ruling #1

[hrothgar]

As always, a few comments

 

1. As several people have noted, there are any numbers of jurisdictions where cue bids are specifically not alertable.

 

2. Under the alerting standard that you have chosen, the 2♠ clearly requires an alert. Please note, I consider your alerting standards to be badly flawed. Consider the 2♠ cue bid. If this bid conforms to SAYC, the cue bid is alertable because its artificial. If this bid is used to show a natural hand, it's alertable because it doesn't conform to SAYC. Just how much information does the alert of 2♠ provide to the opponents? You'll run into the same problem on any range of hands where SAYC specifies a conventional response (transfers, Jacoby 2N, drury,...) or where there is debate regarding what is specified (1m - 2N, bypassing majors, 1m - 2m, ...)

 

3. Regardless of the flaws with your alert structure, it does provide a very easy out. Because every possible response to a 2♠ cue is alertable, the failure to alert can't cause damage. The non-offending side clearly should be suspicious.

 

4. Appropriate resolution

 

A. Proceedural penalty for N/S for ignoring the alerting requirements

B. No adjustment to E/W, along with a suggestion that if they are going to claim that they were damaged by the lack of an alert, they probably should also be lecturing regarding how people "ought" to use this cue bid.

[david_c]

2.  Under the alerting standard that you have chosen, the 2♠ clearly requires an alert.  Please note, I consider your alerting standards to be badly flawed.  Consider the 2♠ cue bid.  If this bid conforms to SAYC, the cue bid is alertable because its artificial.  If this bid is used to show a natural hand, it's alertable because it doesn't conform to SAYC.

Richard, you've slightly misread what I wrote: it's only opening bids which would require an alert if different from SAYC. I completely agree that requiring all non-SAYC bids to be alerted would be a terrible idea.

[david_c]

About the tourney rules concerning alerts: I would clearly not require the players to alert all artificial bids, as we can see that some artificial bids are nearly never alerted:

• 
   
  
• various kinds of doubles
   
  
• stayman
   
  
• transfer to major
   
  
• blackwood or rkcb
   
  
• responses to the above
   
  

If you really insist that all this has to be alerted, you create a lot of cases as a lot of people do not alert this, but the others really should be used to this. Of course it would be better if there was an alert policy that is followed by everybody, and personally, I alert and explain all this except for the normal non-penalty doubles. But it is not reasonable to expect that when you state that these things are to be alerted in your tourney, that a significant number of players will change their habit not to alert.

Good points - for the most part I agree completely, and I've started a new topic "simple alerting regulations" in order to address this properly. But I assure you, I don't expect that people will change their alerting habits. In fact, if they did, then "alert all artificial bids" wouldn't work so well!

[coyot]

As always, a few comments

 

1. As several people have noted, there are any numbers of jurisdictions where cue bids are specifically not alertable.

 

2. Under the alerting standard that you have chosen, the 2♠ clearly requires an alert. Please note, I consider your alerting standards to be badly flawed. Consider the 2♠ cue bid. If this bid conforms to SAYC, the cue bid is alertable because its artificial. If this bid is used to show a natural hand, it's alertable because it doesn't conform to SAYC. Just how much information does the alert of 2♠ provide to the opponents? You'll run into the same problem on any range of hands where SAYC specifies a conventional response (transfers, Jacoby 2N, drury,...) or where there is debate regarding what is specified (1m - 2N, bypassing majors, 1m - 2m, ...)

 

3. Regardless of the flaws with your alert structure, it does provide a very easy out. Because every possible response to a 2♠ cue is alertable, the failure to alert can't cause damage. The non-offending side clearly should be suspicious.

 

4. Appropriate resolution

 

A. Proceedural penalty for N/S for ignoring the alerting requirements

B. No adjustment to E/W, along with a suggestion that if they are going to claim that they were damaged by the lack of an alert, they probably should also be lecturing regarding how people "ought" to use this cue bid.

Richard, the biggest problem here is the lack of jurisdiction!

