gerber

[dickiegera]

Partnerships plays 4 clubs is always gerber.

 

Bidding [with oppoents not bidding] goes 1 spade 4 clubs [gerber]

 

Is this alertable?

 

 

Thank you

[smerriman]

Yes. The ACBL document says to alert all artificial bids except ones listed.

 

It lists this as non-alertable:

 

A 4C bid asking for aces or keycards directly over a No Trump bid or in an auction that started with an Opening No Trump Sequence.

But that's not the case here.

[mycroft]

Yes, this is true (and has "always" been true. Many who play "4♣ is always Gerber" didn't know that before, and don't know it now).

 

Note that this one (1♠-4♣) is an immediate Alert.

 

Also note that every other Alertable Gerber auction is a Delayed Alert - "higher than 3NT, starting with Opener's Rebid". But since all responses to Ace-Asking auctions are (Delayed) Alertable (even the ones where the asking bid itself is not - check it!) as are control cuebids, any time you have a slam-try auction, you should be explaining at the end of the auction anyway.

[pescetom]

Do they also play that a 4♣ opening is Gerber? I sorely hope that will be an immediate Alert too.

[mycroft]

I have seen some people for whom 4♣ opening is Gerber. And yes, it's an immediate Alert. And now that Namyats is an announcement, it's even an useful Alert. But even the "4♣ is always Gerber" people tend to play that as a minor preempt, so I didn't mention it.

 

But I did miss one (that I did see at the table - okay, I was called as the director to this auction): (3♠)-4♣ overcall Gerber. It then went "(p)-4♥-all pass, and when dummy hit with a strong hand, 6 hearts and 2 clubs, the director was called. "what was 4♥?" "One ace." "what was 4♣?" "Gerber." "You know that's Alertable, right?" "..."

[pescetom]

I have seen some people for whom 4♣ opening is Gerber. And yes, it's an immediate Alert. And now that Namyats is an announcement, it's even an useful Alert. But even the "4♣ is always Gerber" people tend to play that as a minor preempt, so I didn't mention it.

 

But I did miss one (that I did see at the table - okay, I was called as the director to this auction): (3♠)-4♣ overcall Gerber. It then went "(p)-4♥-all pass, and when dummy hit with a strong hand, 6 hearts and 2 clubs, the director was called. "what was 4♥?" "One ace." "what was 4♣?" "Gerber." "You know that's Alertable, right?" "..."

 

I'm already struggling with Namyats as an announcement ("Strong hearts"? Or "Namyats" which they are they supposed to know?), but it could just be resignment after 2NT 3NT 6NT :)

[mycroft]

It's a transfer, so the new ACBL Alert Procedures require a 4♣ Namyats opening to be announced "Hearts". (in a very odd quirk in the rules, a 4♥ opening by a pair that play Namyats is Alerted ("A Natural Preemptive bid if there is a second way to show the same suit at the same level.") even if the exact same agreement by a pair not playing Namyats is not. Understandable, but I bet 10% of the people that play this know to do it, and 2% of the people Alerted understand why.)

[pescetom]

It's a transfer, so the new ACBL Alert Procedures require a 4♣ Namyats opening to be announced "Hearts". (in a very odd quirk in the rules, a 4♥ opening by a pair that play Namyats is Alerted ("A Natural Preemptive bid if there is a second way to show the same suit at the same level.") even if the exact same agreement by a pair not playing Namyats is not. Understandable, but I bet 10% of the people that play this know to do it, and 2% of the people Alerted understand why.)

 

Thanks.

I'm underwhelmed by the announcement of "Hearts", which seems to me reticent and suggesting that this is equivalent to and substitutes a natural 4♥.

OTOH I do approve the explicit requirement to alert a corresponding 4♥ opening (although it would already be implicit in WBF world).

Is there a similar requirement for 1NT - 2♦; 2♥ to be alerted when super-accepts are played?

[Gilithin]

It's a transfer, so the new ACBL Alert Procedures require a 4♣ Namyats opening to be announced "Hearts". (in a very odd quirk in the rules, a 4♥ opening by a pair that play Namyats is Alerted ("A Natural Preemptive bid if there is a second way to show the same suit at the same level.") even if the exact same agreement by a pair not playing Namyats is not. Understandable, but I bet 10% of the people that play this know to do it, and 2% of the people Alerted understand why.)

Does this mean that natural 4m openings need to be alerted by any pair that uses a Gambling 3NT?

[mycroft]

That's a very good question and one that I have never got an answer I can completely generalize to. I think the answer is "no" - even though you're always going to *get to* 4m, 3NT is at the 3 level.

 

Personally, I think it should be. But I don't read the Alert Procedures as saying it is.

