what makes these bids alertable?

[pilun]

Consider these two opening bids:

 

a) 2♥ = 5+ hearts and a 4+ minor (Muiderberg)

 

b) 1♥ = 4+ ♥s, denies 4 ♠s, could be canape

 

Both look to be alertable but are they artificial/conventional?

 

The 2017 Laws define artificial:

 

"A bid ... that conveys information (....) other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named ....."

 

In (a) does the presence of a 4+ minor make a Muiderberg two artificial?

 

In (b) does the absence of spades make that 1♥ opening artificial? Is this what is meant by "other than"?

 

If that is the case, what about a normal weak 2♠ opening which many would play as denying four hearts?

Is that covered by that phrase

"not being information taken for granted by players generally"?

[sanst]

Whether a bid is alertable or not is dependent on the local regulations.

Anyway, this is a topic for the Simple questions forum.

[pilun]

Whether a bid is alertable or not is dependent on the local regulations.

Anyway, this is a topic for the Simple questions forum.

 

Okay I will repost.

Note that i did not ask whether these bids are alertable.

Rather I asked that - if these bids ARE alertable - is it because they are artificial or for some other reason, such as "unusual treatment of a natural bid,"

[pran]

Consider these two opening bids:

 

a) 2♥ = 5+ hearts and a 4+ minor (Muiderberg)

 

b) 1♥ = 4+ ♥s, denies 4 ♠s, could be canape

 

Both look to be alertable but are they artificial/conventional?

 

The 2017 Laws define artificial:

 

"A bid ... that conveys information (....) other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named ....."

 

In (a) does the presence of a 4+ minor make a Muiderberg two artificial?

 

In (b) does the absence of spades make that 1♥ opening artificial? Is this what is meant by "other than"?

 

If that is the case, what about a normal weak 2♠ opening which many would play as denying four hearts?

Is that covered by that phrase

"not being information taken for granted by players generally"?

(a) - yes

(b) - yes if it specifically denies spades, no if it may contain spades in addition to hearts.

[Cyberyeti]

(a) - yes

(b) - yes if it specifically denies spades, no if it may contain spades in addition to hearts.

 

Don't many of these things depend on where you are ?

 

There are also some things that are covered by this but are so normal that they don't need alerting like 1♥-P-1♠(may have a longer minor) which should technically be alertable. In the UK if there is something unexpected about the bid you need to alert it so this covers natural bids if they convey unexpected range info like where you had lebensohl available but you didn't use it.

 

Both of yours I believe are alertable here, and unless it's changed from when I played canape a long time back, the "possible canape" is enough to make it alertable here.

[pran]

Don't many of these things depend on where you are ?

Some - yes

There are also some things that are covered by this but are so normal that they don't need alerting like 1♥-P-1♠(may have a longer minor) which should technically be alertable. In the UK if there is something unexpected about the bid you need to alert it so this covers natural bids if they convey unexpected range info like where you had lebensohl available but you didn't use it.

 

Both of yours I believe are alertable here, and unless it's changed from when I played canape a long time back, the "possible canape" is enough to make it alertable here.

"May" have something outside the named denomination (e.g. longer minor) does not itself make a bid alertable, but "promises" or "denies" often does.

"May have a 5-card major" with a NT opening bid is usually alertable or must at least be announced.

Unusual features will often require an alert/announcement (regardless of jurisdiction).

[Cyberyeti]

 

"May have a 5-card major" with a NT opening bid is usually alertable or must at least be announced.

Unusual features will often require an alert/announcement (regardless of jurisdiction).

 

Not alertable or announceable in the UK, routine here. "May contain a singleton" is announceable

[mikestar13]

Some - yes

 

"May" have something outside the named denomination (e.g. longer minor) does not itself make a bid alertable, but "promises" or "denies" often does.

"May have a 5-card major" with a NT opening bid is usually alertable or must at least be announced.

Unusual features will often require an alert/announcement (regardless of jurisdiction).

 

Not in any alert regs I've read, though I've only read regs from English speaking countries and nowhere near all of them. In the ACBL, 1NT that may have a five card major is neither an alert or an announcement, but there is a checkbox on the system card.

[pescetom]

Consider these two opening bids:

 

a) 2♥ = 5+ hearts and a 4+ minor (Muiderberg)

 

b) 1♥ = 4+ ♥s, denies 4 ♠s, could be canape

 

Both look to be alertable but are they artificial/conventional?

 

The 2017 Laws define artificial:

 

"A bid ... that conveys information (....) other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named ....."

