[hrothgar]

awm, on Sep 4 2007, 08:51 PM, said:

Likely this depends on the meaning of the single raise.

What I mean is, if the single raise is often a substantially better hand than would make a single raise playing strong notrumps (i.e. 16-17 balanced are normal single raises) then it should be alertable on the same reasoning that constructive raises of major suit openings are alertable (unexpected strength).

Are constructive raises really alertable?

I saw them played for years with nary a peep out of the opponents. Hell, I played them for ages (without alerting them) and was never informed that they required an alert.

I'd argue that these are much closer to "About expected strength and shape" than "Highly unusual strength, shape, etc."

(I'd prefer to see some kind of official opinion on this one)

[ralph23]

ArtK78, on Sep 4 2007, 12:56 PM, said:

If the ACBL intended for the single raise of responder's one-over-one response to be alertable when it shows about 15-17 HCP or distribution, the ACBL could have included that requirement in the alert chart where it shows that the strong 1NT rebid is alertable. But the ACBL did not do so. The conclusion that I draw from this is that the single raise showing a strong balanced hand or a distributional hand is not alertable.

That seems to me like a rather convincing argument. The 1nt rebid by opener (showing 15-17 and a balanced hand) was specifically carved out, to make it alertable by the weak notrumpers. They didn't carve out other bids, such as raising responder from 1M to 2M, or opening 1m. Hence those non-carved-out bids are not alertable unless they meet the general standard of being "highly unusual" or whatever.

[mycroft]

Yes, negative inferences are generally not Alertable (the way one NTD put it to me is "if all the times you bid X, everybody playing "standard" would bid X as well, you don't need to Alert" (specifically on Constructive Raises)), but see this quote from the Alert Procedure:

"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."

Whenever I play weak NT, I alert 1m-1M; 2M under the "strong bids that sound weak" section. My explanation is "15-17 playing points in support of <M>; either a strong NT with 4 [it's more common to have a checkback hand after a strong NT rebid than a 12-14 one, so raising on 3 isn't as necessary], or a distributional hand with support". No need to explain why we bid that way, just what the call means.

But I tend to Alert if it's dubious, especially if I'm playing something weird (and at least out here, weak NT is something weird, and the biggest differene is in the 1m openings).
Michael.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Are constructive raises really alertable?

I have alerted (and heard it alerted) only when they are very constructive, i.e. 8-10. I have never heard it alerted as 7-10.

Peter

[pbleighton]

Quote

If you want to be on the safe side, I do not see any harm in making a "courtesy alert" of a single raise of responder's one-over-one response. But I do not believe that it is required.

You are correct in that you won't be penalized for not doing it.

However, the ACBL says that its alerting regs are deliberately fuzzy and that when in doubt, alert. I think 15-17 versus the field's 12-16 is a sufficient difference to be alerted.

Peter

[bid_em_up]

Are you saying that your 2M raise combines both the balanced 15-17 raise and the 11-14 distributional raise?

Or is 2M always the balanced 15-17, and 3M would be the distributional raise (like a K/S structure)?

[ralph23]

bid_em_up, on Sep 4 2007, 02:13 PM, said:

Are you saying that your 2M raise combines both the balanced 15-17 raise and the 11-14 distributional raise?

Well, yes, but:

1. With a balanced 17 count, I might & probably would jump to 3♥. Wouldn't you? Unless it's a really sucky 17 but even then a jump raise of responder's suit sounds like a better description.

2. No reason my unbalanced ♦ opening and ♥raise of responder's suit should be limited to 14. I have a hand that's good enough to raise to 2, not good enough to jump to 3. That should contain some unbalanced 15 HCP-count opening hands, I think.

With 16 unbalanced I probably have a jump to 3, but maybe there are some factors that militate against such a jump in some cases. Who knows without examining the actual hand, though...

The easier way to think about it is, what I don't have when I raise from 1♥ to 2♥. I don't have a minimum balanced hand; I would have opened that 1nt.

[jtfanclub]

mycroft, on Sep 4 2007, 01:40 PM, said:

Whenever I play weak NT, I alert 1m-1M; 2M under the "strong bids that sound weak" section. My explanation is "15-17 playing points in support of <M>; either a strong NT with 4 [it's more common to have a checkback hand after a strong NT rebid than a 12-14 one, so raising on 3 isn't as necessary], or a distributional hand with support". No need to explain why we bid that way, just what the call means.

But if you do it with the same schlocky 3-4-5-1 11 count that everybody else does it with, then it really isn't a strong bid that sounds weak. Assuming that (like most people) you don't raise to 2♥ with most balanced hands with 3 card support, the most common hand that you'll have to raise to 2 with is the same as theirs.

I have asked, specifically, about a 1 diamond opener which will virtually always have two doubletons or a singleton. I was told not to alert it.

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 4 2007, 02:36 PM, said:

Assuming that (like most people) you don't raise to 2♥ with most  balanced hands with 3 card support, the most common hand that you'll have to raise to 2 with is the same as theirs.

