[bill1157]

In a club game last thursday, this auction came up, with our side silent: 1C-1S//2H-P. The director said the 2H should be alerted since it was non-forcing (opps got a good score btw).

2 questions:

should the bid be alerted (in a precision auction, I don't think it would be alerted)

I understand that the director can have his own standards on what is alerted, but shouldn't they be posted somewhere?

thanks, Bill

[brian_m]

 bill1157, on 2011-December-28, 05:29, said:

In a club game last thursday, this auction came up, with our side silent: 1C-1S//2H-P. The director said the 2H should be alerted since it was non-forcing (opps got a good score btw).

2 questions:

should the bid be alerted (in a precision auction, I don't think it would be alerted)

I understand that the director can have his own standards on what is alerted, but shouldn't they be posted somewhere?

thanks, Bill

Not alertable in a Precision auction if it's not forcing? You've got to be joking! A strong 1C opener, a (positive, I assume) 1S response, and you think a 2H rebid isn't alertable if it's not forcing? Even if it's not an asking bid, you're at least 95% certain to be looking at a game contract after a positive response to 1C, and it's far from unknown for Precision pairs to play positive responses as unconditionally game forcing - the benefit gained from so doing (at least IMO) far outweighs the times you win from being able to stop short when both opener and responder are dead minimum.

My partner and I have precisely ONE rebid by the 1C opener in our version of Precision which isn't game forcing. It comes up maybe one time in 100, and the only reason we keep it is that we can't think of a better use for the bid.

I'd expect a non-forcing 2H to be alerted under any circumstances, unless you have both pairs playing the same (unusual!) system, or your local regulations dictate otherwise (which sounds unlikely).

[aguahombre]

I think Bill got tangled up with an auction which started out 1D and then reversed (in a forcing club system) -- of course after opening 1C the sequence is forcing.

The actual case, where the opponents are playing a natural system, is interesting. Firstly, anyone who treats a reverse as not requiring responder to bid again probably would have no idea that their bidding is unusual either. Secondly, the other side having been silent thru more than one round is unlikely to care.

At the local club there are a few inexperienced players who bid like that, and they definitely have no advantage from that style.

[bill1157]

yes, obviously I should have said 1♦-1♠//2♥...for the precision auction.
sry

[helene_t]

hi Bill,

When you post questions on this forum you should tell us which governing body (acbl? ebu?) was in charge of the event since many regulations, including alert regulations, vary between countries and organizations.

But I doubt that there are (m)any organizations that explicitly state whether a non-forcing reverse is alertable. There may be a general clause that natural bids with a highly unusual meaning (including forcing character) need to be alerted, or something like that. And a non-forcing reverse may then be sufficiently unusual to require an alert, In practice, few directors would bother, for the reasons given by aquahombre.

[mrdct]

Alerting procedures are governed by the Regulating Authority which in the case of a club duplicate would be your NBO so we need to know the jurisdiction, but I'm sure that a non-forcing 2♥ reverse irrespective of your basic system would be alertable in the ACBL, EBU, ABF, WBF and BBO and probably any other jurisdiction which has published alerting regulations.

In the ACBL: "Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them".

In the EBU: "a pass or bid must be alerted if ... it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning".

In the ABF: "The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect".

In the WBF "Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners".

On BBO: "If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert".

[blackshoe]

Under ACBL regulations, a non-forcing reverse after a one level response requires an alert. The more interesting question (to me, anyway) is whether, playing 2/1 responses as GF, a reverse without extra values after a 2/1 response requires one.

As to club regulations, I have been informed by ACBL HQ that clubs are "supposed to" publish their regulations, but IME many club owners (including all of them around here) resist doing so. Their attitude seems to be "as long as ACBL gets their money, they don't care, and if they don't care, why should I?" Well, that and "I've been running this club for 25 years, I've never done that before, and I'm not going to start doing it now".

[bill1157]

 mrdct, on 2011-December-28, 14:40, said:

In the ACBL: "Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them".

I am in the ACBL. so the above would apply. It looks to me like an alert would be nice but not mandatory. The bid is not a "weak bid that sounds strong" and is probably close enough to the expected meaning. To require an alert would be tantamount to requiring that all unsound bidding sequences be alerted!

[mrdct]

 bill1157, on 2011-December-28, 17:25, said:

I am in the ACBL. so the above would apply. It looks to me like an alert would be nice but not mandatory. The bid is not a "weak bid that sounds strong" and is probably close enough to the expected meaning. To require an alert would be tantamount to requiring that all unsound bidding sequences be alerted!

I would take the word "must" in the phrase "natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be alerted" as implying that the alert is mandatory. A reverse after a one-level response in a natural system being non-forcing is about as "unexpected" as I could possibly imagine and is clearly a "weak bid that sounds strong".

As for the alertability of "unsound bidding sequences" if such bidding sequences form part of your "special partnership understandings" pursuant to Law 40B1 (i.e. the meaning of those unsound bidding sequences may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament) disclosure will be required in the manner prescribed by your RA.

[aguahombre]

So we teach people who don't know how to bid to alert their unsound bids. And we explain that their unsound bids are highly unusual.

Then, next time they will know to alert what they don't know is strange about the rest of their bidding.

O.K.

[barmar]

As Agua suggested, anyone playing like this is probably doing so out of ignorance. If they don't know that a reverse is supposed to be forcing, they don't know that they play an unusual treatment, so can hardly be expected to alert it.

