Book)