 

In (a) does the presence of a 4+ minor make a Muiderberg two artificial?

 

In (b) does the absence of spades make that 1♥ opening artificial? Is this what is meant by "other than"?

 

If that is the case, what about a normal weak 2♠ opening which many would play as denying four hearts?

Is that covered by that phrase

"not being information taken for granted by players generally"?

They both have a significant artificial element, which you yourself point out already.

In most RAs they would be alertable.

 

A "normal weak 2" is also not truly natural, although some RAs do treat it (or even define it) as such.

In many RAs it is announceable if it meets certain standard characteristics, which typically gloss over the question of whether it denies 4-card hearts - I would alert if playing it differently to the local majority.

[pran]

Not in any alert regs I've read, though I've only read regs from English speaking countries and nowhere near all of them. In the ACBL, 1NT that may have a five card major is neither an alert or an announcement, but there is a checkbox on the system card.

As far as I know a hand making a "natural" opening bid of 1♣ may contain at least 4 cards in any of the other three suits without making this 1♣ opening bid alertable regardless of jurisdiction.

 

However, if the 1♣ opening bid should happen by agreement to in addition promise at least 4 cards in some other suit then I would expect it to be alertable anywhere?

[Vampyr]

A "normal weak 2" is also not truly natural

 

Really? LOL

[nige1]

[i posted this already but this forum seems more appropriate]

What makes calls alertable is local systems regulation -- arbitrary, chauvinist, and (usually) daft. A typical example:

 

Some American sponsors adopted short club openings. To pander to professional teams, the ACBL reclassified these openings as natural and non-alertable -- severely handicapping opponents by restricting the conventional defences that they are allowed to use.

 

Simpler would be to scrap all the dreadful alert rules, reducing the strain on players' memories, and avoiding some controversial rulings,

 

Instead, insist that you announce all partner's calls (preferably by pointing to relevant boxes on a card on the table). This would speed up the game and improve disclosure.

 

You might allow players to turn off opponents' alerts and announcements completely -- although the declaring side would still be expected to explain their auction before the opening lead.

 

There is a danger that you might miss subtle systemic inferences. Hence, rather than build up a picture from an individual calls, you should be allowed to ask an opponent "What do your partner's calls tell you about his hand?"

[Cyberyeti]

Really? LOL

 

You may have the restriction that 2♥ may have 4m but not 4 spades, this technically could make it alertable but nobody ever does.

 

I play "natural" (although not normal) weak 2s that are alertable in the UK because the minimum length is 4 in 1st and 3rd.

[hrothgar]

Alert regulations are governed by local zonal organizations.

 

There regulations are not always consistent with the Laws of the game.

 

As a practical example, the ACBL Convention Charts include a definition of the expression "artificial" which is different from the one used in the Laws.

In part, this is to provide more specificity with respect to some of the examples that you are citing.

[Cyberyeti]

As far as I know a hand making a "natural" opening bid of 1♣ may contain at least 4 cards in any of the other three suits without making this 1♣ opening bid alertable regardless of jurisdiction.

 

However, if the 1♣ opening bid should happen by agreement to in addition promise at least 4 cards in some other suit then I would expect it to be alertable anywhere?

 

True, here it's announceable if can be shorter than 3.

[pran]

Alert regulations are governed by local zonal organizations.

 

There regulations are not always consistent with the Laws of the game.

 

As a practical example, the ACBL Convention Charts include a definition of the expression "artificial" which is different from the one used in the Laws.

In part, this is to provide more specificity with respect to some of the examples that you are citing.

A Regulating Authority (e.g. ACBL) is bound by

The Regulating Authority may delegate its powers (retaining ultimate responsibility for their exercise) or it may assign them (in which case it has no further responsibility for their exercise).

and

to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

 

which implies that once the term "Artificial call" is defined in the laws (as it is) then no regulating authority or delegate may redefine this term in conflict with its definition in the laws.

[pescetom]

You may have the restriction that 2♥ may have 4m but not 4 spades, this technically could make it alertable but nobody ever does.

 

I play "natural" (although not normal) weak 2s that are alertable in the UK because the minimum length is 4 in 1st and 3rd.

 

I think it was an attempt to ironise on my affirmation that a weak 2 opening can be considered not truly natural.

But there are reasons why a 2 level suit opening was strong for much of the history of bridge and is still played that way by some.

[hrothgar]

A Regulating Authority (e.g. ACBL) is bound by

 

which implies that once the term "Artificial call" is defined in the laws (as it is) then no regulating authority or delegate may redefine this term in conflict with its definition in the laws.

