[dickiegera]

My favorite partner & I play 2/1 with a 10-12 pt balanced opening 1 NT in 1st & 2nd seat.
With 15-17 pts balanced we open 1 club and rebid 1 NT [or raise partner major]. With 13-14 pts balanced we open 1 diamond and rebid as we would in a normal 2/1 auction.

Question

Sometimes the 1 Club or 1 Diamond bid will be a short suit which we announce.
We announce the 10-12 pt NT as "10-12 pts"
We alert the 1NT in the 1 Club-1X-1NT bidding as "15-17pts".

Is there anything else we should be alerting or announcing or have we covered everything?

Thank you

[aguahombre]

Since your (maybe short) 1C opening is not necessarily the 4=4=3=2 hand which was recently declared "natural", I believe you must pre-alert so that the opponents may know they are allowed to use mid-chart defenses to the opening club bid as you play it.

[awm]

Assuming ACBL here from context...

Very few things require pre alert. This method would not be one of them. Original post seems to cover the required alerts.

[aguahombre]

awm, on 2011-December-07, 20:42, said:

Assuming ACBL here from context...

Very few things require pre alert. This method would not be one of them. Original post seems to cover the required alerts.

If you are right about that, then the obvious question would be: how are the opponents to know before it is too late to agree on their defenses? If the answer is that they are just out of luck, O.K. We will live with that loophole as long as it exists, prepare in advance for the in-auction announcement, make sure the 1C opening style is not the "natural" one, and use the mid-chart defenses we chose. Those less prepared for the situation can fend for themselves.

[awm]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-07, 21:20, said:

If you are right about that, then the obvious question would be: how are the opponents to know before it is too late to agree on their defenses? If the answer is that they are just out of luck, O.K. We will live with that loophole as long as it exists, prepare in advance for the in-auction announcement, make sure the 1C opening style is not the "natural" one, and use the mid-chart defenses we chose. Those less prepared for the situation can fend for themselves.

You are expected to have your defenses to artificial 1m openings ready before the event. Calls like strong club, polish club, and precision diamond are extremely common in serious events.

Pre-alerts are only required for systems which involve opening very light, or which may be fundamentally unfamiliar to the opponents, or which include mid-chart methods. None of these apply here.

Similarly, one is not required to pre-alert playing 12-14 notrump even though the opponents might want to agree on a different defense to that method than they play against 15-17 notrump. Not everything that opponents might want a defense against requires a pre-alert.

[ggwhiz]

In ACBL speedballs I am often greeted with "hi opps, we play blah blah blah", appreciate it and respond accordingly.

Do you want to be merely legal or a player that a whole bunch of us automatically respect.

A concise statement of your methods would do the trick above and beyond what is required by law.

[Cascade]

"The objective of the Alert system is for both pairs at the table to have equal access to all information contained in any auction. "

This is the first statement in the ACBL alert procedures.

I wonder just how we achieve this "equal access" if material differences from some notional standard are not alerted nor announced nor prealerted (and further in some cases are difficult if not impossible to find on the system card)?

[blackshoe]

Your opponents' system card is there for your benefit. You would do well to look it over at the start of a round. In spite of that, most people don't, and some (foolishly IMO) seem proud of that fact.

[paulg]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-07, 22:29, said:

Your opponents' system card is there for your benefit. You would do well to look it over at the start of a round. In spite of that, most people don't, and some (foolishly IMO) seem proud of that fact.

Most people don't and, more importantly, they don't expect you to either. Basically needs an operation to extract it from them. It is a fundamental difference in attitude between the US and UK in my experience. Of course, 99% of the ACBL cards say the same thing, which is why it tends to be less important.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-07, 22:29, said:

Your opponents' system card is there for your benefit. You would do well to look it over at the start of a round. In spite of that, most people don't, and some (foolishly IMO) seem proud of that fact.

My point is that there is much important information which you never or at best seldom find on a system card.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2011-December-08, 04:06, said:

My point is that there is much important information which you never or at best seldom find on a system card.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying ACBL disclosure regulations are flawed. What else is new?

[mycroft]

I would make clear at the end of the auction if we're declaring that 1♦-1M; 1NT is 13-14, as most would play it as "decent 11-14", and that might be important in the defence. The way the Alert regs are written currently, it's not an Alert - and frankly, it's not a big deal during the auction, that negative inference; especially given the things that are specifically not Alertable from negative inferences (like 1NT-2red; accept "partner *will not* have 4 trump").

