[kenrexford]

Some of you may find this continuing saga humorous:

I was playing with a good friend at a sectional, finals of a KO against friends, one of whom can be nasty at times.

My partner and I had a cuebidding sequence that featured a 3♣ cue from partner. No alerts. At the end of the sequence, before the lead, my partner noted that we had a strange cuebidding sequence and that his 3♣ call, in bypassing 2NT (a call that would have shown poor trumps), inferentially showed at least two of the top three honors.

My RHO then asked a few more questions, and I took over to explain the entire cuebidding sequence, with every nuance possible. RHO, prone to be nasty, called the TD, claiming that this post-alert about the 3♣ call was improper and thatb it might have changed his bid. (He held Qxxxxx of clubs, a side King, and out.) We found this humorous, as he would have to be quite a theoretician for the number of top honors held by Opener in the agreed major to be determinative of whether he would bid at the four-level in Responder's first-bid suit. LHO came to his defense and noted that it was 100% that this should have been alerted. The TD's had no clue but found no damage. We won the event by 4 IMP's.

A bet almost resulted, as to what the ACBL would say, but LHO was chicken to put real money down. No one knew, but we were players, you see.

Anyway, I researched the ACBL rules as to alerts. The quite humorous thing was that the term "control bid" is defined right after "cue bid," as a different term, but the term "control bid" is never used in the body of the rules, only in the definitions. It's sort of like they defined "nuclear fision" and then proceeded to give a recipe for cole slaw.

So, I sent a very clear description of the auction and of the meanings of 2♠, 2NT, and 3♣ to the ACBL for a clarification. The first response back (from "Rick") included a renewed defining of the terms "control bid" and "cue bid," again without any real purpose. I now truly know the difference, but it still gets me nowhere. The second part of the response was a mumbling about slam sequences, with an example of a sequence where the first cuebid (nay, control bid) is at the four-level. The third part was conclusory, noting that calls above 3NT should not be alerted.

This, of course, did not answer anything. I noted that to the ACBL and asked for more. Mike Flader then stepped in. He made a very strange comment that natural calls (completing pattern) would be very unusual. He must have been wildly confused, but I found that hysterical considering some debates on BBF. He also had some rambling about control bids and cuebids, bouncing back and forth between them, and yet got no where. He asked for an example (despite the extremely elaborate example provided twice and in the body of the chain emails).

I provided the exact same sequence, yet again. This time, however, I discussed theory of alerts, referencing both notice concerns generall as contrasted with keeping slam-sequence alerts at bay until the advantage from hearing your own alerts no longer benefits the alerting side.

The final answer seems to be (weeks and multiple emails later) that 2NT should be alerted and that an inference derived from a failure to bid 2NT should be post-alerted.

Of course, this is all in Mike Flader's head and not the result of any actual rules, as he cannot cite anything giving a definitive answer.

In the end, it is quite humorous that we little players are supposed to properly make use of an alert policy that the ACBL top dogs need weeks of consultations and examples and policy statements and definitions to resolve.

I suppose that almost-bet is still pending...

[Winstonm]

I'm surprised the ACBL didn't put you on "Double Secret Probation"!!!

[matmat]

Winstonm, on Nov 5 2007, 12:54 AM, said:

I'm surprised the ACBL didn't put you on "Double Secret Probation"!!!

they can't do that to our pledges...

[blackshoe]

ROFL! That's some story.

[hrothgar]

Couple quick comments:

I would have thought that the first comment that the ACBL returned was an explanation that it is wildly inappropriate for one member of the partnership to explain the meaning of the entire cuebidding sequence. Simply put, you should only explain the meaning of your bids, while your partner should explain the meaning of his/her bids.

Second: I am none to surprised about this annecdote. Anyone who has had a run in with Memphis knows how difficult it can be to get guidance regarding the simplest of issues. However, if you want any kind of informed opinion from the peanut gallery you're going to need to provide much more specific information. For example, it would be useful to see your original email to Memphis, along with the initial reply. This would go a long way towards establishing whether Memphis failed to provide accurate guidance or, alternatively, whether you posed an incoherant question.

[ArtK78]

This is a long way from the idea that cue bids (unless natural) are not alertable.

