[f0rdy]

---

My question is: Is a 1M response which can systematically be made on a 3 card suit an alertable call in the EBU?

This pair were playing that a 1c - 2c raise showed 6.5-9.5 points and support, and 3c showed a weaker, pre-emptive, raise. They went onto explain (after the hand) that this meant if they had a hand with 10+, club support and no other 4 card suit, they would invent a suit and show delayed support.
Does this qualify as having a "potentially unexpected meaning", and is there some condition on frequency given here? If they were only bidding a 3 card major with exactly 3325 and 10-12 points (for instance), would the answer be the same?

I've posted the hand, but I no longer think it's relevant; I think the play that I took because of my misconception of the hand is actually no-win, so we weren't damaged.

(The situation was that the defenders had played the K8 and A2 of hearts, I had drawn one round of trumps and discovered the split, and they had returned clubs when they got in; no-one had played any diamonds. A spade from hand went to the Q and a spade was returned, which I took in dummy. I then led a high heart, planning to throw diamonds if W failed to cover from his "known holding" of Q6. Clearly this doesn't gain, as he can't fail to cover twice without revoking. In any case, I was very surprised when E won the trick, and went an extra trick down to make the sack against 6C (teams of 8, IMPS scoring) slightly less effective)

[pran]

f0rdy, on 2010-November-14, 15:42, said:

---

My question is: Is a 1M response which can systematically be made on a 3 card suit an alertable call in the EBU?

This pair were playing that a 1c - 2c raise showed 6.5-9.5 points and support, and 3c showed a weaker, pre-emptive, raise. They went onto explain (after the hand) that this meant if they had a hand with 10+, club support and no other 4 card suit, they would invent a suit and show delayed support.
Does this qualify as having a "potentially unexpected meaning", and is there some condition on frequency given here? If they were only bidding a 3 card major with exactly 3325 and 10-12 points (for instance), would the answer be the same?

I've posted the hand, but I no longer think it's relevant; I think the play that I took because of my misconception of the hand is actually no-win, so we weren't damaged.

(The situation was that the defenders had played the K8 and A2 of hearts, I had drawn one round of trumps and discovered the split, and they had returned clubs when they got in; no-one had played any diamonds. A spade from hand went to the Q and a spade was returned, which I took in dummy. I then led a high heart, planning to throw diamonds if W failed to cover from his "known holding" of Q6. Clearly this doesn't gain, as he can't fail to cover twice without revoking. In any case, I was very surprised when E won the trick, and went an extra trick down to make the sack against 6C (teams of 8, IMPS scoring) slightly less effective)

The bid must be alerted in Norway.

The exact rule is (my translation): New suit that by agreement may contain less than 4 cards must be alerted (a minor suit that can contain 3 cards need no alert, but this agreement must be entered on the front page of the CC)

[blackshoe]

Heh. Norway is part of the EBU now?

As I read the current OB, this bid requires an alert, because without the club support, they wouldn't make this response. Or so I infer.

[Zelandakh]

I cannot even find where the Orange Book allows these bids so I think it is safe to say they are alertable.

Quote

11 D Responses to One of a Suit Opening Bids
Allowed at Levels 2, 3 and 4
11 D 1 General
(a) Any response which is always game forcing is permitted.
(b.) Any response showing at least four cards in the suit bid is permitted, as is a
natural response in no trumps. Such responses may be forcing or non-forcing.
(c.) Any response which shows support for partner and at least the values for game
opposite an opening which is a king above a minimum is permitted.
(d) Any natural raise in opener’s suit is permitted; this may show fewer than four
cards in the suit bid.
11 D 2 To a 1C/D opening
The following responses are also permitted:
11 PERMITTED AGREEMENTS
49
A 1D or 1H response to 1C
and a 1H or 1S response to 1D
may be played as
(a) artificial, negative or semi-negative; or
(b.) any agreed meaning, game forcing.

[nige1]

If you need to alert a possible 3-card response at the one-level
e.g. 1♣ - 1♦/♥/♠
Then does the same apply to the two-level?
e.g. 1♠ - 2♣/♦
The latter bids are made by most Acol players, when they hold hands like
♠ xxx ♥ AKxx ♦ xxx ♣ KQx or
♠ xxx ♥ KJxx ♦ AKJ ♣ xxx

All these bids are alertable, IMO, because they are systemic and not general Bridge knowledge.
Also, IMO, the OP was damaged in the play,

[jallerton]

Zelandakh, on 2010-November-14, 20:21, said:

I cannot even find where the Orange Book allows these bids so I think it is safe to say they are alertable.

The text you quote relates to Level 2 events. Most EBU events are played at Level 3 or Level 4

EBU Orange Book 2006 said:

11D8 Allowed at Levels 3 and 4
11 D 8 Developments
All responses and continuations are allowed with or without intervention.