 

Perhaps the ACBL should have used the word "salami" rather than artificial and then passed regulations regarding when players may / may not make "salami" bids

 

So, even if your claim were to be true, I find it hard to care

[barmar]

I've merged the two thread.

[barmar]

What makes calls alertable is local systems regulation -- arbitrary, chauvinist, and (usually) daft. A typical example:

 

Some American sponsors adopted short club openings. To pander to professional teams, the ACBL reclassified these openings as natural and non-alertable -- severely handicapping opponents by restricting the conventional defences that they are allowed to use.

This is not true.

 

It's only considered "natural" if you only bid a short club with the specific shape 4=4=3=2, but you still have to announce "could be short".

 

Maybe your issue is that the announcement doesn't distinguish whether you only do it in this case, or also bid short clubs with other shapes that would make it artificial, so the opponents don't know whether they can use a conventional defense to it.

[blackshoe]

What makes calls alertable is local systems regulation -- arbitrary, chauvinist, and (usually) daft. A typical example:

 

Some American sponsors adopted short club openings. To pander to professional teams, the ACBL reclassified these openings as natural and non-alertable -- severely handicapping opponents by restricting the conventional defences that they are allowed to use.

 

Simpler would be to scrap all the dreadful alert rules, reducing the strain on players' memories, and avoiding some controversial rulings,

 

Instead, insist that you announce all partner's calls (preferably by pointing to relevant boxes on a card on the table). This would speed up the game and improve disclosure.

I think that your assumption about the genesis of the ACBL's regulation regarding "short club" openings is incorrect. My understanding is that it was done to prevent people from using those horrible conventional defenses against Aunt Gladys.

 

As to your last, why not just eliminate the fifteen words of the language of bridge and just require players to say what they have in the common language of the people playing the game? "I have 5 spades and 12 to 21 points"... "I have 3 spades and 6 to 9 points"... "I think this is a good spot." End. Of course, some auctions are more complex than that, and there may be "unintended consequences" to this simple change. :o B-)

[pilun]

Don't many of these things depend on where you are ?

 

There are also some things that are covered by this but are so normal that they don't need alerting like 1♥-P-1♠(may have a longer minor) which should technically be alertable. In the UK if there is something unexpected about the bid you need to alert it so this covers natural bids if they convey unexpected range info like where you had lebensohl available but you didn't use it.

 

Both of yours I believe are alertable here, and unless it's changed from when I played canape a long time back, the "possible canape" is enough to make it alertable here.

 

Repeat that whether these bids are alertable or not is not the issue for me. (They clearly are)

The question for the panel is the interpretation of the Definition in the Laws.

Are these bids ARTIFICIAL? If so, why?

[nige1]

Some American sponsors adopted short club openings. To pander to professional teams, the ACBL reclassified these openings as natural and non-alertable -- severely handicapping opponents by restricting the conventional defences that they are allowed to use.

This is not true. It's only considered "natural" if you only bid a short club with the specific shape 4=4=3=2, but you still have to announce "could be short".

OK. You announce but don't alert it -- for defensive purposes, it's considered natural.

Instead, insist that you announce all partner's calls (preferably by pointing to relevant boxes on a card on the table). This would speed up the game and improve disclosure.

... As to your last, why not just eliminate the fifteen words of the language of bridge and just require players to say what they have in the common language of the people playing the game? "I have 5 spades and 12 to 21 points"... "I have 3 spades and 6 to 9 points"... "I think this is a good spot." End. Of course, some auctions are more complex than that, and there may be "unintended consequences" to this simple change. :o B-)

Blackshoe seems to have misinterpreted my suggestion. Reminds me of when players used to sign-off by saying "Content" instead of "Pass". And "I double that" would distinguish a penalty double :)

[pran]

Repeat that whether these bids are alertable or not is not the issue for me. (They clearly are)

The question for the panel is the interpretation of the Definition in the Laws.

Are these bids ARTIFICIAL? If so, why?

Artificial call

1. A bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named or last named.

2. A pass that promises more than a specified amount of strength.

3. A pass that promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.

So for instance: 1♥-P-1♠ (which may have a longer minor) is not artificial while 1♥-P-1♠ (that promises another suit) is artificial.

[sanst]

Repeat that whether these bids are alertable or not is not the issue for me. (They clearly are)

The question for the panel is the interpretation of the Definition in the Laws.

Are these bids ARTIFICIAL? If so, why?

Because they come under the first point of the definition in the Laws ( see pran’s answer #24).