Has this changed?

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Nov 5 2007, 07:56 AM, said:

Couple quick comments:

I would have thought that the first comment that the ACBL returned was an explanation that it is wildly inappropriate for one member of the partnership to explain the meaning of the entire cuebidding sequence. Simply put, you should only explain the meaning of your bids, while your partner should explain the meaning of his/her bids.

Second: I am none to surprised about this annecdote. Anyone who has had a run in with Memphis knows how difficult it can be to get guidance regarding the simplest of issues. However, if you want any kind of informed opinion from the peanut gallery you're going to need to provide much more specific information. For example, it would be useful to see your original email to Memphis, along with the initial reply. This would go a long way towards establishing whether Memphis failed to provide accurate guidance or, alternatively, whether you posed an incoherant question.

As tp the first suggestion, the "entire sequence explanation" was offered to the opponents because it is complicated to explain a complete cuebidding sequence on a back-and-forth basis. Better to explain that "Opener has shown blah, bl;ah, blah and has denied blah blah blah, and Responder has ..." The opponents agreed that this made sense.

As to the "what did I ask?" See following:

First Q: "We had a question raised yesterday. Looking for a ruling. Assume a major fit agreement in a GF auction. Simplest is 1H-P-2C(GF)-P-2D-P-2H. The partnership then starts cuebidding. Are all, some, or no cuebids alertable? If the answer is "maybe," some examples. Which, if any, 2S meaning would be alertable:

1. First-round control
2. First or Second round control
3. Two of the top three honors
4. One of the top three honors

What about a 2NT "cuebid" that denies two of the top three honors in trumps?

What about a cuebid, like 3C, that shows whatever the partnership means as far as controls but that also implies two of the top three trump honors if the person in making this cue bypassed the 2NT denial cue?

What about a cue in trumps showing specific numbers of trump honors or a bypass of a trump cue denying the ability to show that number of trump honors?

In practice, we post-alerted, but we are not sure whether we post-alert, alert, or don't alert.

LOTS of people want clarification here."

First Answer:

"In general a cue bid is a bid of a suit bid by the opponents naturally.
In general cue bids have been deemed to be self alerting.
In general no NT bid is a cue bid.
Cue bids, the other kind, are made after a partnership has agreed upon a suit.
Common control showing cue bids are not alertable, e.g. 1S - P - 3S - P - 4C
Bids above the level of 3NT, beginning with openers response do not require an alert, though do require a post-alert.

And, as always, when in doubt look at a convention card, or ask an opponent."

Follow up Q:

"You sort of covered everything except the debated problem we have faced. What is being sought is whether a control bid made below 3NT is alertable if of an unusual variety.

The first example is more general. If a major is agreed in a 2/1 GF sequence, at the two-level, folks play at least four different ways, involving calls below 3NT:

1. 3-level calls are pattern bids
2. 3-level calls are Aces-first control bids
3. 3-level calls are Italian control bids
4. 3-level calls are denial control bids

Which, if any, are alertable?

The second example is also strange. A 2NT "control bid" is used in some systems to deny two top trumps. Is this "control bid" alertable?

The third example is stranger yet. If 2NT denies two top trumps, then any control bid made by a person who could have bid 2NT but did not inferentially promises two top trumps. For example, a 3C call by someone who could have bid 2NT shows a control in clubs and infers two top trumps. Is this inference alertable?

If a control bid below 3NT is sometimes alertable, would it be alertable if a control bid if it:

a. Shows Ace or King?
b. shows one or two of the top three honors, including the Queen?
c. Shows 1st/2nd round control, honor or shortness?
d. Is a cue of trumps as showing numbers of top trumps?

Hopefully this clarification will help."

Second Answer:

"I will try to address this issue. Our alert pamphlet does say that most conventional calls require an alert. Exceptions to the rule would be commonly used conventions such as Stayman, Jacoby Transfers, Blackwood, etc unless the partnership has an agreement that is highly unsual or unexpected. To my way of thinking, only item #1 and item #4 listed below would be unexpected or unusual. Thus, if 3 level bids reveal information about the bidder's distribution or if they deny a control in the relevant suit, the opponents are entitled to an alert. If they show a control, either first or second round, whether it be an ace, king, void, or singleton, they do not need to be alerted during the auction. However, the bidding side should still offer to disclose these inferences at the end of the auction prior to the opening lead's being faced.
You need to give me an example of an auction where the 2NT control bid would apply, but, I am inclined to believe that it would require an alert.
Hope that this is helpful."

