Information requests

[Finch]

I don't care whether the majority of people play 1 minor - 1 heart - 1NT as denying four spades or not. I am also certain it is not alertable either way under WBF, EBL or EBU alerting regulations.

 

The "Alert" procedure is NOT repeat NOT repeat again NOT supposed to be used to alert your opponents to every bid about which you and your partner have a special agreement that the opponents may not know about. I have a great many detailed agreements with my partner. If we alert every time we have a special agreement, you will see things like this:

 

me: 1NT (15-17) ALERT.

them: explain

me: we upgrade most 17s with 4-4 in the majors. We upgrade many but not most 14s with a 5 or 6-card minor. We open most 6322s with a 6-card minor 1NT if in range. We generally don't have a 5 card major, but might if it looks very suitable for NT play. We never have a singleton. (etc etc....) These are all special agreements that aren't part of general "15-17".

 

or

me: 1D ALERT

them: explain

me: it's natural, 4+ cards, but becase we haven't opened a multi, it can't be a strong two in diamonds with a solid suit.

 

If you go down this route you have to alert every bid in every sequence. There's then no benefit to the alert system.

 

In the absence of a fully-defined set of alert regulations, you should alert bids where the opponents will i) be surprised to find out how you play the bid and ii) it might affect their choice of call. There is time at the end of the auction to explain all negative inferences etc if the opponents want them.

 

As long as 1D - 1H - 1NT is non-forcing and shows a balanced hand of a speficied range somewhere between 11 and 18 HCP without 4-card heart support I don't think it should be alerted. Save the alert for when it's forcing, or it shows clubs, or it promises 3-card heart support or something seriously unusual.

 

I happen to play a style where I raise 1H to 2H with 3-card support and a low doubleton. Does that mean I alert my 1NT rebid because it denies 3 hearts and a low doubleton?

 

It's possible that when we have had the auction 1D - 1H - 1NT - Pass, you misdefend because you assume opener cannot have four spades, and you didn't even think to ask. Well, tough. Live with it. You'll know better next time. There's no conceptual difference between that and when we bid 1NT-3NT and you misdefend because you were taught that a 1NT opener must be balanced i.e. 4432 or 4333 but I turned out to have a 5-card minor. You've learnt something.

[Finch]

Good grief!

1) Let us assume there are 25 million players who have some sense of bridge.

2) Do you think 90% or 95% or 99% of partnerships play 1nt may often concel 4 card major?

3) Making the alert rules of bridge that apply to 1,000 or 5,000 partnerships spells doom to bridge as a game.

 

If you want to create a game for only the top 100 players worldwide ok.

I'm not quite sure where this rant is going.

But to answer question 2:

 

I don't know. From my experience, 90% of relevant English partnerships play that 1NT may conceal a 4-card major. The irrelevant partnerships are those that would have opened 1S in the first place.

 

I note that in Bridge World Standard, you rebid 1NT with 4 spades in a 4333 and rebid 1S with a 4-4.

[jillybean]

If that is so can someone explain what "full disclosure" means?

 

This is taken from http://www.umich.edu/~bridgeum/ruleinfo.html

 

Full disclosure

Winning is more meaningful when your opponents had all of the information to which they were entitled. Players who practice active ethics give their opponents full disclosure of partnership agreements whenever appropriate (for example, give complete answers to requests for information (when asked to explain your partner's 2NT response to your 1D opening, include not only the point range, but also whether your partner's call denies a 4-card major--don't wait for the opponent to ask exactly the right question to give that information)).

[kgr]

I don't care whether the majority of people play 1 minor - 1 heart - 1NT as denying four spades or not. I am also certain it is not alertable either way under WBF, EBL or EBU alerting regulations.

....If you would ever play in Belgium/Flanders:

It is in Belgium (at least in Flanders, not sure about French speaking part):

 

"Na opening 1 in kleur:

Niet alerteren!: 1ZT = 6-9 HP, geen 4-kaart hoger dan opening

Wel alerteren!: als 4-kaarten in opgaande volgorde kunnen overgeslagen worden"

 

...In English:

After opening 1 in suit:

No alert: 1NT: 6-9 HCP, no 4-card in suit higher then opening

Alert: if 4-card can be skipped.