 

Is "conforms to SAYC" a jurisdiction? I don't think so.

 

The only jurisdictions I know are WBF, EBU, EBL, ACBL etc, plus BBO.

 

The common sense says that, given the hierarchy, we can either play by WBF rules or by ACBL rules (since BBO is located in US) or by BBO rules. There are absolutely no grounds for using ANY OTHER jurisdiction UNLESS the tournament organizers specifically say so.

 

WBF approach is simple: alert anything that is not natural AND alert anything that carries extra agreement or partnership experience

 

ACBL approach is pretty complicated to me, they seem to prefer a lot of artifical calls unalerted, but they sometimes fail to cover the consequences. (I.e. I checked that they say that most cue-bids are not alertable, including Michaels - but they do NOT require you to alert if 1♦-2♦ shows diamonds. (That is, they do not require it explicitly in this case... and since they make explicit requirements in most other cases, I assume that the alert is not required - and I would be very puzzled if asked to alert a NATURAL call :)).

 

BBO approach is the kindest - alert anything if you have ANY doubt opps aren't sure about the meaning :).

 

Anyway... I don't know where in my post you found the notion that bids that do not conform to SAYC are alertable. That might be your alerting standard, which I could consider flawed. I will certainly consider flawed ANY alerting standard that requires alerts of NATURAL bids.

 

I don't think that every possible response to 2♠ cue is alertable - sorry, that is a total nonsense! Opener will have a ton of natural bids!

 

Of course, I agree that the failure to support partner's spades is caused by East's

a) speculation that since opps failed to alert cuebid, we will nail them with damage claim UNLESS we score very good on the board

B) lack of interest in the bidding - any reasonable player will ask even if the bid is not alerted - to determine strength of the bid and possible support it promises would be a good idea in all cases.

 

So I would award no adjusts and I would issue a warning for the non-alerted bid (unless it was ACBL event).

 

But, then, the ACBL rules are strange...

1♠-2♥-p-2♠ must be alerted if it is transfer to clubs, not alerted when it shows a heart raise... but what if it shows neither, just generic gameforce/stopper ask? The rules are leaky - and imho the leaks are caused by the fact that ACBL rules try to get rid of "useless" alerts. I admit that 2♠ bid in this case will 99.9% be unnatural, but the rules should then clearly state explicitly, which of the possible meanings is to become the new natural non-alerted...

 

I still think that WBF rules are the most sensible - because they are SIMPLE to understand. They only require a little education of players to explain what is implicit/explicit agreement worth explaining... and they have one big advantage - no nationality will benefit from them...

 

I've been playing "all-alerting" bridge for 5 years and my experience is really positive. Having opponents that routinely explain their agreements and inferences is a real pleasure. Sitting at the table with such a pair, you have the feeling that all parties are interested in having the fairest possible competition.

When you compare such an experience with a pair that tries to hide behind the rules and trick you, the difference is enormous...

[jillybean]

fwiw….

My initial reaction to this board was no damage result should stand. Then I got thinking, what if W had been a novice and S failure to alert caused confusion…E would definitely have bid 5♠ had W shown any support......

I see now that was perhaps noble thinking but not exactly bridge :o

– thanks for the informative posts.

[DrTodd13]

Why can't we all just agree to alert all artificial bids, no exceptions. Not alerting transfers is a big mistake. This makes people who play 1N-2M, especially over a weak NT, have to alert a natural bid. Even as it is, I think alerting everything that isn't natural is the way to go but we need to continue to pester Fred to improve the alerting system so that common alerts can be saved and maybe even do something like automatically suggesting that the bid be alerted and bringing up the most likely explanation.

[inquiry]

Not alerting bids in F2F is to keep from waking up partner.. forcign us to remember or agreements (hehehe). On computers, our partner's can't see our alert. We should be alerting almost everything (if it has a nuance to partner opponents might not realize).

 

For example, on my 1NT auctions.. if partner bids 2D (jacoby, I assume he alerts), if I bid 2H I alert as "denying 4 hearts".