Third Q:

"I am still not sure what the procedures call for. I have discussed the two responses that I have received with partners, and we all remain more mystified than ever.

I'll try to be extremely precise with an example auction and the concern.

The opponents are silent. Dealer opens 1H. Responder bids 2C, game-forcing. Opener bids 2D. Responder bids 2H, agreeing trumps and starting a cuebidding sequence.

The first observation is that traditional methods do not seem to establish a cuebidding sequence until the three-level. This technique seems to be somewhat unusual or unexpected. Furthermore, as the cuebidding starts below 3NT, alerts are more likely. However, counter-balancing this general observation is the general observation that the purpose for 3NT+ calls not being alerted is that the alerts tend to benefit the bidding side more than the opponents.

In any event, Opener now bids 3C. This call is strange in many respects.

First, as a cuebid of a suit bid by his partner, Opener will not have a stiff or void for his control. Rather, he will have an honor, and that honor may be the Ace, King, OR the Queen. That is also a direct meaning that is unusual.

Second, Opener bypassed and did not cuebid (control bid) 2S, a call that would have shown the Ace, King, stiff, or void in spades, because it is a (the only) unbid suit. Thus, 3C inferentially denies a spade control.

Third, we use 2NT as a cuebid to deny two top trumps. Had opener cuebid/controlbid 2NT, Opener would not have a spade control (bypassed 2S) and would not have two top trumps. That part is definitional to the 2NT call. So, bypassing 2NT promises two top trumps, inferentially perhaps. (Had Opener cuebid 2S, and then Responder bid 2NT, Opener's 3C would say nothing about trumps. Thus, 3C only shows two top trumps in the context of an auction where 2NT could have been bid by Opener.)

For that matter, Opener also denies a hand that would be appropriate for many types of Picture Jumps. Thus, when he bids 3C, I will know that the club honor is the Ace or King, or that it is the Queen but that he lacks three of the top four diamonds if his club honor is the Queen.

What we are trying to learn is whether the alert policies of the ACBL require an alert here. More precisely, we want to know what direct meanings of slam-going calls below 3NT require an alerrt AND what types of inferences from bypassed options also will require an alert. For that matter, what inferences from rejected alternatives (like Picture Jumps not made) require an alert?

It seems that the easier and more logical rule would be that any slam-going sequences should be post-alerted, but the rules do not seem to lead to that conclusion."

Final Answer:

"2NT requires an alert. It is highly unusual and unexpected. Suit bids at the 3-level whether they be suits bid previously by your side or new suit bids do not require an alert if they are control-showing bids. That is not unexpected even though the level seems below that where control-showing bids might be expected. Inferences regarding the failure to bid 2NT should be disclosed to the opponents at the end of the auction on hands where your side plays the hand.

Does that help your concers at all?"

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Nov 5 2007, 07:56 AM, said:

I would have thought that the first comment that the ACBL returned was an explanation that it is wildly inappropriate for one member of the partnership to explain the meaning of the entire cuebidding sequence. Simply put, you should only explain the meaning of your bids, while your partner should explain the meaning of his/her bids.

Really? I always do that.

For example, the auction goes:

1♣!-1♦!-1NT-2♣-2NT-3♥-4♥

The first two bids are alerted, but they don't ask.

Before the opening lead, I say "OK, 1 club was 16+ any distribution, 1 diamond is 0-7 any distribution, 1NT is 16-19, 2♣ is Stayman, 2NT is 18-19 no 4 card major, 3♥ is 5 hearts, presumably with 4 spades, and is effectively forcing. 4♥ is to play".

