[barmar]

NickRW, on Jul 6 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

The purpose of an alert could just as easily be that the bid is artificial.

The definition in the Laws is:

Quote

A notification, whose form may be specified by the Regulating
Authority, to the effect that opponents may be in need of an explanation.

If you make a bid that just about everyone understands, the opponents are not likely to be in need of an explanation, even if it's artificial.

[blackshoe]

[quote name='JoAnneM' date='Jul 4 2008, 04:27 PM'] I agree with this. If you are going tio have to alert a natural 2c opening, then you should alert ALL 2c openings. [/QUOTE]
If we try really hard we can think of even more ways to slow down the game. Anyone? [/quote]
Oh, that's easy. Alert everything. All bids, all passes, all doubles, all redoubles. At all levels. Every time.

[helene_t]

awm, on Jul 6 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

You open 1NT, pass, partner bids 2♣. You alert.

How often do opponents ask what 2♣ means (or look at your card)?

My guess is that they usually don't. After all, it would be quite unusual for 2♣ not to be alerted in this auction.

Now suppose that you play 2♣ as "weak with both minors."

I suppose that could be a problem but in a heterogenous culture where many players are unfamiliar with other bidding methods than their own, the alternative is worse IMHO.

Ideally, we would all know what the opponents would expect without alert, so we could alert on the basis of the "alert what is unusual" criterion. Something close to this may be the case in North America, at least in some circles.

At the Women's Bridge Festival in Riccione there was a TD call when someone failed to alert a 12-14 1NT opening. The offending pair was from a country in which weak notrump is slightly non-mainstream but nevertheless not alertable. The tourney rules did not specify whether weak notrump was alertable or not.

If you play in the Netherlands at your own club, opps alerts (or non-alerts) may be meaningful to you because some local alert-culture has emerged. You know (say) that people would alert a 1M response to 1♣ if it could bypass a 6-card diamonds or if it is non-forcing but not if it could bypass a 4-card diamonds or if it promises a 5-card in the bid suit.

If you play in an open-house event, the alerts are not very useful. People might alert a 1NT overcall because it could be as strong as 18 points, or because it's Polish. People might alert a 2♣ response to 1M because it is GF or because it could be 3433 but also because it is artificial.

[andy_h]

The_Hog, on Jul 6 2008, 05:27 PM, said:

awm, on Jul 6 2008, 01:27 PM, said:

Strength of a bid is also a criteria for whether it's alertable. It makes sense that a bid that virtually everyone plays as strong would be alertable if weak, or vice versa. Otherwise we're forced always to ask the strength of a call whether alerted or no.

So even if a "natural" 2♣ would in principle not be alertable, who says that intermediate strength is the normal range? Every other two-level bid is far more commonly played as weak, and more bridge players assign 2♣ an artificial meaning than play it as intermediate with clubs....

Alerting all artificial bids leads to a lot of silliness too. For example, you'd have to alert stayman. But something like 99% of bridge partnerships play stayman. It gets to the point that when you hear 1NT-P-2♣ "alert" you assume stayman and if someone actually doesn't play stayman you might tend not to ask...

Stayman is alertable in Australia.

Not anymore with the new laws.

[Old York]

Hi

3 easy rules for tournament players

1. Provide a convention card.
2. Provide basic info on profile.
3. Alert any bid which might cause oppo to claim an adjustment if you fail to alert.

Alerting is self preservation and common sense.
Failing to alert is not cheating.

Tony (Duke of York)

[ClaceyJ]

I find most of what Adam says interesting and relevant- My partner and I play regularly in our local club, almost exclusively populated by older people (We are both U25)

We play 2C as either any GF or a weak 2 in D. This is alertable (EBU), as are the two standard meanings in the club (any GF, or 8+playing tricks any suit). The majority of old people at the club would assume it to be one of these and not ask. If the auction then proceeds 2C (p) 2D (p) P the situation can become a little tense..

There is very much a question of what to do here- we understand we are under no obligation to do anything but alert, but we acknowledge this is likely to cause more animosity than anything else. Therefore we choose to prealert at the beginning of the round, and sometimes when we haven't, we will announce what it is when we alert. I guess there may be questions on the legality of this, but it seems like common sense.

I guess it does boil down to- to what extent should make allowences for opponents lack of bridge nous? If they have failed to look at a CC or ask at the beginning of the round, should you be helpful? I think the answer at club level is yes, but when does the event become serious enough for you to not be helpful?

J

[Gerben42]

Quote

We play 2C as either any GF or a weak 2 in D. This is alertable (EBU), as are the two standard meanings in the club (any GF, or 8+playing tricks any suit). The majority of old people at the club would assume it to be one of these and not ask. If the auction then proceeds 2C (p) 2D (p) P the situation can become a little tense..

Of course it's their fault, not yours for the tense situation. I've once seen a "special alert" card in a bidding box, and found it very useful. Unlike most alerts which are just boring bids that should be alerted because of regulations, special alerts can be used for really unusual situations like your 2-way 2♣. There should be no regulations for this, but instead you can use them as a special service to opponents.