[DrTodd13]

I think alerting 2♥ in that auction is going too far. If you extend this principle to its ultimate conclusion then every bid is alertable because it denies the ability to make any of the other bids that were available.

 

If you still feel strongly about it, I'd like you to suggest how you would word the defintion of a "natural bid" that I suggested in David's other thread to demand that we alert 2♥ in this sequence.

[inquiry]

We will disagree. Partner knows I have 2 or 3 hearts, never four. He will use this information on some bidding decisions. If he gets access to this info in deciding how to bid, the opponents get that information in deciding how to defend.

 

Their KNOWING I have only 2 or 3 hearts may make one line of defense clearer. Now this information disadvantages me of course, as they will defend better, but that is the price I pay for 2H denying four hearts. I HAVE THAT AGREEMENT, so the opponents have every right to know. Not telling them is illegal in my opinion.

[McBruce]

Bruce, I think you're not right! In fact, I know you're wrong on this.

 

The alerting rules require alerting ALL artificial bids AND all bids that carry specific partnership agreement (explicit or implicit) or partnership experience.

 

But, the AND here comes in the adding sense, not in the computer-logic sense... In computer logic it should say OR...

 

That is, alert bit is positive if either condition is fulfilled. In self-alerting environment, when you're bidding opps suit, you HAVE to alert it if it is conventional, even though the further bidding analysis shows that partner had no idea what this bid promises or not.

 

My favourite example would be

1♣-x-1♠-2♠.

 

What would you expect this bid to mean? It obviously is a cue-bid, isn't it? No need to alert it if you don't have an agreement... BUT, in this particular situation, I have played it as natural - with several partners WITHOUT prior agreement - and they all got the message that I had good spades.

 

Given this possibility, and given the suit quality that is used for those 2suit overcalls these days, it might be well possible that 2♠ COULD be natural by partnership agreement, or even without it. It happened to me a quite a lot of times that opps overcalled (or showed) a suit in which I held something like AKJ9xx.

 

Now, would you expect a natural bid to be alerted? :P)) Or would you automatically assume that it was a cue-bid and as such did not require an alert? Would you claim damages later when you discovered the natural spade holding behind your partner?

(The consensus seems to be that we let the result stand, that East's double with such an offensive hand was a bit daft and that the only remaining argument is whether 2♠ requires an alert. Thank goodness nobody is arguing that E-W should escape their bad score because 2♠ was not alerted.)

 

This deal seems to me to illustrate the biggest problem with alerts: players think they have the right to assume things about opponent's hands because they did NOT alert. Alerts are not meant to be either-or. The lack of an alert, when it seems one might well be required, does not allow you to make assumptions that the hand is a specific hand that doesn't require an alert.

 

Playing online there is no excuse for not protecting yourself by simply asking in private for an explanation of 2♠ when in your mind it could have two meanings. West had every opportunity to do so on this hand.

 

Really, in an online situation there is NEVER an excuse for claiming damage from a failure to alert. It is ALWAYS possible to get the information you need from private chat without any transfer of UI, except perhaps the extra time needed. You can even ask both players and see if they both understand the bid.

 

(The BBO option to click on the bid and get an explanation is very much inferior from a Laws perspective. On this hand, surely East knows that 2♠ is not a natural spade bid. If East clicks to get an explanation it is like East asking for the benefit of his partner, which is illegal.)

 

If you believe 2♠ should be alerted only because it is not a natural bid, it follows that if South means this as a psyche (to avoid defending 4♠ in the long run) he must alert it. Is that what you want out of your alerting rules? It's not what I want.

 

The word 'alert' is not in the Laws. The only reference is Law 40B:

 

B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited

 

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization.

 

The first priority for alerting therefore HAS to be a partnership agreement, not whether the bid is natural/artificial. Sponsoring organizations that rule that the first priority should be natural vs artificial are out of bounds of Law 40A:

 

A. Right to Choose Call or Play

 

A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

[DrTodd13]

They have a right to know your agreement but that is not the same as saying that you must alert it. Every bid you make is by agreement but every bid should not be alertable. If they want to know your specific agreements about a certain natural bid then they can ask you. The purpose of alerting is to tell them it has an unusual or unexpected meaning, not to divulge detailed agreements.