I don't see how this is in any way inappropriate. What am I doing, passing UI to dummy? Just making sure that the opps have the full information that we do. Besides, if they think there's been a failure to alert, now is the time for them to know.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Nov 5 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 5 2007, 07:56 AM, said:

I would have thought that the first comment that the ACBL returned was an explanation that it is wildly inappropriate for one member of the partnership to explain the meaning of the entire cuebidding sequence.  Simply put, you should only explain the meaning of your bids, while your partner should explain the meaning of his/her bids.

Really? I always do that.

For example, the auction goes:

1♣!-1♦!-1NT-2♣-2NT-3♥-4♥

The first two bids are alerted, but they don't ask.

Before the opening lead, I say "OK, 1 club was 16+ any distribution, 1 diamond is 0-7 any distribution, 1NT is 16-19, 2♣ is Stayman, 2NT is 18-19 no 4 card major, 3♥ is 5 hearts, presumably with 4 spades, and is effectively forcing. 4♥ is to play".

I don't see how this is in any way inappropriate. What am I doing, passing UI to dummy? Just making sure that the opps have the full information that we do. Besides, if they think there's been a failure to alert, now is the time for them to know.

This proceedure that you describe works perfectly, so long as both members of a partnership have precisely the same understanding of the methods that they are playing. However, as a disclosure mechanism, this system can run into problems if one member of the partnership has forgotten their methods or has a subtlely different interpretation regarding the meaning of certain bids.

Personally, I find it useful to understand if/when the opponents had a misunderstanding. Requiring both players to explain the meanings of their bids is the best way to achieve this end. If one player - typically the player with the best memory of the system in question - provides the complete description for all the bidding a lot of subtle nuance will be lost.

Moreover, declarer and dummy are looking at different hands. In some cases, this information might (subconciously) impact the verbal descriptions that they provide.

[kenrexford]

Of course, that's when you say, "No thanks -- do it the regular way."

[awm]

It seems like the third email makes the ACBL policy fairly clear. I agree that they didn't answer your question right off. But it looks like:

When a trump suit has been agreed (as in this auction), a follow-up bid which shows either length or a control in the suit named will not be alertable. If there are additional negative inferences due to bypassing other potential bids that might have been made, these inferences do not make the call alertable. In other words, in the auction 1♥-2♣-2♦-2♥-3♣, if 3♣ shows length in clubs (pattern) or shows some sort of high card or control of clubs, it will not be alertable. It doesn't matter if the control "can be A, K, or Q" or is necessarily first round control, or can be shortness, etc. It also doesn't matter if the bypass of 2♠ denies first round control in spades, denies first or second round control in spades, or says nothing about spades whatsoever.

On the other hand, bidding a suit to specifically show weakness in that suit (i.e. 3♣ specifically denies a club control or denies club values) would be alertable. Bidding a suit to send a specific message about another suit (i.e. 3♣ specifically shows a spade control and says nothing about clubs) or to show general values or controls with no relation to the suit named (3♣ is a response to keycard showing two keycards without the queen) would be alertable.

The 2NT bid itself which does not show a balanced hand or in any way suggest playing in notrump would be alertable. Bids bypassing the 2NT bid (which by negative inference show good trumps) would not be alertable (negative inferences never make a bid that would not otherwise be alertable an alert).

Of course, bids at the 3NT level or above are not alertable in any case. And if your side is declaring, at the end of the auction you should indicate that "we have had a cuebidding sequence, there may be some non-standard inferences from our calls subsequent to 2♥" or the like (i.e. a delayed alert is appropriate, although opponents probably should know to protect themselves and ask in any case).

[kenberg]

It is my long held opinion that it is easier, and presumably more profitable, to try to understand IRS regulations. Basically alert rules are unknowable.

So w/o trying to cite rules, I will advocate for what would seem to me to be sensible: 1H-2C(gf)-2D-2H Now here would be a nice place for an alert. Folks who do not play 2/1 may not realize that this shows three hearts (in a less scientific system it might simply show a preference for hearts over diamonds) and they certainly might not realize that it could be on a big hand. They also might not catch the inference (assuming you play this) that it more or less guarantees at least something extra since with clubs, a gf, three card support, nothing else, I imagine that the bid would be 4H over 2D.