[jallerton]

In response to the original question, the answer is contained in the EBU Orange Book:

Quote

5 E Basic alerting rules
5 E 1 Passes and bids
Unless it is announceable (see 5 C and 5 D), a pass or bid must be alerted if
(a) it is not natural; or
( it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.

Quote

5 F ‘Natural’ bids and passes
5 F 1 The following are considered ‘natural’ for alerting purposes:
(a) A bid of a suit which shows that suit and does not show any other suit; the suit
shown will be at least three cards long except that preference bids and raises
may be on shorter suits. Note that in the earlier rounds of bidding a natural suit
bid usually shows at least four cards.

Although the 3-card major responses might come under the definition of "natural", they certainly have a "potentially unexpected meaning", so should be alerted under ( [if not (a)].

I don't agree with Nigel about the 3433 hands in response to 1♠. These 2♣ bids are natural under the above definition and the normal Acol meaning is not a "potentially unexpected meaning" in Acol-land!

[Zelandakh]

jallerton, on 2010-November-15, 00:26, said:

The text you quote relates to Level 2 events. Most EBU events are played at Level 3 or Level 4

I suspected there was another section (if for no other reason than the rules I found would make my system illegal!) but I looked around and couldn't see it. It has been a while since I waded through the OB. Thanks for finding it. I would have thought the majority of bids (or all perhaps?) that are only available at Level 3 or above are alertable since by definition they carry an unusual message (assuming that the Level 2 message is 'normal').

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2010-November-14, 17:08, said:

Heh. Norway is part of the EBU now?

No, but I must admit I frequently mix EBU and EBL; sorry for this mixup.

Still we are both part of WBF and our alert regulation is (as far as I know) directly derived from the WBF regulations. Is the EBU regulation not also?

[iviehoff]

If you had to alert a change of suit response just because from time to time people manufacture a response on a 3-cd suit, everyone would have to alert everything all the time. For example, there is the delayed game raise in Acol, to indicate that a game raise is of full value, not stretched and distributional. To make one, we sometimes manufacture a 3-cd response. And Acol players don't alert their responses in respect of that.

The key question is, does opener hold back from raising hearts because of the risk responder might only have a 3-cd suit? Only in this case is it alertable. If bidding 3-cd suits is your own problem, then you don't alert it. There are not enough bids available for bidding systems to be complete.

As has been said before, more or less, bidding agreements are a loose arrangement with partner, not a contract with the opposition.

[phil_20686]

I am no expert on the laws, but with a good hand and a 4cM with 5+ clubs, even in sayc and 2/1 a lot of people will bid 1M opposite 1C. Is 1C-1M alterable if you do this? Can be the case if for example you dont play inverted minors, or if inverted minors promise no 4cM? It seems like the only grounds for an alert is that the club length is "potentially unexpected" but this would mean that 1c-1M is always alertable if it may contain longer clubs? I realise that in EBu land 1c-1M is alertable if it may contain longer diamonds, so maybe that is consitent, but if I respond 1d-1M I would normally expect that i can have longer clubs if not GF. Or maybe longer diamonds even if GF. So i dont see what the issue is here?

I do think that they should have prealerted/ clearly displayed, that 1M responses can be 3 cards. There is a section on the convention card for "unusual aspects of which opposition should take note" specifically for things like this.....

[phil_20686]

I used to play 1c = any weak nt w/o a 5cM was forcing with a 1d response 0-7, and pretty sure I was told by an EBU tournament director that 1c-1d-1M (showing a wk nt with 3+ cards, or natural 5+clubs 4+) was non-alertable (used to play 1c-1d-1N = 18-19).

[campboy]

phil_20686, on 2010-November-15, 06:21, said:

I used to play 1c = any weak nt w/o a 5cM was forcing with a 1d response 0-7, and pretty sure I was told by an EBU tournament director that 1c-1d-1M (showing a wk nt with 3+ cards, or natural 5+clubs 4+) was non-alertable (used to play 1c-1d-1N = 18-19).

I think that is correct, but the regulation which covers this case doesn't cover the original case. OB5G3h: "Players should not alert [...] an ostensibly natural new suit rebid that may on occasion only contain three cards."

[bluejak]

Zelandakh, on 2010-November-15, 00:59, said:

I suspected there was another section (if for no other reason than the rules I found would make my system illegal!) but I looked around and couldn't see it. It has been a while since I waded through the OB. Thanks for finding it. I would have thought the majority of bids (or all perhaps?) that are only available at Level 3 or above are alertable since by definition they carry an unusual message (assuming that the Level 2 message is 'normal').

An interesting view, though I am not sure it is relevant. I would have thought the majority of agreements only permitted at Level 3+ are artificial and alertable as a result. However there are a few, and the one that leaps to mind is an opening one of a suit bid: this may be weaker at Level 3 than Level 2 and is certainly not alertable.

So, if some [even if a minority] of natural agreements that may only be played at level 3+ are not alertable then it is not a helpful rule for deciding what is alertable.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2010-November-15, 03:24, said:

No, but I must admit I frequently mix EBU and EBL; sorry for this mixup.