 

Let me be clear, a practice where you explained every bid that you made would be an internally consistent (explanation, not alert) system and would be in agreement with the principle of full disclosure but would be more burdensome than only alerting things that aren't natural. What I was trying to suggest to you is that your position on what is alertable does not appear to be consistent in that I can't imagine a rule that would demand I alert things like this 2♥ bid but didn't at the same time demand I alert a host of other bids just because I deny holding certain other hand characteristics. I think that any such rule you did try to write would just muddy the waters and we'd be back to the same point of arguing over what was alertable and what isn't.

[inquiry]

If you play support doubles (as a rule I do not, but will if partner wants them)... and you use the double, I assume you alert.... "support double, 3 card support", or somehting to that effect. I thus expect when you raise rather than use the support double, you are promising your partner FOUR cards, and I assume (I guess from your answer this is a false assumption) that you tell the opponents you have four card suipport.

 

This is full disclosure, you ahve a complete agreement with your partner, and thus, your opponents have a right to know. Now in real world (or bBO), I gues syou could ahve cc filled out with info, so "alert" is unnecessary. But BBO rules and rules of bridge seem clear.... as quoted by McBruce (40B)

 

B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited

 

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization.

 

To use direct raise to ABSOLUTELY promise four, you are obligated to disclose that, to use 1N-2D-2H to DENY four hearts, you are obligated to disclose it. Justify your ignoring of the rules (disclosure on CC is fine).... if you like, but ignore it you do if it not reasonable to expect your opponents will understanding the meaning

[DrTodd13]

40B is not as clear as you seem to think it is. If we are to assume (as we should) that every word in a regulation has a meaning and adds something to the regulation and that no word in a regulation is superfluous then we have to ask what the word "special" means in the context of "special partnership understanding." Note, it does not say simply "partnership understanding" but "special partnership understanding." To say that this statement is "clear" is incredible because surely the word "special" is vague in the extreme. Let the debate begin about what is a special partnership understanding versus a regular partnership understanding...somebody please draw the line. Basically, this is the issue we've been debating all along. Alerts are supposed to capture special agreements and not regular agreements. So, I don't see how referring to 40B is helping us at all. What would you say the corollaries to law 40B are? Can I make a bid without alerting based on a non-special partnership understanding that the opponents might not understand all the details of? Case in point, 1m-1♥-1N either denying or possibly containing 4♠. Are both 1m-1♥-1♠ and 1m-1♥-1N alertable because we know that people play it both ways and therefore someone might not understand the bid or should neither of these bids be alertable. My view is that neither of these are special understandings (instead they are a matter of style) and that neither should be alerted. If you are going to argue that both are alertable then I do think you are going down the road to defining every partnership understanding as a special partnership understanding since many pairs will play sequences differently.

 

I'm not ignoring any rule. I am trying to come up with a non-vague substitute for the term "special" so that we can all know what we should alert. Ben is a bright guy with lots of insight so I was hoping he'd provide us with a workable definition of special. Correct me if I'm wrong but all I've seen so far are examples and not definitions.

[david_c]

I'm not ignoring any rule.  I am trying to come up with a non-vague substitute for the term "special" so that we can all know what we should alert.  Ben is a bright guy with lots of insight so I was hoping he'd provide us with a workable definition of special.  Correct me if I'm wrong but all I've seen so far are examples and not definitions.

But of course it's completely impossible to come up with a satisfactory definition of "special". So examples are good, because they at least take care of the most commonly-occurring situations. So it's a good thing that the ACBL regs say explicitly that an unalerted 1♦:1♥,1NT may include 4 spades, and that the 2006 EBU regs say that 1NT:2♦,2♥ is alertable if it denies 4-card support.