[pescetom]

Is there a similar requirement for 1NT - 2♦; 2♥ to be alerted when super-accepts are played?

 

Does this mean that natural 4m openings need to be alerted by any pair that uses a Gambling 3NT?

For me they should be, just like the situation above (which is cheerfully ignored by my RA and it seems so far all others).

Even on BBO or behind screens I don't see many players alerting these things when they could.

[sanst]

For me they should be, just like the situation above (which is cheerfully ignored by my RA and it seems so far all others).

Even on BBO or behind screens I don't see many players alerting these things when they could.

If too many bids have to be alerted, it looses its purpose. In Holland 1♣ has to be alerted if the call can be made with 2♣. Everybody alerts, nobody asks, which can be pretty stupid if the pair has a strong club system or plays 1♣ as 4+♣. Announcing is unknown here, which makes things worse.

[pescetom]

If too many bids have to be alerted, it looses its purpose. In Holland 1♣ has to be alerted if the call can be made with 2♣. Everybody alerts, nobody asks, which can be pretty stupid if the pair has a strong club system or plays 1♣ as 4+♣. Announcing is unknown here, which makes things worse.

Sure, it's a delicate balance to avoid too many alerts, but the approach has to be consistent: it makes no sense that one must alert a superaccept but not an a transfer completion that denies superaccept values. As for opening bids, announcements work well there as you suggest.

[barmar]

If too many bids have to be alerted, it looses its purpose. In Holland 1♣ has to be alerted if the call can be made with 2♣. Everybody alerts, nobody asks, which can be pretty stupid if the pair has a strong club system or plays 1♣ as 4+♣. Announcing is unknown here, which makes things worse.

That's precisely the reason why ACBL introduced announcements. And before that, they experimented with "Special Alert", but the players didn't like it.

[jillybean]

That's precisely the reason why ACBL introduced announcements. And before that, they experimented with "Special Alert", but the players didn't like it.

 

This only works of course when players make the announcement, and some don't.

[barmar]

This only works of course when players make the announcement, and some don't.

No solution is perfect, but announcements have worked out pretty well in ACBL. The switch from "Special Alert" (which hardly anyone did properly) to announcements went pretty smoothly. Every few years rumors go around that the announcement for 15-17 NT is no longer needed, but I've rarely encountered tournament players with this misunderstanding, I think it mostly happens with club players.

[jillybean]

No solution is perfect, but announcements have worked out pretty well in ACBL. The switch from "Special Alert" (which hardly anyone did properly) to announcements went pretty smoothly. Every few years rumors go around that the announcement for 15-17 NT is no longer needed, but I've rarely encountered tournament players with this misunderstanding, I think it mostly happens with club players.

Mostly in club games perhaps but failure to announce/alert happens at all levels of this game.

[mycroft]

1. Moving from Announcements to "failure to ...Alert" is quite a jump. There are - legitimate - issues with people not Announcing (or not announcing correctly, or announcing things that are Alerts), but they're actually simple, and almost everybody has a handle on it. The rest of the Alert Procedure in the ACBL is complicated, for a legitimate reason, and "not Alerting correctly sometimes" is a consequence the ACBL has decided to have.
    
   I played this weekend, and had two situations where Alertability of (reasonable, but rare) agreements were questioned, and the answer surprised both me and the TD (in fact, in one case, we called the TD because we failed to Alert the call, only to find that it wasn't Alertable). It's gonna happen, and as a result, "two minutes for cross-checking misAlerting" isn't.
   
2. "Every few years"? At least in my world, "every spring and fall, when the snowbirds come back from Arizona/Florida, or when they 'come back' from Nova Scotia and Arizona". *Somebody* says it, and *lots of people* believe it, because it's what they want - but G-d help you if you muffle your "12-14" even once, even though you've played it with this partner for 15 years, and the person has played against you at least 4 times a year for those same 15 years. (Yes, it's important, and it's important *for the NT opener's side*, not for your opponents; I know they don't believe me. Almost wish I could feel allowed to play the [-] defence against it deliberately, rather than leave it to all the pairs who play it by accident).
   
3. My favourite announcement issue is the other pair on my "weak NT team", who still play 2-way (the most common of the "Special Alerts", back in the day). 1NT "12-14"-p-2♥-<stare>. I think the best solution to this would be to extend Announcements to all 2-level responses to NT, but that will cause its own problems from the "you just use the Alerts to keep partner on track" brigade.

[barmar]

My favorite recollection is nearly 30 years ago, when ACBL had just changed negative doubles to be non-alertable. I went to an NABC, and played in something with one of by rubber bridge cronies, and we agreed to play our RB system; I think the only artificial bids were takeout doubles, Stayman, and Blackwood. This meant we could make penalty doubles of overcalls. We alerted these (as required by the new regulation), the opponent would point out that the double is no longer alertable, and we'd inform them that our double is indeed alertable.