Still we are both part of WBF and our alert regulation is (as far as I know) directly derived from the WBF regulations. Is the EBU regulation not also?

WBF regulations were decided for international standard players playing behind screens. It is the EBU's view, with which I completely agree, that this type of alerting is totally unsuited for club players.

[hrothgar]

I often find it useful to use certain Polish club sequences as a test case:

For example, playing the version of Polish Club documented in Matula's book, the uncontested auction

1♣ - 1♦
1♥

and rarely

1♣ - 1♦
1♠

can be bid with a three card fragment. It would be interesting to understand whether folks believe that this example is the same as or different from the delayed raise example. (And if so, why)

[TimG]

hrothgar, on 2010-November-15, 12:29, said:

I often find it useful to use certain Polish club sequences as a test case:

For example, playing the version of Polish Club documented in Matula's book, the uncontested auction

1♣ - 1♦
1♥

and rarely

1♣ - 1♦
1♠

can be bid with a three card fragment.

The copy of WJ05 that I own advocates the occasional major suit rebid on a doubleton. Perhaps not explicitly, but ♠K4 ♥AJ ♦8542 ♣AJT65 is given as an example of a 1♣ preparatory variant: "The 'systemic' 1♦ opening could be put in the category of a psyche bid. Since we don't like to joke around, we open 1♣, and over partner's major suit response we rebid 1NT." There is no specific mention of what to do over partner's 1♦ response with this hand, but the systemic rebid with the preparatory variant is 1M.

[campboy]

hrothgar, on 2010-November-15, 12:29, said:

I often find it useful to use certain Polish club sequences as a test case:

For example, playing the version of Polish Club documented in Matula's book, the uncontested auction

1♣ - 1♦
1♥

and rarely

1♣ - 1♦
1♠

can be bid with a three card fragment. It would be interesting to understand whether folks believe that this example is the same as or different from the delayed raise example. (And if so, why)

I've already answered this question: it is different because of the regulation saying such rebids are not alertable, which does not mention responses.

[FrancesHinden]

I think it is alertable for the same reason as Jallerton. When trying to decide what should be alerted, I always go back to the reason we have an alerting policy: to stop one pair knowing more about the auction than the other. I go right back to the introduction to the alerting rules:

"The purpose of alerting and announcing is to draw the opponents’ attention to any call by partner that may have a special meaning."
(this is very similar to the wording of the WBF regulation).
The rest of the EBU's alerting policy is an attempt to define what constitutes a "special meaning" when playing in England. The regulation already quoted "a pass or bid must be alerted if...it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning" is relevant here. The problem is, of course, that "unexpected" is in the minds of the opponents which are not always known to us, so the rest of the OB regulations give a number of examples and cases. These are all subsidiary to the fundamental rule: you alert if your opponents would not expect the bid to mean what it does.

In my experience, in England, a possible 3-card major suit response at the 1-level is very unexpected if it is a systemic call, even if it is a specific hand type. If your system of responses to 1m is such that you are forced to bid a 3-card major in certain circumstances, I think that is alertable. This is not the same as inventing a 3-card response as a once-off, for example if you had xxx KQx xxx Kxxx and responded 1H to 1C in the hope that partner rebid 1NT (although if you did this repeatedly it would become an implicit agreement).

A 2C response to 1S is slightly different. All (English) players know this could be a game-forcing 3=4=3=3 hand. (In fact, the OB specifically says this is not alertable.) If you play the current trendy approach of responding 2C on all balanced hands, including 3343s, then I think it becomes alertable.


Oddly enough, a ruling based exactly on this alerting question influenced the final result of the English Premier League this weekend*. However the PL is played using screens and uses the WBF alerting policy to the decision there isn't directly applicable to this question.

*I refuse to say "decided" the final result, the event was 420 boards long so there must have been plenty of other boards that could have swung sufficient imps to change the eventual winners.

[FrancesHinden]

iviehoff, on 2010-November-15, 03:58, said:

If you had to alert a change of suit response just because from time to time people manufacture a response on a 3-cd suit, everyone would have to alert everything all the time. For example, there is the delayed game raise in Acol, to indicate that a game raise is of full value, not stretched and distributional. To make one, we sometimes manufacture a 3-cd response. And Acol players don't alert their responses in respect of that.

The key question is, does opener hold back from raising hearts because of the risk responder might only have a 3-cd suit? Only in this case is it alertable. If bidding 3-cd suits is your own problem, then you don't alert it. There are not enough bids available for bidding systems to be complete.

As has been said before, more or less, bidding agreements are a loose arrangement with partner, not a contract with the opposition.

Your first sentence is completely false. As a general rule, people do not respond in 3-card suits. If they are required to do so as part of their system, then I think it is alertable. No common natural-based system ever _requires_ a 3-card 1M response to 1m. If you choose to agree that you respond on a 3-card suit in specific instances that of course if up to you, but your opponents deserve to know you are doing it.