 

Of course, what actually happens is that it is the job of the TD to rule on whether an understanding is special or not. This is just going to be one of the many situations where some judgement is needed in interpreting the Laws.

 

Another thought: Suppose you do have a "special partnership understanding", whatever that means. Then 40B says that this must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations of the SO. But might not the regulations of the SO say that it is only to be disclosed if and when the opponents ask a question?

[DrTodd13]

Examples are not good because then we define "special" by thousands and thousands of examples of what is special and what is not special. Nobody can be expected to know how to alert when it requires memorizing an encyclopedia of bids that somebody has arbitrarily decided are special or not. If you want such a system then fine but I would prefer one where there is an objective definition of special that is usable and that does not require "interpretation."

 

The regulation is indeed poorly written and would seem to allow a SO from saying all you have to do is to say alert after 3 passes if some bid in the auction was unusual. It defeats the purpose of the regulation but it follows the letter of it. I don't believe it says anywhere that the SO must require timely disclosure, only eventual disclosure.

[luke warm]

it seems to me that 'full disclosure' governs those areas where partner knows something about my hand that the opps don't know.. in the example ben gave, if completing the transfer denies 4 hearts, it surely needs to be disclosed... otherwise it's a hidden agreement

 

there's a diffenence between inferences and understandings... using support doubles, the x is an understanding... the pass is an inference.. does the pass guarantee that 3 card support is not held? not at all, though partner can and probably will infer as much...

[DrTodd13]

1m-1♥-1N. Partner will know whether that can contain 4♠ or not. The opps don't know whether it does or does not. Therefore, according to your rule this should be alerted. Do you agree?

 

I thought there was a time when we all agreed that style was not alertable and style is nothing more than agreements that don't rise to the level of "unexpected."

 

Some people do play that pass in your example denies 3 card support. Both that position and the position that it does not deny 3 card support are both agreements so maybe you can convince me more but I'm not buying into this inference vs. understanding thing. To me, partner makes inferences based on our understandings.

[McBruce]

40B is not as clear as you seem to think it is. If we are to assume (as we should) that every word in a regulation has a meaning and adds something to the regulation and that no word in a regulation is superfluous then we have to ask what the word "special" means in the context of "special partnership understanding." Note, it does not say simply "partnership understanding" but "special partnership understanding." To say that this statement is "clear" is incredible because surely the word "special" is vague in the extreme. Let the debate begin about what is a special partnership understanding versus a regular partnership understanding...somebody please draw the line. Basically, this is the issue we've been debating all along. Alerts are supposed to capture special agreements and not regular agreements. So, I don't see how referring to 40B is helping us at all. What would you say the corollaries to law 40B are? Can I make a bid without alerting based on a non-special partnership understanding that the opponents might not understand all the details of? Case in point, 1m-1♥-1N either denying or possibly containing 4♠. Are both 1m-1♥-1♠ and 1m-1♥-1N alertable because we know that people play it both ways and therefore someone might not understand the bid or should neither of these bids be alertable. My view is that neither of these are special understandings (instead they are a matter of style) and that neither should be alerted. If you are going to argue that both are alertable then I do think you are going down the road to defining every partnership understanding as a special partnership understanding since many pairs will play sequences differently.

 

I'm not ignoring any rule. I am trying to come up with a non-vague substitute for the term "special" so that we can all know what we should alert. Ben is a bright guy with lots of insight so I was hoping he'd provide us with a workable definition of special. Correct me if I'm wrong but all I've seen so far are examples and not definitions.

I agree with the idea that a partnership agreement has to be 'special' in some way before it should be alertable. This is 40B again:

 

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization.

 

From this I infer the following rule:

 

A bid need only be alerted if:

 

--it is based on a partnership understanding

--an opposing pair may be misled unless the agreement is disclosed with an alert (or whatever the sponsoring organization requires)

 

The responsibility for deciding whether an agreement is 'special' enough that an opposing pair may be misled, ultimately rests with the Director, so careful players should alert almost all of their partnership agreements. Anytime you don't alert you are liable to an adjustment, but only if the opponents are clearly damaged.