[mycroft]

heh, same year, same story, different game:

 

1NT ("good 11-14", and didn't that help our score over December when it was "Alert")-p-2♦ ("Alert". "You don't Alert transfers any more, you just say 'Transfer'." "Thank you. Alert.")

 

If they still didn't get it, and went on the "just say 'Transfer'" kick again, we let them off the hook and said "it's not a transfer."(</Arnie>) That almost always got a "oh, then what is it?" :-)

[pescetom]

1NT ("good 11-14", and didn't that help our score over December when it was "Alert")

I remain in favour of Announcements of opening bids, but only if they are rigidly worded and very simple. A good regulation requires "11-14" and then anything else should be an infraction.

 

If they still didn't get it, and went on the "just say 'Transfer'" kick again, we let them off the hook and said "it's not a transfer."(</Arnie>) That almost always got a "oh, then what is it?" :-)

My favourite gripe is with those who (usually with no real reason to ask in the first place) will put an explanation in your mouth ("both minors 5-5?").

I can't help smiling, but maybe this is naive as they do tend to score better than their bridge merits for some reason.

[Gilithin]

I remain in favour of Announcements of opening bids, but only if they are rigidly worded and very simple. A good regulation requires "11-14" and then anything else should be an infraction.

If my partner and I play 12-14 but also 11s that I feel like upgrading, then "11 to 14" would be misinformation. Similarly "12 to 14" might cause a Director call when the defence are upset that I only have 12. Your rigid wording needs to address such issues in a way that announcing "Good 11 to 14" does.

[pescetom]

If my partner and I play 12-14 but also 11s that I feel like upgrading, then "11 to 14" would be misinformation. Similarly "12 to 14" might cause a Director call when the defence are upset that I only have 12. Your rigid wording needs to address such issues in a way that announcing "Good 11 to 14" does.

 

Your RA will determine how this is dealt with: some seem to find upgrading half a point a world changer, others not, I tend towards the latter FWIW. I would certainly rather have just two numbers than people adding adjectives and disclaimers audible to their partner when and if they see fit.

My own agreement is that many 5M332 including most spades will upgrade: that is clearly written on my system card, the RA can decide whether my 1NT is announced as 15-17 or 14-16 or 14-17 (I do the latter in absence of precise indications).

[blackshoe]

Are half of all 11 counts "good" 11 counts? Are half of them "bad" 11 counts? Is there some middle ground where the 11 count is neither good nor bad? How large is that middle ground? Is it symmetrical about the center of "11 count"? What constitutes "half a point"?

 

The ACBL Alert regulation includes an example regarding 1NT openings that says "A 1NT Opening Bid that generally shows 12-14 HCP, but is frequently opened with 11 HCP: Announce “Good Eleven to Fourteen.”" What is the definition of "frequently"? My dictionary says "regularly, habitually; often". This is not really helpful, since if you open an announced 12-14 once with 11 points, your opponent is going to think you are cheating, and at least some directors will go along with him.

 

If it's half the 11 counts, then "frequently" probably fits (though it would be nice if the regulation made us sure it fits), but I'm not so sure half of all 11 counts are "good".

[mycroft]

Okay, "12-14". People need to know when I say that to ask "what 11s do you open"? Because with one partner, it's "A A K or noteworthy 5-card minor"; with another, it's "A A K or connected honours in long suits"; with another, it's "11s that don't look like 10s". With another yet, it's "if I do, I'm 100% responsible for the result."

 

Okay, at least one of those should be "11-14"? Now, people need to know when I say that, to ask "what 11s do you not open?" Same deal. And, of course, they should be asking "so, what 10s do you open?" in case I'm one of those weirdos, right?

 

A common agreement here for strong NTs is "good 14 to flat 17". basically "14.5 to 16.5". How are they supposed to "simply" Announce this? 14-17 is a lie (on both ends). 14-16 is a lie - which will get called on when the 4333 17 shows up (or when 1NT is rebid on the 2434 14 with honours in the short suits). 15-17 gets us back to the original problem - "what 14s do you open?" (viz the current expert "14-16", which "everybody knows" includes a bunch of - maybe half of - 13s).

 

Not saying you don't have a point, but "simple" HCP doesn't cut it for ranges. What the qualifiers should mean, however, or what you should be able to assume without qualifiers, really needs to be spelled out, rather than relying on people's opinions of their own ranges.

 

Which I have iterated to ACBLCC on more than one occasion. It seems to be of lower priority than other things.