[TimG]

awm, on Dec 27 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

Honestly I find the pairs with index cards annoying. So do a lot of other people. There are frequent demands for them to "take those off the table" and so forth. Plus it's just one more thing to lose when walking around the room.

My experience is that those who are truly interested in the pre-alert appreciate the cards. I think it is easier for someone to read at the speed with which they process the information rather than process at the speed with which someone verbalizes the information.

I do not think the cards serve to take the place of a verbal pre-alert. But, I do think that saying something along the lines of "we have to pre-alert X, Y and Z, the details are on the cards" serves to meet the regulation that pre-alerts must be verbalized.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Dec 26 2009, 03:38 PM, said:

Vampyr, on Dec 26 2009, 06:25 AM, said:

Quote

  And should 1M-2m be alerted because it promises a 5-card suit (most players only promise 4, and 1♠-2♣ can occasionally be bid with 3=4=3=3 if you don't have another way to show this shape with GF+ values)?

I shouldn't have thought so; I don't think that an alert can possibly be required for a natural, forcing bid.

I think that it probably should be alertable, but I doubt whether it is. Anywhere.

It is alertable in England, so I think the approach is flawed.

A natural 2/1 is alertable in England if it promises 5 cards in the suit? I am surprised. Also I cannot find it in the Orange Book.

[richlp]

TimG, on Dec 26 2009, 09:32 AM, said:

Vampyr, on Dec 26 2009, 12:25 AM, said:

I shouldn't have thought so; I don't think that an alert can possibly be required for a natural, forcing bid.

Isn't an old-fashioned strong, natural and forcing 2♥ opening bid alertable in ACBL-land?

Yes. And a strong, forcing, natural 2♣ is also.

I play very rarely now, perhpas two sessions a year and that with my old college roommate. We play Goren and get the strangest looks when 2♣ is first alerted and then explained.

[barmar]

When ACBL first made negative doubles non-alertable, I would play in some tournaments with a rubber bridge crony, and we liked to play our rubber bridge standard, which had very few conventions (Stayman, weak 2, Blackwood, and takeout doubles, IIRC). So we would alert these doubles, and the opponents would remind us that NegX is no longer alertable, and then we'd say "we know."

[Vampyr]

barmar, on Dec 28 2009, 07:02 PM, said:

When ACBL first made negative doubles non-alertable, I would play in some tournaments with a rubber bridge crony, and we liked to play our rubber bridge standard, which had very few conventions (Stayman, weak 2, Blackwood, and takeout doubles, IIRC).  So we would alert these doubles, and the opponents would remind us that NegX is no longer alertable, and then we'd say "we know."

Presumably when the ACBL made negative doubles non-alertable, they added an alert to penalty doubles?

[barmar]

Yes, they basically flipped the alertabilities.

[blackshoe]

I've had this happen: I open 1NT, partner bids 2NT (transfer to ♦), I alert, opp says "you're supposed to say 'transfer'. "No, sorry, I"m not."