[Finch]

If that is so can someone explain what "full disclosure" means?

 

This is taken from http://www.umich.edu/~bridgeum/ruleinfo.html

 

Full disclosure

Winning is more meaningful when your opponents had all of the information to which they were entitled. Players who practice active ethics give their opponents full disclosure of partnership agreements whenever appropriate (for example, give complete answers to requests for information (when asked to explain your partner's 2NT response to your 1D opening, include not only the point range, but also whether your partner's call denies a 4-card major--don't wait for the opponent to ask exactly the right question to give that information)).

<sigh>

This is the second time recently someone has suggested that I am suggesting concealing information from the opponents.

 

At NO POINT am I debating the merits of full disclosure.

I am only talking about alerting regulations.

Full disclosure and the alerting regulations ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

None of your quotation mentions alerting regulations.

 

In an ideal world, there is no need for any alert, because there is no UI (screens or online) and there is plenty of time for you to explain to your opponent(s) all the information, negative inferences etc that come from your call, your partner's call(s) and the calls you chose not to make.

 

We aren't in an ideal world, and we use the alert procedure to try and overcome this. What we choose to alert is a matter of regulation only, only indirectly to do with full disclosure. For an alert regulation to be meaningful, there have to be some things that are not alertable. So, as I have detailed ("special") agreements about virtually every contested or uncontested sequence with my regular partners, simply saying that all "special agreements" have to be alerted is nonsense.

[Finch]

I don't care whether the majority of people play 1 minor - 1 heart - 1NT as denying four spades or not. I am also certain it is not alertable either way under WBF, EBL or EBU alerting regulations.

....If you would ever play in Belgium/Flanders:

It is in Belgium (at least in Flanders, not sure about French speaking part):

 

"Na opening 1 in kleur:

Niet alerteren!: 1ZT = 6-9 HP, geen 4-kaart hoger dan opening

Wel alerteren!: als 4-kaarten in opgaande volgorde kunnen overgeslagen worden"

 

...In English:

After opening 1 in suit:

No alert: 1NT: 6-9 HCP, no 4-card in suit higher then opening

Alert: if 4-card can be skipped.

Your quotation refers to a 1NT response to an opening bid, not to a 1NT rebid so is in fact totally irrelevant.

 

In any case, Belgium regulations are not WBF, EBL or EBU regs, so wtp? If I play in Belgium, under Belgium regs, I shall read the regulations first, and alert what they tell me to alert. At least the one you quote is specific & unambiguous.

[coyot]

As long as 1D - 1H - 1NT is non-forcing and shows a balanced hand of a speficied range somewhere between 11 and 18 HCP without 4-card heart support I don't think it should be alerted. Save the alert for when it's forcing, or it shows clubs, or it promises 3-card heart support or something seriously unusual.

 

I happen to play a style where I raise 1H to 2H with 3-card support and a low doubleton. Does that mean I alert my 1NT rebid because it denies 3 hearts and a low doubleton?

 

It's possible that when we have had the auction 1D - 1H - 1NT - Pass, you misdefend because you assume opener cannot have four spades, and you didn't even think to ask. Well, tough. Live with it. You'll know better next time. There's no conceptual difference between that and when we bid 1NT-3NT and you misdefend because you were taught that a 1NT opener must be balanced i.e. 4432 or 4333 but I turned out to have a 5-card minor. You've learnt something.

WBF says it clearly. If you have a special explicit OR implicit agreement, you should alert the call.

I'm not saying the rules are perfect, but there are no better rules.

 

If you have your CC posted, most of the alerts shown are unnecessary.

 

To the quoted part: Why do you exclude 4card heart support? Should 1NT rebid with full support be alerted? Why? It shows a non-forcing balanced hand, doesn't it?

 

I simply think that full disclosure has it's merits. When I play SA based system, whose primary objective is to find major suit fit, I alert bids that would make opponents assume the absence of major suits when it is not true. If 1♠ rebid promises a two-three suited hand and my partner knows it at this very moment, I think the opponents should be given the knowledge as well.

 

I've been playing this way for 4 years and RARELY it happens that somebody feels discomforted by our frequent use of alerts.

 

Maybe coming from a place where there are about 6 frequently used systems spread among a thousand players teaches you respect and full disclosure more. Maybe, if everyone around me played some variant of SAYC, I wouldn't care a bit.