Mostly their cluelessness will be its own punishment. Occasionally you'll get fixed. But trying to deal with it with litigation is silly.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2011-December-28, 23:00, said:

As Agua suggested, anyone playing like this is probably doing so out of ignorance. If they don't know that a reverse is supposed to be forcing, they don't know that they play an unusual treatment, so can hardly be expected to alert it.

Mostly their cluelessness will be its own punishment. Occasionally you'll get fixed. But trying to deal with it with litigation is silly.

Faulty reasoning. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And if asking for the rules of the game to be enforced is silly, why have rules at all?

[aguahombre]

We have rules for situations which we can do something about, and that make a difference. A side benefit of rules would be so we can impress each other that we know the rules.

[mrdct]

 barmar, on 2011-December-28, 23:00, said:

As Agua suggested, anyone playing like this is probably doing so out of ignorance. If they don't know that a reverse is supposed to be forcing, they don't know that they play an unusual treatment, so can hardly be expected to alert it.

If the "unsound bidding sequence" is based on ignorance rather than partnership agreement then it isn't a "special partnership understanding" and would not be alertable.

What I was talking about is a pair who, by agreement, bid in an unsound manner which is something that their opponents are entitled to know about and needs to be disclosed however the prevailing RA dictates.

We haven't been given the hand in the OP, but if opener is indeed weak for his reverse and responder chose to pass, that is pretty strong evidence that they have a special partnership understanding to play reverses as non-forcing which their opponents are entitled to know about. In that situation, I guess the potential damage to the NOS is opener's LHO being denied the opportunity to pre-balance, but the fact that he couldn't find a bid the previous round over 1♣ suggests that this is unlikely. What probably should've happened is after responder passed the seemingly forcing 2♥ bid, responder's LHO should enquire about whether or not 2♥ is forcing and if told "no" call the director who will apply Law 21B1(a) and let opener's LHO have his bid back.

[aguahombre]

 mrdct, on 2011-December-29, 00:01, said:

What probably should've happened is after responder passed the seemingly forcing 2♥ bid, responder's LHO should enquire about whether or not 2♥ is forcing and if told "no" call the director who will apply Law 21B1(a) and let opener's LHO have his bid back.

That would be reasonable, if the opening side knew they had a fit in the second suit while the other side didn't. Then, LHO of opener has been denied an opportunity to prebalance. However, if the opening side knew they had a heart fit before the 2H "reverse" bid was made, there would be other rules applying far more serious than failure to alert.

Hopefully, opener has no expectation that a fit exists and that 2H will be passed; and hopefully responder has not already shown heart support and a hand which wants to go no further. Otherwise, they truly have some elicit partnership understanding/communication going ---not just limited skills.

[mrdct]

In reality, when incompetent opponents pass a forcing bid the hugely percentage play is to pass quitely and hope that they have missed a cold game.

[Mbodell]

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-28, 15:21, said:

Under ACBL regulations, a non-forcing reverse after a one level response requires an alert. The more interesting question (to me, anyway) is whether, playing 2/1 responses as GF, a reverse without extra values after a 2/1 response requires one.

We alert our non-forcing reverses in precision contexts (also just the general idea that they are weaker than you'd expect). However, I can't imagine a reverse without extras in a 2/1 auction would require an alert. It is a common agreement and not at all unusual that the 2♠ bid in 1♥-2♦(gf)-2♠ might merely show shape and not extras. Heck I'm doubt even sure a non-extra strength 3♣ call there would need an alert.

[blackshoe]

 Mbodell, on 2011-December-29, 05:42, said:

We alert our non-forcing reverses in precision contexts (also just the general idea that they are weaker than you'd expect). However, I can't imagine a reverse without extras in a 2/1 auction would require an alert. It is a common agreement and not at all unusual that the 2♠ bid in 1♥-2♦(gf)-2♠ might merely show shape and not extras. Heck I'm doubt even sure a non-extra strength 3♣ call there would need an alert.

I will grant that "nobody" alerts this (meaning I've never seen anyone do it). But I'm looking at the actual words in the regulation, and that's why I'm wondering if it should be alerted. If it's not unusual enough to require an alert, fine, but is that really the case?

[aguahombre]

 Mbodell, on 2011-December-29, 05:42, said:

We alert our non-forcing reverses in precision contexts (also just the general idea that they are weaker than you'd expect). However, I can't imagine a reverse without extras in a 2/1 auction would require an alert. It is a common agreement and not at all unusual that the 2♠ bid in 1♥-2♦(gf)-2♠ might merely show shape and not extras. Heck I'm doubt even sure a non-extra strength 3♣ call there would need an alert.

Good coverage of the two contexts where competent pairs are using reasonable methods which fall into the grey area of alerts.

Also raises the issue of "require" vs. "need" an alert. It is quite unlikely that the opponents (silent thus far) would need the disclosure at this time; thus, damage is probably not going to enter into it. I don't know the answer in these cases, but I do know I would never raise the issue as an opponent at the table, and can jolly-well ask questions in turn when we will be defending.

[mycroft]

 blackshoe, on 2011-December-29, 11:02, said:

I will grant that "nobody" alerts this (meaning I've never seen anyone do it). But I'm looking at the actual words in the regulation, and that's why I'm wondering if it should be alerted. If it's not unusual enough to require an alert, fine, but is that really the case?

Well, it's clear you play bridge out East. In District 18, I would expect that *requiring extras* after that auction would be highly "unexpected" - unless I'm playing with another transplanted Easterner.

In the original case, I tell people who get called on this that "I'm not saying what you're doing is *wrong* - you can play what you want, and I certainly play many things that are even less popular than this around here. But it is *unusual*, and it's unusual enough that you have to tell your opponents about it with an Alert, so that they can defend appropriately."