Well, I've only worked on the spreadsheet for about 40 minutes on this with the help of the Pavlicek bridge calculator etc., and it probably merits about 5 times that much but my ragged conclusions were:

1. When I, the weak notrumper, open 1m and then raise partner from 1M to 2M, I am a favorite (better than 2-to-1) to hold an unbalanced hand.

The reasons are basically two:
(i) the only balanced hands I can have are 15-16 HCP hands with a four-card ♥ suit, 4=4=3=2, 4=4=2=3, 4443 (with the 3 anywhere but ♥), and on some days 2=4=5=2 (the very popular 5332 distribution can't be one of them); and

(ii) 11-12-13-14-15 HCP count is a lot more likely than 15-16 HCP. While balanced hands (listed in (i) above) are still more likely than unbalnced ones, this is way outweighed by the big disparity in the 11-12-13-14-15 HCP versus the 15-16 HCP range frequency.

2. When Sam, the strong notrumper, opens 1m and then raises his partner from 1M to 2M, I believe that he is more likely to hold a balanced hand that was not strong enough to open 1nt, than an unbalanced hand.

I haven't tried to calculate the probabilities on this one. My guess is that it's not that wide a margin, however. You are basically comparing 12-13-14 balanced versus 11-12-13-14-15-maybe-16 unbalanced. If anyone cares to calculate it, I'd love to see your results.

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-September-04, 14:00

[awm]

The point about constructive raises isn't that they exclude the "bad single raises." This is a negative inference. The reason I see most people alert them is that they are frequently played as including hands on which standard bidders would make limit raises. Certainly 1M-2M as 3-card limit raise has to be alertable. Exactly where the boundary lies is probably a matter of opinion, and I'm sure you could get different directors to rule differently on it.

[blackshoe]

As one poster noted, ACBL Alert Regulations are deliberately fuzzy. Here's my take:

Announce the range of partner's opening 1NT bid, whatever it is.
If partner's 1NT rebid is strong, alert it.
If partner opens 1m and raises your 1M to 2, don't alert it unless it could be on 16-17 (with which strength most would expect a jump raise).

Nobody will shoot you if you always alert 2M in that auction. Nobody should shoot you if you don't, but nothing that happens at the bridge table really surprises me anymore.

[glen]

If the bidding went 1M-Pass-2M, would you alert 2M if it could be 6-12 points, 6-9 only if shapely?

If you would, you would also alert 1m-Pass-1M-Pass;-2M if it could be 11-17 points, 11-14 only if shapely.

[the hog]

ralph23, on Sep 5 2007, 12:05 AM, said:

♣♦♥♠

We are having some discussion about the alertability under ACBL rules of weak NT openings (we play a 11-to-14 HCP range whenever we are NV).

Actually, the question is not when NT is actually bid (or even rebid by opener at his second call), but when opener opens 1 of a minor, and raises responder's major suit response from 1 level to 2 level (when we are NV e.g., 1♦ opening by South; 1♥ by North, raised to 2♥ by South, with EW silent).

The question is whether EW are owed an alert upon the 2♥ bid by South in this example, based upon the availability of (but the non-use of) a weak NT opening by South.

If EW asked "Explain the alert please" then North's full explanation might be "We play weak NT at this vulnerability. Had South possessed a balanced hand with 11-14 HCP he would have opened 1NT, and not 1 diamond. Therefore, for his 2♥ raise, he should have ♥s with either (1) a balanced hand with 15 to (say) 17 HCP, or (2) an unbalanced hand. But he shouldn't have some schlocky balanced hand."

>>>Pro-alertability: "Weak NT is a bit unusual. The 2 heart rebid by opener conveys this "somewhat unusual" information to responder and EW are entitled to an alert."

>>>Con-alerability: "All bids are natural. If you're going to alert 2 hearts, why start there? Why not alert the 1 diamond opening bid, and say "He doesn't have a schlocky balanced hand with 10-14 HCP (i.e. give the same information you would give in the above example)? But alerting 1♦ seems preposterous. So by parity of reasoning, alerting 2♥ can't be required."

Sorry I am very late for this reply.

This is 100% not alertable ANYWHERE. You are not at the table to give bridge lessons. You explain your opening bids and artificial bids, not negative inferences.

[zasanya]

ralph23, on Sep 4 2007, 12:39 PM, said:

zasanya, on Sep 4 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

Over 1♥ doesnt opener bid 3♥ with 17 points (if not 15) and 4 card ♥?Or is 2♥ forcing?

No, of course it's not forcing. Opener's just describing his hand. With 17 HCP balanced and 4 trumps, jump to 3♥ if you want, or bid just 2♥ if you want. That's a matter of some judgment and style.

I don't understand what that has to do with alertability, however, sorry.....

My apologies.As you rightly point out it has nothing to do with alertability.
Was just curious because I play 12-14 NT and we never have faced this issue because with 15+ hand which lack support for P we rebid 1NT/2NT and which do have 4 card support for P will jump in responders suit.

