[dickiegera]

I am reading that a 2 level OC with less than 10 HCP is alertable.
Also if by partnership agreement if this is done frequently must
be Pre-alerted.

Is this correct??
Thank you

[paulg]

Alerts vary greatly, but the ACBL Alert Procedures say

Quote

Unusual overcalls, including the tendency to overcall at the two level frequently with a suit of fewer than five cards or with less than two-over-one values (approximately 10 HCP), must be Alerted.

It would seem sensible to pre-alert too, as a highly aggressive (in ACBL terms) method.

Paul

[bluejak]

Ye gods!

How long have I been playing in the ACBL? Ten years? More?

I would overcall 2♣ over 1♠ on

xx
xx
Jxxx
KQT9x

quite routinely not vulnerable: it has never occurred to me to alert or pre-alert!

[Trinidad]

And you are talking about a 2♣ overcall of a 1♠ opening.

Think of people's 2♣ overcalls of 1♦ openings. This means about anyone on the BBO forums must prealert and say that their 2 level overcalls can be wild or outrageous.



Rik

[duschek]

bluejak, on Oct 8 2009, 08:54 AM, said:

I would overcall 2♣  over 1♠ on

xx
xx
Jxxx
KQT9x

And while that may not be everyone's cup of tea, I cannot see passing xx Axx xx KQT9xx, which amounts to 9 HCP, certainly being less than 10 HCP.

However - and I do apologise - it seems we are about to hijack a thread in which the OP tried to learn what the rules are, not whether those rules are sensible.

Edit: Reading the ACBL regulations quoted by cardsharp makes it clear to me that overcalls on good hands with less than 10 HCP - such as the one I just sketched - are not alertable (fortunately).

[aguahombre]

duschek, on Oct 8 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

However - and I do apologise - it seems we are about to hijack a thread in which the OP tried to learn what the rules are, not whether those rules are sensible.

I am not as sure as you what the OP is asking.

He talks about a 2-level overcall with less than 10 being alerted. Since it is partner who does the alerting, does he mean "could be less than ten"? or does he mean that by agreement the overcall shows less than 10?

If it happens often enough that there is a question about alerting, then I don't see the difference between the frequency of just alerting and of pre-alerting.

[peachy]

You are getting the right information. They are alertable/pre-alertable in ACBL, by the ACBL Alert Regulations - if it is a partnership agreement. Also note that even if there is no partnership agreement about it at the beginning of the game and it is not alertable, there will be an implicit agreement after it happens a couple of times, after which it becomes alertable.

[bluejak]

Having read the regulation again, I am not so sure my overcalls are alertable. The word 'frequently' seems the key.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Oct 8 2009, 05:17 PM, said:

Having read the regulation again, I am not so sure my overcalls are alertable.  The word 'frequently' seems the key.

Could you elaborate? Are you saying, supposing you overcall on 6 counts with a good 5 card suit on the 2 level any chance you get, that it's not alertable because such hands occur infrequently?

[bluejak]

It is an unclear regulation. If your normal range of overcalls is from 7 HCP to 12 HCP, then I think that is alertable. However, if you play them fairly vague in the modern style where you might have 16 or even 18 points on a good day, down to a minimum of a pretty rare 8, I do not think that counts as 'frequently'.

However, the regulation may be read in more than one way anyway.

Quote

Unusual overcalls, including the tendency to overcall at the two level frequently with a suit of fewer than five cards or with less than two-over-one values (approximately 10 HCP), must be Alerted.

This could mean

Quote

Unusual overcalls, including the tendency to overcall at the two level frequently with a suit of fewer than five cards
or
to overcall at the two level frequently with less than two-over-one values (approximately 10 HCP), must be Alerted.

which is how I read it after thought. But I suppose it could mean

Quote

Unusual overcalls, including the tendency to overcall at the two level frequently with a suit of fewer than five cards
or
to overcall with less than two-over-one values (approximately 10 HCP), must be Alerted.

I think for my overcalls to be alertable, the regulation would read:

Quote

Unusual overcalls, including the agreement to overcall at the two level with less than two-over-one values (approximately 10 HCP), must be Alerted.

But I am not sure.

[Chris3875]

ABF Alerting Regulations state - Do not alert any single suited overcalls showing only the suit named, whether weak, strong or intermediate.

