[paulg]

Playing in an international event with screens using the WBF Alerting Policy (PDF).

A pair is playing 5-card majors and a strong notrump, with a one club opener always promising 3+ clubs. In response to 1♣, 1♦ is essentially natural but, systemically, they will also bid it on a three-card suit when they are 3=3=3=4 (and, rarely, some (32)=3=5) when holding 5-8 points.

Should the pair alert the 1♦ response?

[Zelandakh]

Whether you have to or not, why would you not do so as a curtesy when playing behind screens? As a first response, it should also be marked on any WBF CC.

[wank]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-December-09, 06:51, said:

Whether you have to or not, why would you not do so as a curtesy when playing behind screens?

i find it very annoying when opponents alert for trivial reasons.

[Zelandakh]

 wank, on 2013-December-09, 06:56, said:

i find it very annoying when opponents alert for trivial reasons.

I am not sure a potentially unexpected meaning can be called trivial. Presumably you would also feel aggrieved if your opponent did not alert something they thought was trivial but the lack of knowledge ended up damaging you. My belief is that you make sure opponents understand unusual aspects of your system and let them decide what is or is not trivial for themselves.

[mycroft]

I would also put it in the "things opponents should be aware of" box. Without screens, it's a very interesting question. With screens, having a pre-written card for this case that you can pull out should work well.

I know a few pairs who have a similar agreement here. I don't know if it's actually *legal* GCC, but they alert and, if asked, explain it. Every single time. It's no more trivial than any other "tweak you won't be prepared for without the Alert".

[jeffford76]

 mycroft, on 2013-December-09, 14:37, said:

I know a few pairs who have a similar agreement here. I don't know if it's actually *legal* GCC, but they alert and, if asked, explain it. Every single time. It's no more trivial than any other "tweak you won't be prepared for without the Alert".

Interesting - I had thought the GCC specified a "natural" minor bid as 3+, but that's only explicit for opening bids.

[mycroft]

Yes, that's one issue. Another is that they have 1♦-1♥ being 3+ as well. As I said, I can't guarantee their system is legal; nobody cares, so I'm not going to push the issue. I'd prefer if it was legal anyway.

[sfi]

 mycroft, on 2013-December-09, 18:36, said:

Yes, that's one issue. Another is that they have 1♦-1♥ being 3+ as well. As I said, I can't guarantee their system is legal; nobody cares, so I'm not going to push the issue. I'd prefer if it was legal anyway.

I couldn't find anything at all about any responses to an opening bid being illegal, and in Bali we played 1♦-1♥/♠ as 3+ without anyone raising an issue. Since the bid shows length (defined as 3+) it's not clear that it is alertable either, but we certainly felt it fell under the point 2: "Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners".

So, legal and alertable seems to be in line with the regulations.

[blackshoe]

Mycroft is talking about ACBL regulations, which are really not relevant to this thread. In Bali, ACBL regulations were not in force. I agree, I think, with your interpretation of WBF regulations.

[paulg]

This question arose out of an incident at the Scottish National League where the 1♦ bidder alerted his bid but his partner didn't. The opponents then damaged themselves by not asking about the alert and just assuming it was a transfer, but clearly this was their own fault given (i) they failed to ask (ii) they had WBF system cards to refer to (iii) they were playing 16 boards against this pair - perhaps best described as a senior moment.

My task is easy, which is to get the pair to either both alert or neither alert, but wondered what people thought would be appropriate. I'm on the alerter's side.

[aguahombre]

 jeffford76, on 2013-December-09, 15:56, said:

Interesting - I had thought the GCC specified a "natural" minor bid as 3+, but that's only explicit for opening bids.

I believe the GCC thing on 3+ or minors or 4+ for majors applies to opening bids, responses and the first rebid by opener....but Scotland and the WBF are in this discussion, so mildly interesting.

We also will respond 1D with 3, but not in as many cases as the pair in the OP. I don't know where the line should be drawn, but it seems to be just GBK that everyone would have situations where a 1D response to 1C on only 3 would be a necessary punt.

Most common are the 3334 11/12 count and the 3334 6/7 count where a 1NT response=8-10 and the 2NT response=13+

However, Opener's rebids which take this into acount should be alerted, IMO. They are:

--1NT with any balanced minimum including those with 4-card diamond support.

--A 2D raise which shows reverse strength.

[paulg]

A similar question arose on Bridge Winners in one of Kit Woolsey's articles when he responded in a three-card major to a Precision 1♦. His basis for not alerting were that it was very rare and it was not systemic, it was a choice made not to bid one notrump instead.

In this case I'm sure it is rare but it is systemic, so I think it is alertable.

We also play 1♦-1M may be a 3-card suit. It is rare but systemic since one notrump is artificial. This is on my list of Mid-Chart pre-alerts.

[gnasher]

 paulg, on 2013-December-11, 02:40, said:

My task is easy, which is to get the pair to either both alert or neither alert, but wondered what people thought would be appropriate.

I agree that it's sensible for them to try to be consistent in alerting, but in borderline cases it's not critical. The regulations say that "Where screens are in use, an alert on one side but not on the other does not necessarily imply an infraction."

[nige1]

 aguahombre, on 2013-December-11, 03:05, said:

We also will respond 1D with 3, but not in as many cases as the pair in the OP. I don't know where the line should be drawn, but it seems to be just GBK that everyone would have situations where a 1D response to 1C on only 3 would be a necessary punt.

As usual, when GBK is mentioned in this forum, I learn something new and unexpected

[jeffford76]

 aguahombre, on 2013-December-11, 03:05, said:

I believe the GCC thing on 3+ or minors or 4+ for majors applies to opening bids, responses and the first rebid by opener.

I misread the chart the first time, and it includes responses. It actually says, "An opening bid of one club is natural if, by agreement, it may be exactly 4-4-3-2 with two clubs, three diamonds, and four cards in each major.... An opening suit bid or response is natural if, by agreement, in a minor it shows three or more cards in that suit, and if, by agreement, in a major it shows four or more cards in that suit."

[aguahombre]

 nige1, on 2013-December-11, 10:24, said:

As usual, when GBK is mentioned in this forum, I learn something new and unexpected

I have no idea what is new and unexpected in Scotland. The default 3 card 1D response to a 3+ 1c opening with balanced hands which do not fit a pair's 1 or 2 NT response agreements date back to before the middle of the twentieth Century. That is GBK enough for me, and the likelihood of any damage from not alerting its use seems remote.

But, like already stated, Opener's rebids which take it into account seem alertable since many players don't take it into account in their rebids.

[FrancesHinden]

There was a ruling & appeal in the English premier league a few years ago, which also uses WBF alerting regulations. This was a 1 major response that could under some limited circumstances be a 3-card suit. We ruled that this was alertable, and I still think that is right.