 

Frances, alerting rules and full disclosure ARE closely related. Alerting rules protect the defenders. Alerts give them the hint that they SHOULD ask, because the bid is wider/narrower than they might think. Strict alerting rules are good because you can then keep the auction quiet if opps don't alert - and you KNOW that you're not missing anything interesting.

 

CC contains enough room to cover the opening bids in detail. Yes, my CC says that we open 1NT with any 15-17 up to 7222, but NEVER with a major 5card. Yes, my CC says that the upper limit of 1M opener is 5 losers and of 1m opener 4 losers, no matter what the point count. I am doing my best to give the opps all the information my partner has, because it is the right thing to do.

 

I wonder how would the attitude towards alerting correspond to nationality :). I don't know about most of the folks around here, but so far I have the feeling that Europeans are generally more inclined to alerting than Americans.

 

Frances, be fair - kgr's post is NOT totally irrelevant. It is just a matter of system approach! In Belgium, they evidently consider the "majors first" as a Holy Grail (as do I). I am sure that for example The Hog (following the spirit of his last post when he quoted me) will tell you that to make a 6-9 BAL bid of 1NT with a major 4card is perfectly OK and does not need to be alerted, when it shows balanced hand.

 

If you really want to throw regulations around, I am not aware of ANY alerting regulations in practice on BBO. When you visit the website, nothing. When you install the client, nothing. When you join a table, nothing. Does that mean that we don't have to alert anything at all? If I enter a tournament that does not say anything in it's description about alerts, I'm free to play whatever system and alert no bid, because there are no regulations?

 

I don't think so. Everyone who plays on BBO assumes there are "some regulations". Americans assume they're ACBL regulations, maybe. Majority of others follow the regulations they're used to. I came to the conclusion that in the absence of any mentioned regulations, WBF regulations apply - because almost everyone knows that WBF exists AND their regulations are not complicated.

 

If you play in Belgium and under Belgian regulations, you read them first. OK, what regulations did you read to play on BBO?

[jillybean]

<sigh>

This is the second time recently someone has suggested that I am suggesting concealing information from the opponents.

I am not suggestingyou are concealing information from the opponents, I do not know how alert & disclosure laws should be applied, I am learning.

And all I have to go on is what I read in wbf/acbl regulations, my interpretation of those laws, what other people say and my very little experience.

 

My (crude and basic) understanding of the 'laws' is that special understandings between partners ARE alertable - and as such, full disclosure applies.

 

 

jb

[pbleighton]

"My crude and basic understanding of the "laws" is that special understandings between partners ARE alertable - and as such, full disclosure applies."

 

True, but it is not that simple.

 

What are "special understandings"? Norms vary from country to country.

 

Peter

[1eyedjack]

WBF says it clearly. If you have a special explicit OR implicit agreement, you should alert the call.

Indeed, that is why you have to consider whether an agreement (explicit or implicit) is a special one, and then only when playing in a wbf sponsored event (unless that provision is replicated by the particular sponsoring organisation).

Should 1NT rebid with full support be alerted? Why? It shows a non-forcing balanced hand, doesn't it?

Whether it should be alerted depends on the regulations of the particular sponsoring organisation. I have not checked whether the EBU regulations (my stomping ground) consider this situation expressly. I would be surprised if it does (certainly it cannot expressly consider all possible auctions) in which case we are down to general principles and philosophy set out by the regulators. Where I play F2F I would alert a 1NT rebid that habitually conceals sufficient support for a major as to guarantee an 8+ card major fit, despite that I would not alert a 1NT rebid that habitually could conceal a bypassed 4 card major. And I would do so because although the wbf regulations do not have jurisdiction I do not believe there is a significant divergence on this issue of principle which is applied thus: a 1NT rebid that habitually conceals active support is a highly unusual treatment within the jurisdiction under consideration. As it is a highly unusual treatment, so an agreement to adopt that treatment would be a special agreement. That connection does not apply, within this jurisdiction, in relation to a 1NT rebid that may habitually conceal a bypassed 4 card major, because that is a popular treatment.