Now once the opponents have been told that a heart fit and a gf have been established it should be clear enough that subsequent bids are exploratory either for slam or possibly for finding 3NT. Thus these bids are not suggestions to play in clubs or whatever. If a guy wants to double a 3C bid he can double it. Most likely he should just sit tight until the auction is over and then, if he is on lead, ask about the auction in a way that does not draw undue attention to any suit, and then lead a card.

We need to study bidding and play. Playing bridge should not require an advanced degree in bridge law.

Added: I guess I agree that if a 2NT bid is not a suggestion to play in NT then that should be alerted.

[blackshoe]

Fascinating. I agree with Adam that the "final answer" seems to establish ACBL policy in this regard. But...

The Alert regulation defines both "cuebid" and "control bid", giving them different meanings, and then never mentioning "control bid" (or even "control") again. This seems a rather large oversight. But to continue, the alert regulation, in part II ("Conventions") establishes that "most conventions must be alerted", and then lists several specific exemptions. Cue bids are in this list, but control bids are not. The inescapable conclusion is that under the current regulation, all control bids are alertable.

On another point, there are three kinds of alerts (see "Types of Alerts" in the regulation): Pre-Alerts, Immediate Alerts, and Delayed Alerts. A Delayed Alert is an alert of a call above 3NT which is made after responder's first call. It is incorrect to say "bids above 3NT do not require an alert". They require a specific type of alert - a Delayed Alert.

[blackshoe]

In reply to Ken:

Hm. I think you meant opener to start with 1♥, no?

IMO, 4♥ in the sequence 1♥-2♣-2♦-4♥ should be a picture bid showing game values with probably 5 clubs, 4 hearts, and weak (no controls) doubletons in the pointy suits. The hand with three card support and extra values jumps to 3♥.

It might be nice to alert 2♥ on the stated auction, but the ACBL does not require it.

In some places, players are expected to at least browse the opponents' system card before starting the round, learning their basic approach and any special understandings that should be highlighted. In North America, the culture has unfortunately given rise to a pretty complete disregard for system cards. IMO this is a Bad Thing™. Be that as it may, it is certainly recommended by the ACBL that the declaring side, at least, offer a complete explanation of any non-obvious auction before the opening lead is chosen. Seems sensible to me - but I still look at opponent's system card, and hope they will look at mine.

As to "alert rules are unknowable", that's a bit of an overbid. Check out this link, maybe it will help.

[Mbodell]

hrothgar, on Nov 5 2007, 10:29 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Nov 5 2007, 06:13 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 5 2007, 07:56 AM, said:

I would have thought that the first comment that the ACBL returned was an explanation that it is wildly inappropriate for one member of the partnership to explain the meaning of the entire cuebidding sequence.  Simply put, you should only explain the meaning of your bids, while your partner should explain the meaning of his/her bids.

Really? I always do that.
...
I don't see how this is in any way inappropriate. What am I doing, passing UI to dummy? Just making sure that the opps have the full information that we do. Besides, if they think there's been a failure to alert, now is the time for them to know.

This proceedure that you describe works perfectly, so long as both members of a partnership have precisely the same understanding of the methods that they are playing. However, as a disclosure mechanism, this system can run into problems if one member of the partnership has forgotten their methods or has a subtlely different interpretation regarding the meaning of certain bids.

Personally, I find it useful to understand if/when the opponents had a misunderstanding. Requiring both players to explain the meanings of their bids is the best way to achieve this end. If one player - typically the player with the best memory of the system in question - provides the complete description for all the bidding a lot of subtle nuance will be lost.

While it may be useful to have that information you aren't legally entitled to it, right? There was a thread a couple of weeks back about if you have to correct your partner's explanations if you were unsure if they were correct or mostly sure they were correct and I thought it was the case that legally, since you are only entitled to opponents agreements, not their correct bids and mis bids that if one opponent is going to be dummy and the auction is over then either partner can explain the entire sequence.

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on Nov 5 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

As to "alert rules are unknowable", that's a bit of an overbid. Check out this link, maybe it will help.