If they ask about the 1m announcements, "could be 2" is insufficient however; "3+ clubs or 15-17 BAL" and "3+ diamonds or 13-14 BAL" is more correct. But you *announce* (for the moment) "could be short".

Yeah, depending on what happened with "short" and "natural" in Seattle, that could change in January. I hope it becomes two different announcements, rather than "could be short" == 4=4=3=2 and "alert" everything else; I think that will make the Alert of 1♣ much less useful. But I'm not on the ACBLLC or the ACBL BoD...

[blackshoe]

The LC has little to do with it. The alert regulation is the responsibility of the Competitions and Conventions committee.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-07, 19:57, said:

Since your (maybe short) 1C opening is not necessarily the 4=4=3=2 hand which was recently declared "natural", I believe you must pre-alert so that the opponents may know they are allowed to use mid-chart defenses to the opening club bid as you play it.

Others have pointed out this is not pre-alertable. But note the 4=4=3=2 1♣ is not natural until 1st Jan 12.

It is going to be very difficult under proposed regulations to find out what defence we can play to a short 1♣.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-December-08, 23:41, said:

Others have pointed out this is not pre-alertable. But note the 4=4=3=2 1♣ is not natural until 1st Jan 12.

It is going to be very difficult under proposed regulations to find out what defence we can play to a short 1♣.

Actually, what defence we can play against the various short club styles is clear. Only the 4=4=3=2 variant will be deemed "natural".

Determining before play starts, which short club version is being used will be the burden of the opponents who would like to know that.

One thing is quite predictable. There will be pairs who will disclose or predisclose the minimum required by the RA; and there will be others who will go further. Neither group will be violating regulations.

OP asked what they "should" do. They must do what is required. What they should do is a matter of personal value judgement.

[mycroft]

I would like to believe you are correct, AH. What I hope will happen (frankly, what I have hoped would happen for about 15 years now) is that this particular issue of "short minors and 'anything goes' defences to conventions" will be *spelled out* so that TDs have something official and written to point to when the issue comes up (and so we don't get different rulings from different TDs). I also hope that it will be immediately clear on the bid, wwhether it's 4=4=3=2 or "clubs or balanced" or "montreal relay" or whatever else "natural" that "could be short". I further hope it won't be by making all the rest of the "short clubs" Alertable, because that will be a right pain. Now, for some reason I'm channelling the Stones here.

What happened in Toronto was that they deemed "4=4=3=2" 1♣ to be natural, *but didn't say anything about the other hands*. Seattle BoD motions seem to make clear that they are going to go with "any other short minor is conventional", but I've been wrong before about what they decide to rule, based on what they seem to want to say - and I've been wrong before about what the C&C committee decide to do about it.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-09, 07:24, said:

Actually, what defence we can play against the various short club styles is clear. Only the 4=4=3=2 variant will be deemed "natural".

Determining before play starts, which short club version is being used will be the burden of the opponents who would like to know that.

Determining before play starts will not be easy: we are talking about the ACBL. Which do you suggest:

• Looking at the SC which is on the lady's lap?
  
• Asking "Is your 1♣ natural?" and getting the answer "Huh?"
  
• Looking at the SC which does not exist?
  
• Saying "Do you only open a short club on 4=4=3=2?" and getting the answer "I haven't bid yet"?
  
• Looking at their SC which does not show when they open a short club?
  
• Something else: if so, what?

[blackshoe]

"May I see your System Card, please?"
"We don't have one"
"Director, please!"

I once had a lady tell me "I left it in the car", when her partner didn't have one. Sorry, lady, your problem, not mine. At tournaments, I'd expect the TD to apply the "no card" regulation. At clubs, I'd expect the TD to give me a ration of s**t for calling her at all.

If I were asking a general question before the round started, I'd ask "would you please explain your partnership agreement with regard to a 1♣ opening?" If they balk, I'd call the TD and explain that we may need to review our defense, which may differ depending on the answer.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-09, 07:24, said:

Determining before play starts, which short club version is being used will be the burden of the opponents who would like to know that.

If they open 1♣ and you do not know then the information about their system is not equally available to both sides - ACBL Alert procedures. I believe the burden is on the person making the bid make the information available. Otherwise the pair are using an undisclosed partnership understanding - L40A3.

To me there should be a particular onus on these pairs since the regulations may allow or disallow the use of conventional defenses against their method. Hiding behind not telling the opponents even when the regulations are not explicit seems to me to be deliberately concealing your methods in order to gain an unlawful advantage.

[aguahombre]

It seems we are mostly all in agreement about what will happen, and don't like it.