Frances, be fair - kgr's post is NOT totally irrelevant. It is just a matter of system approach! In Belgium, they evidently consider the "majors first" as a Holy Grail (as do I). I am sure that for example The Hog (following the spirit of his last post when he quoted me) will tell you that to make a 6-9 BAL bid of 1NT with a major 4card is perfectly OK and does not need to be alerted, when it shows balanced hand.

Frances is being fair. kgr's post is irrelevant. For the same reason that I would alert a 1NT rebid that habitually may conceal 4 card support for a major, so I would alert a 1NT response that habitually conceals a bypassed 4 card major (again, I am talking about a local F2F game, EBU regulated, where I would not alert a 1NT rebid in like circumstances). And the reasons are the same as those stated above: Habitually to respond 1NT when bypassing a major suit is a highly unusual treatment and for that reason an agreement so to act would be a special agreement. In this respect I may disagree with The Hog, but perhaps the regulations in his jurisdiction differ. If I played in his region I would expect to have to make adjustments to my policy

If you really want to throw regulations around, I am not aware of ANY alerting regulations in practice on BBO.

Then I suggest you read the site rules, as recently repeated in this forum by Inquiry. EDIT: Sorry coyot I now note that you have acknowledged this in another thread.

OK, what regulations did you read to play on BBO?

I don't believe Frances plays online. Edited August 3, 2005 by 1eyedjack

[coyot]

kgr's post is not irrelevant. The whole issue about alerting or not 1NT rebid of an opener that might conceal unbid (and biddable) major is very similar to 1NT response to a minor opening.

 

If your system's approach is to look for a major fit first, alerting 1NT rebid that conceals spades is equal to alerting 1NT response that may conceal majors - because the mentioned bidding sequence violates the premise of majors-first.

 

I'm not sure whether the popularity of the treatment should be the deciding factor.

 

But, if so, you would then alert 1♠ rebid as it denies balanced hand.

 

I don't really care which of the two gets alerted, as long as one gets and the regulations are clear on which one. I don't want to have to investigate this each time the sequence occurs and the opps KNOW something I don't know.

[1eyedjack]

kgr's post is not irrelevant. The whole issue about alerting or not 1NT rebid of an opener that might conceal unbid (and biddable) major is very similar to 1NT response to a minor opening.

 

If your system's approach is to look for a major fit first, alerting 1NT rebid that conceals spades is equal to alerting 1NT response that may conceal majors - because the mentioned bidding sequence violates the premise of majors-first.

 

I'm not sure whether the popularity of the treatment should be the deciding factor.

 

But, if so, you would then alert 1♠ rebid as it denies balanced hand.

 

I don't really care which of the two gets alerted, as long as one gets and the regulations are clear on which one. I don't want to have to investigate this each time the sequence occurs and the opps KNOW something I don't know.

Again it is a matter of jurisdiction.

 

I would alert a 1S rebid that denies a balanced hand, on BBO, because under BBO regulations an alert is required if this is likely to be strange to an opponent, and I have enough experience of BBO players to appreciate that this is the case.

 

I would not alert a 1S rebid that denies a balanced hand in UK F2F bridge, nor would I alert a 1S rebid (in that jurisdiction) that might conceal a balanced hand, because neither agreement is artificial and both agreements attract widespread support within that jurisdiction. To that extent the finer nuances can be enquired into if relevant, but players are on notice (in the absence of an alert) that either agreement might be in place. In fact it is unlikely to be relevant to them in the bidding although it might be in the play, and we regularly have requests for disclosure (and accompanying disclosure) in F2F bridge on issues of this nature after the auction is concluded, before play commences, on bids that are unalerted as well as alerted. If a "round" is likely to be more than about 4 or 5 boards we would normally identify such tendencies before the start of the first hand.

 

Popularity cannot be ignored in determining the likelihood that a treatment will come as an unexpected surprise to opponents. That applies as much on BBO as it does in other jurisdictions.

 

As to the fixation with majors first, I would expect an alert if you habitually respond 1S to 1D opening bid with

 

S:Kxxx

H:Ax

D:x

C:AQxxxx

 

But this may indeed be an irrelevant tangent

[luke warm]

The 1NT rebid which may have a 4 card Major is certainly NOT alertable.