I took a look. There are 28 items under alerts, and quite a few clarifying (?) comments. I would consider trying to understand/memorize all of this if I were convinced this is the True Word. It is written by Marvin L. French, San Diego, CA, USA who does not cite his authority for this list. Also, it is dated 2002. My experience has been that if you ask five different directors you get five different answers, all stated with great gusto but not, alas, with great consistency or permanence. Perhaps I exaggerate a bit, but not much. Consider the difficulty KR had getting a straightforward answer.

In fact I have very little difficulty with my fellow players. I try to use some common sense and that usually is plenty adequate and even if a director is summoned, fairness and sense generally prevail. No harm, no foul.

When I first started playing I used to read "Ruling the Game" regularly (Julie Greenberg I believe was writing it). Good column, clear and to the point, and I learned what was expected. I still read the column sometimes (it's better again after some rocky times), and try to read various other learned articles about how to stay on the right side of ethics. I find most of these articles to be confusing and incredibly boring. So instead I try to do things so that I have a clear conscience, and if someone tells me I violated rule 277b-6 in the current interpretation as clearly explained by Joe Btflpx I take the punishment I deserve. So far it has not involved waterboarding. Actually I cannot remember the last time I was penalized. Alzheimer's, probably.

I guess I should not be so dismissive of what no doubt is a serious issue. I do try to read these articles. I just can't keep my eyes open.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on Nov 5 2007, 10:18 AM, said:

This is a long way from the idea that cue bids (unless natural) are not alertable.

Has this changed?

No, but it's not relevant. The question is about control bids, not cue bids. Your confusion is understandable, because control bids are often called cue bids. But the definition of cue bid that you're referring to is when you bid a suit an opponent has shown.

[blackshoe]

Marvin put a lot of work into that thing. While it has no official status, it is correct as far as I can remember. I believe he ran it past somebody or other in Memphis at some point, but I can't swear to that.

It's dated 2002 because that's the last time the alert regulation was revised.

I can't speak to the competence, in general, of ACBL employed TDs - the ones who run tournaments from Sectionals on up. I don't know enough of them. I don't know a very large sample of club directors, either, but from what I've seen, heard, and read online, they run the gamut from very competent down to completely incompetent. Not much one can do about that, except vote with one's feet. The ACBL certainly doesn't seem to care.

"Ruling the Game" is pretty good, although once in a while Mike and I disagree on some fine point or other. Doesn't make him wrong - but then the fact he writes the column doesn't make him right, either.

I think that in general, most folks know how to be ethical in the context of the rules of the game (and it's the rules that define the ethics of the game). If you make every effort to avoid taking advantage of UI, for example, you've acted ethically, even if the TD later decides you were mistaken.

The alert rules are complex, certainly. They need to be. If they were simple, either some things don't get alerted, and folks don't get the information they're entitled to get, or too many things get alerted, and either folks start ignoring alerts, or the game takes considerably longer. It's a matter of compromise, and I think Memphis (and other Regulating Authorities) are trying to do their best, even if I (and you, and many others) don't always agree they've succeeded.

Heh. I find the intricacies of the laws and regulations of bridge interesting, so reading about them doesn't usually put me to sleep. Watson's Play of the Hand, OTOH, often does, in spite of the fact that every time I read it I discover something I either didn't know or have forgotten. Matter of where one's interests lie, and the style of writing, I expect.

Any time you have any ambiguity at all in a rule, somebody will find a way to interpret it not intended by the originators and not agreed by many (most? all?) other users of that rule. Human nature.

The problem with getting a straight answer out of Memphis is, I think, that we don't ask the right people. This is, IMO, an artifact of the way things are set up there. The right people where most regulations are concerned are not the TDs (even Rick Beye) who are merely the folks who have to apply the rules. The right people are the Competitions and Conventions Committee, who are, if I'm not mistaken, responsible for writing the rules. In the case of interpretation of law, as someone on the ACBLLC said a while back, that body is the final arbiter of the laws in North America. Well, almost - in theory the WBFLC is a higher court, but as President Jackson (I believe it was) said with regard to a decision of the United States Supreme Court, "Mr. Marshall (Chief Justice of the United States) has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

We might not get a straight answer even out of the CandCC. Might not get any answer at all. I don't know how responsive they would be to questions from the masses.

Just some random late night musings.