[barmar]

bluejak, on Oct 8 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

Quote

Unusual overcalls, including the tendency to overcall at the two level frequently with a suit of fewer than five cards
or
to overcall at the two level frequently with less than two-over-one values (approximately 10 HCP), must be Alerted.

which is how I read it after thought. But I suppose it could mean

Quote

Unusual overcalls, including the tendency to overcall at the two level frequently with a suit of fewer than five cards
or
to overcall with less than two-over-one values (approximately 10 HCP), must be Alerted.

English is ambiguous unless you go to great lengths, but I think the second interpretation is extremely unlikely. It just doesn't seem to fit with the intent of that bit of regulation. Why would one case have to be frequent, but the other one not?

I know, trying to apply logic to ACBL regulations is dangerous. But I'm an incurable optimist and try to give the authors the benefit of the doubt.

[jdonn]

Whatever happened to the principle of alerting what your opponents are unlikely to expect, bids that have highly unusual or unexpected meanings? How is xx xx Jxxx KQT9x at all normal or possibly within the range of what they would expect for a 2 level overcall? It's quite possible I have played more hands of bridge in my entire life than anyone on the forums, certainly up near the top, and I can't recall a single instance of a 2 level overcall that light on a 5 card suit. David is obviously far more of an authority on this topic than I will ever be so my opinion may not matter, but I really think you are missing the boat here. All the analysis of the words in the world has nothing to do with it.

Even if you were using the rule itself, you think your style isn't too light "frequently" even though you yourself said you do it "quite routinely"? If I didn't know already that your intent was pure, which I do and as such this is only hypothetical, I would think you are just playing games to get away with something. Or have I misunderstood and after reading this regulation you now realize it was alertable all along? Fair enough but I just can't believe it took a regulation to realize it.

[mjj29]

jdonn, on Oct 9 2009, 02:58 AM, said:

Even if you were using the rule itself, you think your style isn't too light "frequently" even though you yourself said you do it "quite routinely"?

Well, in this case it may not affect your point, but 'routinely' and 'frequently' are somewhat orthogonal. I routinely open solid minor hands with no outside tricks 3NT, but I certainly wouldn't say I do so frequently. I'd also routinely open our both-majors preempt with KJTx KJTx x xxxx, at the right colours and position, but I'm not sure it's ever happenned, so I certainly don't do it frequently.

I'd say the only thing about that regulation which leaves the alertability of 2 level overcalls in doubt for a pair that would overcall on x xxx Qxxx KQJTx is the definition of 'frequently'. If it's a rare occurance, then don't alert. If it's not, then you should be alerting, even if you think it's obvious that you would overcall with that hand. I would not be surprised if this means that bluejak has to alert his two-level overcalls in the ACBL. One can argue the definition of 'frequently' of course, but I'd expect if you don't feel some amount of surprise because you were kinda hoping for a bit more from partner when he puts down such a hand you should definitely be alerting it, although possibly only if P is overcalling green against red.

[bluejak]

Do you frequently open at the 1-level on a 9-count? No, of course not. But if I offer you the perfect hand, maybe

AJTxxx
AT9xxx
x
--

do you routinely open it? Yes, of course.

My impression of the alerting regulation - especially the word 'frequently' is that if you play overcalls as weak they should be alerted, but if you play overcalls as wide range they do not need to be. I play them wide range, not weak.

jdonn Posted on Oct 9 2009, on 08:58 AM, said:

Whatever happened to the principle of alerting what your opponents are unlikely to expect, bids that have highly unusual or unexpected meanings?

It was found very early on to be an inadequate method of deciding what needed to be alerted since everyone had different ideas so it was replaced, certainly below international level, by more detailed regulations.

Chris3875, on Oct 9 2009, 06:47 AM, said:

ABF Alerting Regulations state - Do not alert any single suited overcalls showing only the suit named, whether weak, strong or intermediate.

No doubt, but different jurisdictions have different alerting rules, and the question was about North American alerting. In general Australia is a lot freer on what people may and may not play, and that affects the alerting rules.

[jdonn]

bluejak, on Oct 9 2009, 08:03 AM, said:

jdonn Posted on Oct 9 2009, on 08:58 AM, said:

Whatever happened to the principle of alerting what your opponents are unlikely to expect, bids that have highly unusual or unexpected meanings?

It was found very early on to be an inadequate method of deciding what needed to be alerted since everyone had different ideas so it was replaced, certainly below international level, by more detailed regulations.

The principle of alerting what your opponents are unlikely to expect should still be used to alert bids that may not be alertable by regulation, but not be used to fail to alert bids that would be alertable by regulation. That is absolute common sense. I believe it masquerades as the principle of full disclosure.

[jeremy69]

Quite a good example came up recently in England. Someone was playing a double of a weak two was for take out BUT it was limited to a maximum of 15 points. The regulations are clear that this is not alertable but there was quite a strong feeling from some that they would alert anyway because they knew something that their opponents did not and ought to disclose it. (Mind you there was also the feeling that wild horses could not drag them to play this particular toy.) It ought also, of course, to be on the convention card but it would not necessarily be the sort of thing you would look for.

[bluejak]

jdonn, on Oct 9 2009, 04:27 PM, said:

bluejak, on Oct 9 2009, 08:03 AM, said:

jdonn Posted on Oct 9 2009, on 08:58 AM, said:

Whatever happened to the principle of alerting what your opponents are unlikely to expect, bids that have highly unusual or unexpected meanings?

It was found very early on to be an inadequate method of deciding what needed to be alerted since everyone had different ideas so it was replaced, certainly below international level, by more detailed regulations.

The principle of alerting what your opponents are unlikely to expect should still be used to alert bids that may not be alertable by regulation, but not be used to fail to alert bids that would be alertable by regulation. That is absolute common sense. I believe it masquerades as the principle of full disclosure.

The trouble with assuming you know better than the framers of the regulations is that in many situations it causes trouble. Breaking regulations because you know better is certainly not commonsense because you are looking at a specific case and not the overall picture.

And it certainly is not correct Full Disclosure: Full Disclosure is to make sure that opponents know what you are playing as far as possible within the framework laid down by the RA or TO. When you go outside that framework you are likely to cause two sorts of trouble, which might be called general and specific.

The specific problem is that you do play against opponents who expect regulations to be followed. Thus you are deliberately confusing such players by ignoring the regulations which they know and understand.

The general problem is that people who ignore regulations over a period of time cause general problems to the use of those regulations. This can be seen with the Stop regulations which is a fair means of controlling a specific abuse at tournament level, but is a much poorer method at club level because people do not know the regulations, or - worse in my view - do know them but choose not to follow them. A similar problem is created by people who do not follow the alerting regulations.

There is a player who has been employed by the EBU in a commercial post. One of his little quirks is to alert anything "if his partner's call tells him some information his opponents may not be aware of". This means that in a sequence such as 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♠ -2NT - 3♦ - 3NT he alerts every single bid and fondly believes he is following the principles of Full Disclosure. Of course playing against him it just becomes noise, so players do not ask anything at all. He would be shocked if you suggested his ethics were anything but the very highest.

[cherdanno]

Bluejak's style is unusual enough in the ACBL that I think it is very clear you should alert it, whether the regulations explicitly call for it or not. It is not "the modern style" to bid with such a hand. I have seen 8 hcp 2-level overcalls with a AKJxxxx suit, or with a nice 9-count and 64 shape, but a 6-count with a 5-card suit is clearly beyond the normal variation in style. (Heck, I am sure you could find plenty of TDs who would ask you to alert when you overcall at the ONE level with this hand.)

Also, if you really overcall 2♣ with this hand, then either our judgment about suitability for overcalls differs a lot from mine, or you DO overcall frequently with less than 10 hcp.

[jdonn]

I suggested common sense, by name, and you replied with the story of the player who alerts every bid. Just perhaps, that isn't a plausible example of common sense!

I've heard you speak of common sense in interpreting regulations before, even if it means a potential dispute about the literal wording, and I completely agree. In fact I thought it was refreshing to hear that from such an authority on the laws as, despite being a non-expert about the laws, it has long been my general viewpoint. I have also seen you apply it to a number of threads, and almost universally agreed.

But you are simply being blind to applying it to yourself. You play a style that is very unusual. Your partnership is aware of it and the opponents aren't. It is information that the opponents are very likely to want to be aware of. It sounds like exactly the reason a system of alerts was invented!