 

Jimmy, I don't alert it and wouldn't dream of doing so. It is a natural bid. The 1NT bid is a suggestion of a contract opposite a partner's limited response. It is totally natural and therefore not alertable. I don't know of any player in serious competitions here who alerts this.

 

Jilly and others, would you rebid 1S holding this shape: xxxx xxx xxx xxx for example?

I don't think so!

i agree, it's a natural bid... i'd still alert it though, the same as if partner opened 1c, i bid 1h and he rebids 1s i'd alert that as guaranteeing an unbalanced hand... if asked i'd say i expect 4/5 in the blacks or maybe a 4441 hand

 

no, i don't think that's absolutely necessary to do but it just feels right

[jillybean]

Sorry but I am not clear on this!

 

Let’s assume playing on BBO, sayc, and no common system between all pairs, WBF laws.

 

1m (p) 1x

1nt denies a 4 card major playing “standard” sayc.

 

If a partnership has an understanding that 1nt here could conceal a 4 card major, should this be alerted and if not – how do you interpret wbf alerting laws?

 

jb

 

(edited the auction was wrong)

[the hog]

Most of the time it denies a 4 card M. If I have an awful 4 card M or if I am 4333 shape with points in the other suits I would probably bid 1NT. This does not need alerts, I would regard it as just common sense.

 

Note Kathryn in my original post I did say "rebid"- (eg 1C 1H 1N can have 4S). If on the other hand you have an agreement that 1m 1NT can have a 4 card M with any responding hand, then this is alertable imo.

[helene_t]

Most of the time it denies a 4 card M. If I have an awful 4 card M or if I am 4333 shape with points in the other suits I would probably bid 1NT. This does not need alerts, I would regard it as just common sense.

I'm not sure if I would call it "common sense" but anyway, you're right, judgement is not alertable.

 

Maybe if you play Acol, in which case a minor suit opening is less likely to contain a 4-card major than in SA, you should alert a 1NT response that can conceal a 4-card hearts since it is based on the idea that if partner has hearts he is unballanced so opps have a spades fit and are able to outbid us. This is a kind of judgement that you can make only due to system. On the other hand, if you play some system that is foreign to opps, all your calls cary unexpected negative inference but it's impractical to alert everything. Basically I agree with Frances but I'm not sure excactly where to draw the line.

 

Also, if you announce to play SAYC but have some partnership understandings that deviate from SAYC (Walsh, intermediate jump overcalls, negative freebids) you should alert it.

[Brandal]

"My crude and basic understanding of the "laws" is that special understandings between partners ARE alertable - and as such, full disclosure applies."

 

True, but it is not that simple.

 

What are "special understandings"?  Norms vary from country to country.

 

Peter

Some play 1N rebid as "may conceal spade suit when balanced"

 

Some play 1N rebid as "never conceal spade suit when balanced"

 

 

 

Very strange to me if neither is alertable.

[coyot]

Agree with Brandal. It is better to use full disclosure principle and alert opponents whenever you have a partnership understanding than to rely on opponents to be able to use the same judgement your partnership uses.

 

And certainly it is better to alert and explain than to make your opponents ask about everything everytime.

 

Example: Image you're a beginner whose system says to rebid with one spade whenever you have the 4card. You sit at the table with some pair you don't know that plays a system that happens to have a name quite similar to yours. They don't alert the 1NT rebid. You make (from your point of view) perfectly correct assumption that the opener does not have 4 spades. You get a bad result for leading a spade just because you've never before seen anyone conceal 4 spades and therefore ruled this out as a possibility (or more likely, it never occured to you that this could happen).

 

Do you think you deserved that bad result? I don't find it fair.

 

Therefore I always alert all bids that carry hidden information - and I don't care whether it is the common treatment or not. I'm not going to replace clearly stated bridge rules by some common sense or common treatment, especially when there is no guarantee that your common is the same common as my common :)

[DrTodd13]

On the practical side, I can't blame each country for requiring alerts on bids that deviate from the agreement used by most of the people in the country. Such alerts are a moving target as people change their methods over time and what was odd now is normal and what was normal now is odd. This style upsets people because they constantly have to keep up-to-date with change in the alert rules.