[matmat]

will there also be extra special super alerts with sugar on top?

IMO it is sensible common courtesy to, when you sit down, give the opponents a fair warning: "we play many unusual methods, some alerts might not be what you are used to, so we encourage you to ask."

and then, if they don't ask you don't have to feel even the tiniest bit guilty.

[mycroft]

We used to have Special Alerts in the ACBL. I used to play some (Two-way Stayman back when transfers were Alertable and ubiquitous is the one that comes to mind). Apart from the fuzzy terminology of "it's an Alert where the expected meaning is Alertable and you are playing a different Alertable meaning" - so you had to decide "is there an 'expected Alertable meaning' here" - and people who took it to extremes (Special Alerting short suit game tries because the expected meaning was "help"), it basically worked. Of course there was the problem of people having no clue about it at all...but they did tend to ask and not get misled when *we* Special Alerted.

They removed it primarily by adding Announcements for the Usual Suspects. But now we have more situations, and I still occasionally want an "Alert. You really want to ask about this one" card.

Ah well, can't be perfect. Matmat's suggestion is probably the best compromise.

[JoAnneM]

I have a problem with asking questions of players using complicated systems because many times they don't know what they are doing and the queries help them as much as it informs me.

So, knowing whether a 2C bid might be weak or strong is a critical pre-alert I would think. And I can't tell you the last time I saw anyone preview a cc at a bridge table.

[blackshoe]

I got back into bridge some 20 years after college, during my last tour of duty - in England - in the Navy. When I came back to the States and started playing, I tried to look at opponents' CCs, but it was such a hassle, I gave it. I even had people ask me "why do you want to look at it?"

Even more fun was trying to exchange cards with them.

I still look at opponents' card occasionally at the start of a round - provided they actually have one and it's reasonably accessible. And I still frequently get strange reactions when I do.

[jtfanclub]

We're talking online here, right?

Require announcing the system. Have the lazy Americans* actually learn the basics of some systems other than Standard American. When somebody says they're playing Polish Club and opens 2♣, their opponents shouldn't need an alert. In fact, it should only require an alert if the 2♣ opener is different from a standard Polish Club 2♣ opener.

I know there's people out there playing something other than Standard American, 2/1, Kitchen (strong 2s, no transfers), Precision, SEF, ACOL, and WJ200x. Those people tend to alert everything. I have never had a failure to alert from somebody playing something other than these, ever. For some reason, the lazy Americans* think that everybody should have to learn every detail of Standard American even if they never plan to play it just so they know what to alert, but they can't be bothered to spend five minutes learning enough of the basic systems so that we don't have to alert. Want to save time? Spend a few minutes learning what the openings and initial responses mean for all of these, so you don't have to ask. That's the way to save time.

Frankly, I'm not even sure it's about laziness for the Americans, at least not in face to face. It might just be that they like 1♣ "Alert" "What does that mean?" 2♣ to be clubs, and 1♣ (no ask) 2♣ to be Michaels. God knows it's common enough.

For goodness sake, in the U.S. Strong 2s are not alertable. 1♦ openings promisng 5 are not alertable. Somehow, people are able to survive the horror of these. How is it that you can handle 2♥ being strong without an alert but the idea of a 2♣ opening promising clubs as not alertable makes you throw a tantrum?

*Yes, I'm an American.

[mycroft]

So, there are many styles of Polish Club, but the main differences seem to be:
- weak NT (and strong NT in 1C) or strong NT (and 12-14 in 1C), and
- 2C (Precision style, strong hands in 1C or Strong, Artificial, and Forcing, 1C is limited).

WJ and Nasz are Precision-style, Strefa et al are basically Standard American with 5+ 1D (4 if Roman), 2+ 1C (1 if 4=4=1=4).

So, which one is "different from a standard Polish Club 2C opener"?

Having said that, I do tend to agree with "know the basic openings of normal systems, and life just gets that much easier".

[NickRW]

As far as I understand it, standard Polish is a forcing, but two way club that includes a weak NT with an intermediate 2C that is similar to, but not necessarily identical to Precision.

To open a weak NT and include your strong NT in 1C is Unassuming Club - a very similar system.

To open a non forcing 1C and a forcing 2C is no kind of Polish or UAC or any generic two way club system at all - again as I understand it.

Nick

[jtfanclub]

mycroft, on Jul 14 2008, 11:22 AM, said:

So, which one is "different from a standard Polish Club 2C opener"?

Having said that, I do tend to agree with "know the basic openings of normal systems, and life just gets that much easier".

I think if you know a Polish Club 1♣ is "Balanced, clubs, or strong", that's probably enough.

Think about the changes between a Standard American system with a 15-17 1NT and opens 2♣ with any 9+ tricks and an SA type system with a 10-13 NT that opens a previously mentioned 2047 3 loser hand 1 club. I think that's equal to the differences between the two Polish Club systems, but we still don't need an alert.