Alerts ?

[sceptic]

If you play super accept a transfer, should you alert i.e.

 

1NT 2D 2H (as less than max and no 3 or 4 card support) dependant on structure of your super accepts

[Free]

I think not, since you don't really hide information to opponents... If I pass in 1st seat, should partner alert what I don't have? No way.

[david_c]

It doesn't do any harm to alert, so go ahead. (But don't expect your opponents to do it - they might think differently.)

 

NB. In face-to-face competitions in England, at the moment we always have to alert the completion of a transfer. Next year this is going to change. But when the completion of the transfer shows something specific, e.g. "denies four-card support", then it will still be alertable. Isn't it nice to have regs which deal with this explicitly!

[luke warm]

if 1nt : 2d : 2h showed a p'ship understanding that no 4 card support is held, i think it definitely needs alerting

 

assume you're the 2d bidder with that understanding... isn't it obvious that you have an agreement with partner of which the opps are unaware?

[helene_t]

I think this goes too far. Ask yourself if you would like the opps to alert such trivialities. What about alerting a "pass" of partner's 1NT opening: we play stayman and transfers so she could have a 5-card minor?

[mikestar]

I would apply the same standard to negative inferences as to positive agreements--can the opponents reasonably be expected to understand? I would not alert transfer completion if we superaccept only with maximum values and four trumps; I would alert if we superaccept with all or virtually all hands with 4 card support. This is very simialr to Bergen raises where 1M-2M is alerted as showing exactly three becuase of the failure to bid the four card mixed raise (3C in the version I'm most familiar with).

[mikestar]

I think not, since you don't really hide information to opponents... If I pass in 1st seat, should partner alert what I don't have? No way.

In general I agree but lets say you play either

 

A) a very agressive system where virtually every 8 point hand is opened.

 

or :) a very Roth Stonish system where you will pass all 12's and most 13's

 

I would either alert the pass or prealert the system, depending on which best conformed to local regulations.

 

Note the these are extreme deviations from usual opening styles in most countires--a point or so difference certainly doesn't merit an alert.

[coyot]

If your super accept can be done unnaturally or passes extra info, rules tell you to alert it. If 1NT-2♦-3♥ shows any maximum with 4 hearts, but denies 3 hearts, the alert is questionable. If it shows any maximum with more than 2 hearts, it is undoubtedly natural.

 

Yes, you have to alert bids that carry any agreements. As for alerting various passes: If all the negative inferences (i.e. what you can't have with that bid) are covered by your pass AND this bid is not forcing or non-forcing in an unexpected way, you don't need to alert. (That is, you HAVE to alert forcing passes :))

 

So I believe that most passes don't need alerts since your CC will clearly covers the negative inferences.

 

(See my favourite example in a few threads - 1x-1y-1NT that denies a major fourcard that could be bid on 1st level IS alertable negative inference, unless your CC says that your system has the general approach of limiting shape and strength before looking for major fit.)

[luke warm]

I think this goes too far. Ask yourself if you would like the opps to alert such trivialities. What about alerting a "pass" of partner's 1NT opening: we play stayman and transfers so she could have a 5-card minor?

yes, i'd like very much to know that opener held 4 cards in a certain suit.. if a failure to superaccept denies 4 cards, and if opener's partner is privy to that info, the opps should be also... and no, the pass doesn't need to be alerted... if anyone asks what the pass means, just honestly say that 1nt seems like a good spot to you

[Free]

I think not, since you don't really hide information to opponents...  If I pass in 1st seat, should partner alert what I don't have?  No way.

In general I agree but lets say you play either

 

A) a very agressive system where virtually every 8 point hand is opened.

 

or B) a very Roth Stonish system where you will pass all 12's and most 13's

 

I would either alert the pass or prealert the system, depending on which best conformed to local regulations.

 

Note the these are extreme deviations from usual opening styles in most countires--a point or so difference certainly doesn't merit an alert.

You're obligated to prealert your system and carding, so there's no 'either ... or ...', maybe an 'and' :)

[helene_t]

This is very simialr to Bergen raises where 1M-2M is alerted as showing exactly three becuase of the failure to bid the four card mixed raise (3C in the version I'm most familiar with).

I think there is a difference. Opps may not know that you play Bergen, and even if they do they may not be familiar enough with it to realize what negative inference can be made.

 

Superacceptance is mainly a judgement issue: we believe in the law so we don't mind playing at the 3-level with 15+0 points as long as we have 9 trumps.

 

I read in one of Lawrence's books that he must alert his limits raises because they deny a ballanced hand with 3-card support (a consequence of the forcing notrump response). That would never occur to me, I would obviously have to alert a lot more if I moved to the US. But even this is different from superacceptance: opps may not be familiar with forcing notrump response.

 

More generally, I have never had an opponent on BBO who alerted as much as I do, and yet I find myself an advocate of fewer alerts on this forum. But this probably only proves that people in general don't alert enough.

[inquiry]

If you play super accept a transfer, should you alert  i.e.

 

1NT  2D  2H (as less than max and no 3 or 4 card support) dependant on structure of your super accepts

100%, no question, yes you must alert. You can use this information in deciding to try for game or to pass 2H. Your opponents are entitled to the same information which might be useful to them in defense in counting your partners hcp and his distribution. If you tweak your agreements this way, the opponents have a right to know.

[pigpenz]

what of the most unalerted conventions are the responses to NMF(new minor forcing) :blink: