[awm]

A couple questions about alerting.

Suppose we are playing a majors-first response style. If partner opens 1♦, I tend to bid a four-card major in preference to a longer minor, even on a game forcing hand, even if the values are concentrated in the minor. So 1♦-2♣ would deny a four card major. Should the major suit bids be alerted? Should the 2♣ response? Or should we alert when subsequent bidding reveals that the minor is longer? Or not alert at all?

Suppose that we frequently raise a major suit response on three cards, and will rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit. Should we alert the major suit raises (often three)? Should we alert the 1NT rebid (might be stiff)? Do we need to alert opener's other natural rebids (tends to deny three card support)?

Just wondering what people think about these stylistic things.

[the hog]

I'd suggest you pre alert the Walsh component. Alerting 3 card raises is certainly not necessary; this is just bridge.

[pigpenz]

thats the old max hardy 2 over 1 style...western 5 card majors.
usually not needed to alert

[luke warm]

Quote

So 1♦-2♣ would deny a four card major. Should the major suit bids be alerted? Should the 2♣ response?

if it's p'ship agreement, i'd think both bids should be alerted... if you respond 2♣ to a 1♦ bid, you should tell the opps you have no 4 card major because your partner knows it

[LH2650]

If your minor suit bid denies a major, I feel that it should be alerted. If it only tends to deny a major, then no alert.

And don't blame Richard Walsh or Max Hardy for this style. A longer minor was always bid first in a game-forcing hand, and a 7 card diamond suit was bid in preference to a major in a non GF hand.

I would not alert any of the other bids mentioned.

[Double !]

sorry, but I very much disagree.
Use what the commonly used interpretation of the bidding sequence as your standard or guideline (this might vary, but it's often longer suit first), and offer alerts to anything that deviates. It can't hurt, your partner is unable to see your alerts so that idea of UI seems to be immaterial, and I suspect that you will find that your opps appreciate it and might send back a little "TY" in response. In fact, I can't understand any rationale for not offering alerts for any bids that might be unusual or that differ from what might be expected. Failure to not alert would result in you having information that the opps don't have. Quoting rules and regs as justification for not alerting is pedantic, and might make one wonder why someone elected to not alert. It vouldn't hurt, and it would demonstrate consideration for the opps who might otherwise naturally assume a different meaning than intended. The opps are entitled to this information.

DHL

[pigpenz]

so then should they alert if you bid 1♥ or 1♠ over 1♦....when holding 4 of a major and a six card club suit with 10+hcp.....generally i wouldnt think it would make any difference if 2♣ denies a four card major or not.......unless you want to dive into their auction.....used to be that 2/1 alerted the 2 bid as forcing to game too.....now if they alerted it when they sat down at the table that 1♦/2♣ would deny a 4 card major then they would be likely to get more interference on their auctions when the hands belong to them.....maybe that is when it should be alerted

[inquiry]

1♦ - (pass) - 1♠ = no alert. Your partner could have 4♠ or 8♠. Could be weak or strong. Hardly any reason to alert.

1♦ - (pass) - 2♣ = absolutely alert if it DENIES four card major. You must now tell your opponents.

1♦ - (pass) - 1♠ - (Pass) - BID - (pass) - Bid showing minor = absolute alert now, if it promises longer minor than spades.

1♦ - (pass) - 1♠ - (pass) - 2♠ where 2♠ can be three card suit, no need to alert. This is called bridge. If it promises exactly 3♠ or if it absolutely promises 4♠ then you need to alert, as you have a very specific agreement.

1♦ - (pass) - 1♠ - (pass) - 1NT where 1NT frequently has is a stiff, you should alert, if it occassionally can include a stiff you probably should alert.

Ben

[pigpenz]

but in some ways if you know this info before the auction then the opponents can be prepared also.

[inquiry]

pigpenz, on May 3 2005, 11:34 PM, said:

but in some ways if you know this info before the auction then the opponents can be prepared also.

You can prealert when you sit down. Just say you play MAFIA in all cases.. Majors always first in auction.

Ben

[Brandal]

inquiry, on May 3 2005, 09:38 PM, said:

1♦ - (pass) - 1♠ - (pass) - 2♠ where 2♠ absolutely promises 4♠ then you need to alert, as you have a very specific agreement.

Ben

I didn't know this,and as the good Roland has pointed out
too,in at least some countries including Norway this always
promise 4 spades support.

I've never alerted it on BBO,never even occured to me if
maybe I should,and I'm the kinda guy who rather alert
one too many or one too few generally.

I even alert in indys,when no partnership agreement is in
place,ruining the enjoyment for everyone in the field

[Double !]

I have been told that I'm wrong on this, but the need to alert the 2S bid as promising 4 card support made me think of the following.