 

It would take a really exceptional situation for me as TD to adjust because a pair alerted when they shouldn't have. Players take inferences from alerts and especially from the abscence of alerts -- and they shouldn't: they should ask.

 

But, one does not need to alert psychic bids, since there is no partnership agreement. One does not need to alert many of the trivial understandings that opponents should be asking about, including many of the examples given in this thread.

[inquiry]

Special agreements... versus non-special...

 

For most people I guess,

 

1NT - 2D*

2H

 

Where, 2D* is jacoby. 2H is you told me to bid 2H and I did. I will always bid 2H. No clarification needed (call it full disclosure if you like).

 

On the otherhand, if 2H shows less than 4H or 4H's with minimum, nothing also needs to be said, but of course explained if asked.

 

But if 2H promises SPECIFICALLY less than 4 hearts, this is SPECIAL agreement. This is non-standard, and while your partner will surely know your agreement, there is no reason to suspect that your opponents will know. Full disclosure requires you tell them.

 

In the examples

 

1m-p-1H-1S

2H

 

If 2H absolutely positively promises 4H, that is a special agreement. It is so special you play double of to show 3H's. This requires an alert. IF all 2H shows is heart support (wiht no etched in stone definition of the nature of that support), it is not special and does not require an alert.

 

In

 

1m - 1H

1NT

 

If 1NT absolutely, positively denies 4S, it is an alert, if 1NT will be always be bid with a balanced hand even with 4S's, it requires an alert. At least in my view because each of these are examples of a SPECIAL agreement. If your partner is free to use his judgement on what to bid 1NT with (including 4S), it does not require an alert because you ahve no SPECIAL rule (must bid 1NT with balanced even with 4S or must bid 1S with four even when balanced).

 

I am simple minded... this seems extremely clear to me.

[hrothgar]

Richard, the biggest problem here is the lack of jurisdiction!

 

Is "conforms to SAYC" a jurisdiction? I don't think so.

 

The only jurisdictions I know are WBF, EBU, EBL, ACBL etc, plus BBO.

I'm not sure that "jurisdication" is quite the word that you're looking for. "Sponsoring Organization" is much closer to the mark...

 

With this said and done: BBO is NOT a sponsoring organization. BBO seems to have decided to devolve responsibility for alert standards, convention charts, etc to the entities that actually host tournaments. Accordingly, when the ACBL decides to run a tournament using BBO's infrastructure, the ACBL acts as the sponsoring organization. Equally significantly, if SkyClub or Joe Bob's bridge club runs aa tournament they also serve as sponsoring organizations.

 

I agree with you that having 1001 separate sponsoring organizations running arround makes like a bit complicated. However thats part and parcel with any new market.

 

1. A new technology becomes available

2. You have a surge of companies entering the market

3. A dominant design is introduced

4. The market consolidates

 

The beat goes on...

[helene_t]

Special agreements... versus non-special...

[.....]

 

If 1NT absolutely, positively denies 4S, it is an alert,  if 1NT will be always be bid with a balanced hand even with 4S's, it requires an alert. At least in my view because each of these are examples of a SPECIAL agreement. If your partner is free to use his judgement on what to bid 1NT with (including 4S), it does not require an alert because you ahve no SPECIAL rule (must bid 1NT with balanced even with 4S or must bid 1S with four even when balanced).

 

I am simple minded... this seems extremely clear to me.

This seems extremely vague to me.

 

All my calls are based on some kind of agreement with partner. They are all special in the sense that they are foreign to people who have never heard of such agreements and they are all non-special in the sense that they are immediately understood by people who have never heard of alternative agreements. Advanced opps will generally assume that we have some kind of agreement, they will not be surprised by our agreements but they will not assume them either.

 

You and I know that certain natural agreements (negative freebids, 4-card major openings, Walsh) are more likely to cause surprise than certain less natural agreements (four-cards up the line, t/o doubles, Stayman). So we alert non-standard agreements. But that's not the issue. You and I can easily adapt to any alert procedure and besides we alert virtually everything anyway.

