[awm]

1♠ - X - XX - Pass

If pass shows a desire to defend 1♠XX, is this alertable? How about if the opening bid had been one of a minor? How about if it was a weak two bid?

1♠ - Pass - Pass - X
XX - Pass

Again, if pass shows a desire to defend 1♠XX, is it alertable?

1♣ - Pass - 1♠ - X
XX - Pass

If pass shows a desire to defend 1♠XX, is this alertable? Does it matter if the redouble was "cards" or "support"?

[mich-b]

awm, on Nov 2 2009, 03:27 AM, said:

1♠ - X - XX - Pass

If pass shows a desire to defend 1♠XX, is this alertable? How about if the opening bid had been one of a minor? How about if it was a weak two bid?

This is a very basic bidding situation to which there is a single standard meaning :
PASS is neutral, and does not suggest defending.
If a pair agrees to play it differently I believe that comes under the "unexpected meaning" category, and therefore is alertable.

The other situations you ask about , are much less basic, and people have different views on them. So I do not think any meaning of PASS can be considered unexpected and alertable. In all except (1any-X-XX-PASS) I would ask about the PASS if I needed to know before making the next call.


Edit : This is my personal view , not representing the ACBL , or any other NBO policy.

[pooltuna]

awm, on Nov 2 2009, 03:27 AM, said:

1♠ - X - XX - Pass

If pass shows a desire to defend 1♠XX, is this alertable? How about if the opening bid had been one of a minor? How about if it was a weak two bid?

1♠ - Pass - Pass - X
XX - Pass

Again, if pass shows a desire to defend 1♠XX, is it alertable?

1♣ - Pass - 1♠ - X
XX - Pass

If pass shows a desire to defend 1♠XX, is this alertable? Does it matter if the redouble was "cards" or "support"?

I think it is. While it seems unusual to have to alert the natural meaning of pass. It is an agreement and would not normally be expected by the opponents and consequently needs to be alerted. As a caveat I am not a TD and just giving an opinion based on my gut feeling about the rules. I prefer to play the pass in this way to deter XX psyches.

[Fluffy]

this looks similar to alerting a jump raise wich is weak.

pass means I wanna play this contract and its the most basic nature of a bid. Same way as a weak jump raise says I want this to be the final contract. I don't think it any of them shoul be alerted since the most natural meaning for a bid is the bid!

[kenberg]

Narrowing this to acbl land, I would hope the bridge powers have decided this and made it clear. With all the back and forth that they do on alerts it would be inexcusable to leave this situation to individual judgment..

My preference would be to leave all of these auctions as non-alertable. I speak here of the games I play in, and consider the first auction. It's easy enough for first hand to turn to lho and ask: "Do you have any agreements about what fourth hand's calls mean over a redouble?". There is a fine chance that the answer will be that there is no explicit agreement. In a game, or against a pair, where it is reasonable to expect that they have an agreement then they can tell you what it is. The question seems natural, I don't see it as passing any sort of UI.

But I do think that the acbl should make it clear. Whatever they choose, I will do (providing I am playing with a partner with whom I have an agreement).

This gets trickier on bbo. If I pass the XX, I know what I intend. Most likely, in the online games that I play in, partner has to make his best guess as to what I intend. Declining to self-alert because it is undiscussed is technically correct, but it creates hard feelings.

[ArtK78]

As has been mentioned above, the Pass in 1♠ - X - XX - Pass is usually played as "nothing to say" rather than "I want to defend 1♠xx." Therefore, if the pass is a penalty pass, it should be alerted. I believe that this would be correct in the ACBL.

This is NOT true over a weak 2 bid or any other preemptive call. If the auction goes 2♠ - X - XX - ?, most experienced players play that pass is for penalties on the logic that the redouble (which is often a psychic manuever) should not prevent them from passing for penalties.

At the one level, a penalty pass is quite rare, and it does not pay to use it over the redouble. Above the one level, a penalty pass is not so rare, and that, combined with the possibility of a psychic redouble, is a good reason for using the pass as a penalty pass.

In my experience, a psychic redouble after a one of a suit bid is doubled is not common.

[aguahombre]

Fluffy, on Nov 2 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

pass means I wanna play this contract and its the most basic nature of a bid.

Yep. And Takeout doubles are for taking out --if you don't take it out, you don't want to in my partnerships. (But it helps if takeout doubles are not random, so they can be taken out.)

If you have ever brought back minus 430 (1CXX+2) to your teammates' 3NT making 4 ---instead of minus 800, then you might dispute Art's claim that it does not pay for pass of a redouble to be to play.

I don't think a pass should be alertable either way. Soloway brought back a minus 1920 to his teammates on this issue, so it is probably good to discuss.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on Nov 2 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Nov 2 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

pass means I wanna play this contract and its the most basic nature of a bid.

Yep. And Takeout doubles are for taking out --if you don't take it out, you don't want to in my partnerships. (But it helps if takeout doubles are not random, so they can be taken out.)

If you have ever brought back minus 430 (1CXX+2) to your teammates' 3NT making 4 ---instead of minus 800, then you might dispute Art's claim that it does not pay for pass of a redouble to be to play.

I don't think a pass should be alertable either way. Soloway brought back a minus 1920 to his teammates on this issue, so it is probably good to discuss.

I believe that the score for 1Cxx+2 (assuming that means two overtricks) is 630, not 430. 430 would be correct if it is only one overtrick.

The number of times it pays to defend a making redoubled contract are so few to be completely ignored. I had an opportunity once - I doubled Stayman, my opps were foolish enough to play it there redoubled. Unfortunately, my partner misdefended and allowed them an additional overtrick to beat their slam.

So, I am not at all concerned about the possibility that passing the redouble for penalties may be our best option one time in 10000. I am going to play it as not for penalties to cater to the other 9999 hands.