 

The alternative is to have a simple rule. Alert all non-natural bids. In this view, neither 1N possibly containing a 4cM nor 1M possibly containing a balanced hand would be alertable because they are both natural bids. If you get burned by assuming one way or the other then you've learned something and you'll learn to ask from now on when it matters what opps style is in this regard. I really believe that neither of these should be alertable.

 

It is perfectly fair for a new pair to get burned by their lack of experience. It is normal and healthy for them to get burned! It is more than fair, it is educational. Moreover, they may learn that people have a different style in this situation by having better players ask them what their style is. From this, they will learn that people play it differently and they may never get a bad result from this particular issue.

[luke warm]

Some play 1N rebid as "may conceal spade suit when balanced"

 

Some play 1N rebid as "never conceal spade suit when balanced"

 

 

 

Very strange to me if neither is alertable.

yes, and whatever the agreement is (may conceal or never conceals) needs to be made clear to the opponents.. but alertable? i'm not sure but i *think* the 'may conceal' one is alertable, but if i played that way i'd alert it anyway for reasons already stated

[david_c]

Example: Image you're a beginner whose system says to rebid with one spade whenever you have the 4card. You sit at the table with some pair you don't know that plays a system that happens to have a name quite similar to yours. They don't alert the 1NT rebid. You make (from your point of view) perfectly correct assumption that the opener does not have 4 spades. You get a bad result for leading a spade just because you've never before seen anyone conceal 4 spades and therefore ruled this out as a possibility (or more likely, it never occured to you that this could happen).

 

Do you think you deserved that bad result?

Yes. It's an unfortunate situation, but people have to learn that not everyone plays the same system as they do.

 

But it's not clearcut. You could write alerting regulations which said explicitly that 1♦:1♥,1NT was alertable if it could conceal 4 spades. That would be fine, as long as people played in your games regularly enough to learn the procedure. But for online play, that is never going to happen: players come and go, and the new players won't bother to read the alerting regulations.

 

Now, even if the regulations don't say so explicitly, you might still feel that you have a duty to alert your opponents when such a sequence comes up. So, that's fine, you go on alerting. The problem comes when you expect other people to do the same. The vast majority of players will not believe that their 1NT rebid is alertable, whichever way they play it. So it's no good trying to enforce alerting here. We're left with the alternative, which is that if you want to know, you have to ask. People will eventually come to realise that this is the case, and so full disclosure is achieved after all.

[coyot]

The alternative is to have a simple rule. Alert all non-natural bids. In this view, neither 1N possibly containing a 4cM nor 1M possibly containing a balanced hand would be alertable because they are both natural bids. If you get burned by assuming one way or the other then you've learned something and you'll learn to ask from now on when it matters what opps style is in this regard. I really believe that neither of these should be alertable.

This basically says that whenever a bid is "natural", it does not need to be alerted no matter what understandings you have.

 

Therefore, 1♠-1NT will not need to be alerted when it will guarantee 4card support without shortness?

 

No, this is not the way to go. You don't want to have to ask about every non-alerted bid, exploring whether the partners are sharing extra information. The rules say that you shall alert every bid that carries explicit or implicit agreements or partnership experience! The goal of bridge game is to give everyone the same chances, not to burn beginner players by their lack of experience and lack of awareness of other bidding styles.

 

Every bidding system I know has some general guidelines. Most natural systems are based on "majors first, notrump later, minors last". Then there are systems that focus on point strength or shape, then there are relay systems that describe only one hand.

 

In a natural system, any call that deviates from the above priorities or carries extra information that can not be deduced from the priorities should be alerted. If your system prioritizes spade rebid above notrump rebid, it is natural. If it goes the other way, it is not natural. If the spade rebid denies balanced hand and your partner knows it, opps are entitled to know it as well.

 

You should also bear in mind that using those alerts, you protect also your side! You prevent opponents from passing UI and acting upon it. Imagine, in a matchpoint event, a pair that investigates opps' bids of the above type if they're interested in overcalling and does not investigate with a bad hand. They might not realize they're breaking the rules - and no one else would notice, as well.

(The same goes for weak NT opening - I am glad when people alert it because then I do not need to shut my mind from the fact that partner asked what is their notrump range before passing. I learned to ask about the NT range every time and my partners know that I ask even with a totally useless hand - but there are lots of pairs that don't bother about active ethics and they're almost impossible to blame and punish...)