[david_c]

On the subject of agreements about natural bids being alertable, you might be interested in Appeal no. 2 from this week's EBU event in Brighton:

 

page 5 of this document

[mike777]

On the subject of agreements about natural bids being alertable, you might be interested in Appeal no. 2 from this week's EBU event in Brighton:

 

page 5 of this document

Good grief how can 3h be alertable. What the heck is South doing making a free bid of 3d? Partner can assume South has 6 hcp for goodness sakes. South can balance in over 2h later, yes?

 

My guess and only wild speculation is that this committee wanted to punish ew for playing a 10-13 nt style, oh well.

[inquiry]

Special agreements... versus non-special...

[.....]

 

If 1NT absolutely, positively denies 4S, it is an alert,  if 1NT will be always be bid with a balanced hand even with 4S's, it requires an alert. At least in my view because each of these are examples of a SPECIAL agreement. If your partner is free to use his judgement on what to bid 1NT with (including 4S), it does not require an alert because you ahve no SPECIAL rule (must bid 1NT with balanced even with 4S or must bid 1S with four even when balanced).

 

I am simple minded... this seems extremely clear to me.

This seems extremely vague to me.

 

All my calls are based on some kind of agreement with partner. They are all special in the sense that they are foreign to people who have never heard of such agreements and they are all non-special in the sense that they are immediately understood by people who have never heard of alternative agreements. Advanced opps will generally assume that we have some kind of agreement, they will not be surprised by our agreements but they will not assume them either.

 

You and I know that certain natural agreements (negative freebids, 4-card major openings, Walsh) are more likely to cause surprise than certain less natural agreements (four-cards up the line, t/o doubles, Stayman). So we alert non-standard agreements. But that's not the issue. You and I can easily adapt to any alert procedure and besides we alert virtually everything anyway.

Let's deal with why I think there should be or should not be ONLINE (at the very least) alerts on these two auctions...

 

Auction A

1m-1H

1NT

 

Auction B

1m-1H

1S

 

If Auction "A" can or can not include a four card spade suit, then I see no need to alert. That is, with a four card spade suit, opener uses his own judgment about what the best rebid is, there is no problem. If OPEN MUST rebid 1NT anytime he holds a balanced hand EVEN IF HE holds a four card spade suit, that is if this rebid is FORCED UPON him by agreement, then it is an alert.

 

Take the second auction. Same situation exist, but is even clearer. That is, if opener MUST rebid 1NT on this auction ANYTIME he is balanced even when he holds 4S's, then the 1S bid carries a lot of extra information. That is, not only 4S, but also unbalanced.

 

But now if opener gets to decide what to rebid with out SPECIAL AGREEMENT with his partner, then there is no alert, and in fact, responder is just as in the dark as the opponents.

 

Now to the appeals case mentioned in the last post. The director got it right, the committee went off the deep end... and I like the concept of alerts, so you know this must be true. The reason being, there could not be a SPECIAL AGREEMENT about the meaning of 3♥ on that hand. Even looking at WEST's hand it is hard to determine what he wanted opener to do (I wish they would have told us the meaning of ALERT 3). But one thing you have to do is explain the meaning of the bids you make, not the ones you didn't make. No doubt 1N-3H was marked as "preemtpive" on EW convention card. I believe the free 3H was exactly what it should be... hearts and willingness to bid on, with no SPECIAL AGREEMENT. In light of the redouble of 2♦ it probably promised 6♥'s, but even that is not alertable, that is bridge.

[Brandal]

I am trying to come up with a non-vague substitute for the term "special" so that we can all know what we should alert.

I think what Ben said "to use 1N-2D-2H to DENY four hearts"

is a perfect example of a special agreement that should be

alerted and explained.

 

Reason is there is something more to the bid that you

can't expect the opps to inquire about or know about.

 

I think it's when a pair deviates? from the standard use

and understanding of a convention or bid,it really needs

to alert the opps without assuming the opps will ask.