[ralph23]

So..... does anyone think that an alert is actually REQUIRED by ACBL Rules, i.e. that if you fail to alert a 2♥ raise by opener after 1♦-1♥, then that was a violation of the alert rules, and consequently you may be subject to some sanction/correction for a failure to alert?

I know that you CAN alert it, if you feel like it; or if you want to "be safe" or whatever, you are permitted to alert it; and I know you won't get in trouble if you DO alert it.

My question is, however, does anyone believe that a failure to alert it will subject you to sanction?

I've not seen anyone express that particular belief, at least not straightforwardly.

If you do hold that belief, then:

(1) Art set out a pretty convincing argument, based on the actual alert rules, that the 2♥ rebid is not a required alert in ACBL-land. How do you refute that argument?

(2) Do you also think a 1♦ opener, by a player who COULD have opened a weak NT, but didn't, is also a required alert?

[jtfanclub]

ralph23, on Sep 5 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

So..... does anyone think that an alert is actually REQUIRED by ACBL Rules, i.e. that if you fail to alert a 2♥ raise by opener after 1♦-1♥, then that was a violation of the alert rules, and consequently you may be subject to some sanction/correction for a failure to alert?

No.

Quote

(2)  Do you also think a 1♦ opener, by a player who COULD have opened a weak NT, but didn't, is also a required alert?

No, and that one's official.

[uday]

Art said

Quote

In the category "Natural calls not specifically noted" you do not alert if the call shows "about the expected strength and shape" but you do alert if the call shows "highly unusual strength, shape, etc."

There is a gap. what about when the call shows "unusual strength, shape, etc" that is not "highly" unusual?


In ACBL land, it is probably unusual for 1m-1M-2M to show a flat 17 with 4 card trump support. Is it highly unusual ? Or equally, is it highly unusual for a single bid to have such a wide range ( 4441 11HCP or 4333 17HCP ) ?

i think so, so when i play KS I alert the 2M.

Seems the acbl regulation here is unclear, but we could easily ask Memphis & find out. Since we don't know what the rules are, it seems unreasonable to be penalized for failing to follow them but who knows what a TD will come up with at runtime ?

[glen]

Fred had a similar problem in July. It went 1♥-Pass-1NT-Pass;-2♥-All Pass. It turned out that 2♥ was about 14-17. The vugraph operator said the table had a discussion about alert rules when the hand was finished, but we were not told what the conclusion was.

[ralph23]

uday, on Sep 5 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

Art said

Quote

In the category "Natural calls not specifically noted" you do not alert if the call shows "about the expected strength and shape" but you do alert if the call shows "highly unusual strength, shape, etc."

There is a gap. what about when the call shows "unusual strength, shape, etc" that is not "highly" unusual?

Here is Art's argument (apologies to Art in advance for reworking his argument ):

Part A.
In the category "Natural calls not specifically noted" the following decision rules are stated:

1. you do not alert (i.e. you do not NEED to alert) if the call shows "about the expected strength and shape"

2. you do alert if the call shows "highly unusual strength, shape, etc."

All "natural calls not specifically noted" must be resolved by this rule.

Therefore, the only reading of the rule that makes sense -- and that allows the rule to resolve all controversies -- is to conclude that the two terms "about the expected strength and shape" and "highly unusual strength and shape" are collectively exhaustive and mutually exclusive ("CE/ME").

In short, although semantically you may conclude there is a "gap", --- i.e. if you just use the English language and compare 1 and 2 -- in reality of application, there is not, and cannot be a gap, logically, because the decision rules are clearly intended to be CE/ME. Unless they are CE/ME, they cannot be effective decision rules.

Part B.
Further down the alert chart, under Opener's and Responder's Rebids, it is specifically noted that a 1NT rebid, if strong, is alertable. But there is nothing stated about opener's single raise of responder's one level response. So, one must rely on the explanation above.

That is, since a specific exception was made to Opener's 1NT rebid ... demonstrating that the powers-that-be knew how to make an exception to the general rule ... but no exception was made to the single raise ... it must be that there's no exception for it.

AND since both calls tend to convey almost the same information -- "Opener doesn't have a schlocky balanced hand" -- it must be that one's alertable (the 1nt rebid) and one's not (the simple major suit raise).

Anyway, that's my interpretation/unpacking of Art's argument. I would as a judge rule that there is no "semantic gap" as that needlessly introduces an interpretive problem that probably was not contemplated by the authors.

[ralph23]

uday, on Sep 5 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

Seems the acbl regulation here is unclear, but we could easily ask Memphis & find out. Since we don't know what the rules are, it seems unreasonable to be penalized for failing to follow them but who knows what a TD will come up with at runtime ?

I did recently ask a (very experienced) director this question at the Atlanta Labor Day Regional. (Just asked him socially, as an aside -- he wasn't called to the table to adjudicate a real question, we were just chatting during a break).

He did not think the opener's 2♥ rebid was alertable.

I did email Mike Flader yesterday about this question, but haven't heard back from him.