[aguahombre]

Sorry for confusion. I cannot get used to +2 meaning anything other than making 2.

[peachy]

It does matter where -alerting regulations are not laws that are the same all over the world. (and I know you knew that)

The ACBL regs only say this about the subject (I am copying it here for ease of discussion:

= = = = =
PART IV: DOUBLES, REDOUBLES AND PASSES Except for those doubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings, doubles do not require an Alert.

1S-P-4C (splinter bid)-Dbl
If this double asks for the lead of any suit other than clubs, an Alert is required.

1H-Dbl or 1H-P-1S-Dbl
If either double is penalty or lead directing only, an Alert is required.

3H-Dbl or 3H-P-P-Dbl
If either double is penalty, an Alert is required

Passes or redoubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings require an Alert.

1C-P-1S-Dbl- Rdbl
If redouble shows three-card spade support rather than a good hand, an Alert is required.

1S-P-2C-2S- P
If the second Pass says, "I do not want a spade lead on defense," an Alert is required.
= = = = =

Under these rules, your OP first case is alertable in ACBL because it would be unexpected. The rest are a gray area. IMO.

[aguahombre]

"Highly unusual or unexpected". Unexpected by whom? I think for pass not to mean pass would still be a grey area, and it might be difficult for everyone to keep up with the prevailing thinking to know when their lifelong beliefs about things which sound natural have become so unexpected as to become highly unusual.

[kenberg]

Following Aqua, I don't much like this "unexpected" rule in general. The last of the Peach examples can certainly illustrate why.


>1S-P-2C-2S- P
>If the second Pass says, "I do not want a spade lead on defense," an Alert is required.

I cannot remember when if ever, I have encountered that 2S intervention. However, if I am the 2C bidder and I find myself eventually on lead against, say 5H I certainly would be more inclined to lead a spade if partner doubled 2S than if he hadn't.

So if partner does not double 2S, if I don't alert the pass, if I am on lead against 5HX, and I select the king of clubs lead instead of the ace of spades, and it turns out right, then the opponents can claim redress in that they would not have bid 5H if they had been alerted to the fact that the non-double of 2S was discouraging about a spade lead? This is seriously a rule?


I am not generally a suspicious guy but there are times that I think the only possible explanation for some of these rules is that one of the committee members had a bad board and wants to make it look as if it was due to an improper action by the opponents.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL alert regulation also says

Quote

"Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

No, I don't know what that actually means. Except that if something is "highly unusual and unexpected" in a particular part of the ACBL, that doesn't mean it requires an alert.

My take: if your partner makes a call, and you now know something about his hand that you don't expect that your opponents will know, alert it, unless the source of your knowledge is your own hand.

[peachy]

kenberg, on Nov 2 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Following Aqua, I don't much like this "unexpected" rule in general. The last of the Peach examples can certainly illustrate why.

Just to make it clear: the examples in my post are not "mine", I was directly quoting the ACBL regulation which has those examples.

I agree that the regulation term "unexpected" is fuzzy.

[ArtK78]

The term "unexpected" in the regulations is deliberately fuzzy.

But any experienced player should know when the meaning of a particular call that he or she makes would be unexpected to the vast majority of players. It is not about what constitutes expert bridge - it is about what constitutes an unusual agreement of the partnership for an otherwise normal sounding call.

In the context we are discussing, it would be unexpected that the pass in 1♠ - X - XX - Pass would be for penalty. I would be surprised if more than 2% of players who are "experienced tournament players" (there is that fuzzy language again) would play this pass for penalty (and I am being generous with the 2%).

[kenberg]

peachy, on Nov 2 2009, 03:43 PM, said:

kenberg, on Nov 2 2009, 03:18 PM, said:

Following Aqua, I don't much like this "unexpected" rule in general. The last of the Peach examples can certainly illustrate why.

Just to make it clear: the examples in my post are not "mine", I was directly quoting the ACBL regulation which has those examples.

I agree that the regulation term "unexpected" is fuzzy.

Oh I understand that the examples are from acbl! It's scary.

Just what is the expected meaning of the pass in the auction 1S-P-2C-2S- P?

They have been working on this for twenty some years. Maybe more. This is what they have come up with? If passing 2S discourages a spade lead on defense then it has to be alerted?

I truly am flabbergasted!

[aguahombre]

pass to deny a support double is about the only pass which I can think of which should be alerted, because it carries information. Maybe a pass of a Cue of the opening bidder's major --if it really strongly denies anything resembling a decent suit --should be alerted. But, then double should be alerted also --if KXXXX must double, for instance.
I think "expected" is still that pass simply means not wanting to make another call.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on Nov 2 2009, 05:01 PM, said:

pass to deny a support double is about the only pass which I can think of which should be alerted, because it carries information. 

I have been informed by competent ACBL tournament directors that a pass in a support double situation is not alertable. The logic is that if you were not playing support doubles the pass would mean the same thing, as a player holding 3 card support would raise.

Similarly, the raise in a support double situation is not alertable as a player not playing support doubles would make the same bid, even though the information conveyed by the raise is more specific.

If a player makes a support double, that is alertable. But the raise and the pass are not alertable.

Whether you agree with this or not is not the issue.

[aguahombre]

Wow, I am glad you added the last sentence, since none of the supporting logic is even close to reasonable. Will just let it go, and be thankful that most players who use support doubles disclose related calls.

[rbforster]

aguahombre, on Nov 2 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

Wow, I am glad you added the last sentence, since none of the supporting logic is even close to reasonable. Will just let it go, and be thankful that most players who use support doubles disclose related calls.

The ACBL used to require alerts for both the P and X in support double situations. Since then, the negative inference is no longer alertable; like it or not the current word from the ACBL is to alert only the support X, but not the P or raise.