[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 5 2007, 01:27 PM, said:

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.

It's hard or impossible for me to understand how one of these could require an alert, and the other one doesn't. For weak notrumpers, both are conveying the same information about a bid that could have been, but wasn't, made.

[jtfanclub]

ralph23, on Sep 5 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

It's hard or impossible for me to understand how one of these could require an alert, and the other one doesn't.

I asked about the Precision 1 diamond opening, which had been discussed by the rules committee. That was an official no- as long as it showed a diamond suit and did not tend to be canape with a major, it should not be alerted. I hypothesize that they were concerned that if we sit down and say "we play Precision" and alert the 1 diamond call, that the opponents won't ask because they'll think they know.

I strongly believe that the 2 heart bid should not be alerted unless you do something else with schlocky unbalanced hands*, but I have nothing official on it.

I do think there's a very real danger in over-alerting. You can cause the opponents to get 'alert fatigue' and miss the important alerts, or they may misunderstand 'could be as many as 17 hcp' as 'frequently has a strong hand'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*They do exist. Assuming 1NT is opened with a long minor unless 7-2-2-2 or a singleton or void....

1♦-1♥:
1♠ - Natural, weak
1NT - Natural, strong, promises shortness in partner's suit, may have long diamonds.
2♣ Weak, shortness in partner's suit, usually club tolerence, passable.
2♦ - 3 card support, weak
2♥ - 3+ card support in partner's suit, strong but not forcing. Includes upgraded 14-15 hcp hands.
2♠ - Weak splinter, 4+ cards in partner's suit.
2NT - GF
3♣ - Weak splinter
3♦ Natural, weak, short in partner's suit, long suit (7+).

So, you're following me in a Pairs game. When the 1♦-1♥-2♥ bid comes up, I say:

'14-17 hcp, 3+ card support, not forcing'

Then the next round comes up, when the same auction comes up, you say:

'Up to 17 hcp if balanced, 3+ card support, 4 if balanced, not forcing'.

Is your opponent going to imagine the schlocky 11 count your partner actually has, or the not-quite-enough-to-force-game my partner will tend to have?

[kenberg]

pbleighton, on Sep 4 2007, 01:49 PM, said:

However, the ACBL says that its alerting regs are deliberately fuzzy
Peter

And they have been extremely successful in accomplishing this! No one I know has a clue as to what is alertable and what is not. As to the case at hand, 1m-1M-2M playing weak nt, I would alert but (see above) I have no idea if it is required and my guess is that you will get different answers from different directors, even at the level of NABCs. I would certainly not call a director if my opponents did not alert. Which of course means that those who do alert are spotting the other pairs in their direction who do not alert a bit of an advantage in a pairs event.

I had not realized fuzzy regulations were a deliberate goal, I thought the people who made up the regulations just hat their heads up... well never mind. Now that I know, it explains a lot.

[blackshoe]

The problem is that what's "highly unusual and unexpected" in say Rochester, NY may be completely unremarkable in San Diego, CA - and vice versa. So if the goal is to alert those things about which people are likely to want to ask questions, and not to alert those things withy which everybody is familiar, you can't have a regulation covering an entire zone that says "alert X call but don't alert Y call" unless you're sure that X should be alerted everywhere in the zone, and Y should not. So as the writer of the regulation you're kinda stuck, aren't you?

[helene_t]

There are very few cases in which you are not allowed to alert (2nd+ round 4+ calls, and in some jurisdictions also dbls and/or rdbls).

So if the rules say that natural calls generally do not require an alert and that negative inference generally does not require an alert, the general rule that unusual meanings do require an alert, still takes precedence.

But as for all the consequences of playing a weak 1NT, I suppose it's sufficient to pre-alert the notrump range. Advanced players will draw their conclusions, then. Lesser players won't care anyway. I would not alert this unless the laws and/or the local TC or director told me specifically to alert those calls.

[thebiker]

As an English player in EBU land I am amazed at the no of replies to this topic. Don’t bridge players have something better to do than write pages of geeky stuff on this most uninteresting area of the game?. No wonder no one wants to take up bridge any more! Bridge can never be a game of total disclosure, and we should not waste energy on trying to go down that road.

Regards

The Biker

[jtfanclub]

thebiker, on Sep 6 2007, 02:45 PM, said:

Don’t bridge players have something better to do than write pages of geeky stuff on this most uninteresting area of the game?

Knowing what parts of your system needs to be alerted for the jurisdiction you're going to be playing in is about as geeky as knowing what time the game starts.

[ralph23]

thebiker, on Sep 6 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

Don’t bridge players have something better to do than write pages of geeky stuff on this most uninteresting area of the game?

Well, as my Dad used to say, "Some people like ketchup on their watermelon." (Well, I actually never MET anyone who did, but that was his saying.)

Or as the Romans said, There's no accounting for taste (taste is not a matter for dispute).

Some people are interested in stuff that bores you. And vice versa. C'est la vie.

I doubt if it's a function of nationality btw.

[Echognome]

thebiker, on Sep 6 2007, 11:45 AM, said:

As an English player in EBU land I am amazed at the no of replies to this topic. Don’t bridge players have something better to do than write pages of geeky stuff on this most uninteresting area of the game?. No wonder no one wants to take up bridge any more! Bridge can never be a game of total disclosure, and we should not waste energy on trying to go down that road.

Regards

The Biker

So let's all give up and play anything goes bridge? I can position my pencil so that partner knows I'm minimum or maximum for my bidding. I can say DOUBLE or double? Why don't we play a different game where we all bid with our hands in full view and then play the contract out? Better yet, we can just get computers to do this for us and we don't even have to go the effort.

Sure this stuff may be boring to some, but trying to make yourself aware of the rules of the game so that you can play fair, seems to be a worthy enough venture.