I play Bergen or Rev. Brgn raises with several people. I have always alerted single raises as implying only 3-card support and contend that this is an alert albeit of a negative inference (sort of like passing or bidding when playing support doubles implying the absence of 3-card support) because the understanding that the single raise usually has 3-card support is a specific agreement. If the majority of people played Bergen-like structures to the point that they were common-place or a norm such as Stayman, then there would likely be no need for an alert. Many years ago, negative doubles were alertable. Now penalty-oriented doubles of the opps overcall are alertable. I am curious about whether I am correct or not about alerting the single raise.

DHL

[kenberg]

About the NT rebid with a stiff:

Way way back Goren used to rail againstit, which means that it was being done then,too.
In fact, there is a commonly occurring hand that has no satisfactory solution.


You hold 1-3-4-5. After you open a minor, partner may well bid spades. Goren's ghost, and many authors who are still with us, say you should open a diamond. Maybe so, but I haven't always found the results so satisfying. If a 1NT rebid promises two spades and 1C-1S-2C promises a six card suit, it's a problem. I open 1C and rebid clubs if I have a strong five card suit, open 1D and rebid two clubs if most of the values are in the minors and the diamonds are decent, and from time to time with scatteres values including a singleton spade Q or K, I open a club and rebid a NT. I assume that none of this is alertable.

Most of my partners have no idea what I am doing so it probably doesn't qualify as a partnership agreement.

Ken

[awm]

Okay, partner and I will start alerting these bids. It seems like the rule could well be that -everything- is alertable on BBO. After all it gives partner no UI. And even if your bidding is 100% basic standard bridge in your part of the world, maybe your opponents are from someplace where different standard agreements are in force. The raises of partner's major response are a good example here.

BTW, my partner and I will frequently rebid 1NT with singleton in partner's suit, even if it's a small singleton. It's basically our default bid on a shape like 1444 after 1♦-1♠ or on 1345 after 1♣-1♠. Obviously if the 1NT rebid could include 1, 2, or 3 cards in partner's suit there will be issues in the subsequent auction, but since we virtually always bid 2♠ with three, the 1NT rebid basically confirms 1-2 cards. Excluding the exceptionally pure hands where 2M on the 5-1 will play better than 1NT (i.e. KQJTx xxx xxx xx) we will normally not rebid a five-card major after partner's 1NT rebid. Anyways we will be sure to alert this in future.

[luke warm]

it isn't always about giving UI to partner, it's about him knowing something about your bid, by agreement, that your opps don't know... i'd alert any such bid... re: double's post about bergen raises, i also alert the direct raise to 2M as "in theory, shows 3 card support only"... my partner expects only 3 and i'd have 4 only with a 4333 minimum hand (sometimes)

[nilbes]

hi;

this alert topic is just what i wanted to ask the other day so was glad that it came up.

the other day i entered a tournament where the host stating the rules of tournament had also added that no alerts above any 3 level bid and no alert for doubles which i found rather interesting. is this a new ruling ??? i always thought that doubles should be alerted unless they are penalty...

my idea of alerting is any bid that would be understood by my p as different than the accepted definition of that bid in bridge language and even then if it has different meanings in different systems it should be alerted cant expect opps to know every system and modifications..
especially this alert or non alert business over doubles has made me curious
can somebody enlighten me ......

and also can this rule be valid in certain countries and not in others i mean such rules should be universal ......

[kgr]

Quote

the other day i entered a tournament where the host stating the rules of tournament had also added that no alerts above any 3 level bid and no alert for doubles which i found rather interesting. is this a new ruling ??? i always thought that doubles should be alerted unless they are penalty...

This is standard in Belgium.
Face to face the alert could give UI for the partner. Opps are supposed to ask the meaning of these bids if they want to know (most of the time after the bidding is over). For on-line bridge I would not use this rule. Then it is better to always alert bids that have a special partnership understanding.

Quote

and also can this rule be valid in certain countries and not in others i mean such rules should be universal .....

These different rules come from the basic systems that is different in the countries. 'standard' 1C opening has a different meaning in Poland and France.

[Gerardo]

Yes, better to think in terms of having screens when looking for Alert procedures.

[Rebound]

Well, while I heartily agree that it can't hurt to alert as often as it occurs to you on BBO, I respectfully submit that, at least in ACBL land, (I don't know about the rest of the world,) the distinction needs to be made between a conventional agreement and a treatment. Quoted from ACBL.org:

Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted.

A treatment is a natural call that carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Agreeing to open five-card majors is a treatment - when you open 1, partner "knows" you have five or more. This is indeed a message but not an unexpected one, so no Alert is required. Weak jump shifts, on the other hand, are unexpected and therefore Alertable.

EXAMPLE: 1♣-P-2♠
If the 2 bid promises a spade suit of five or more cards, it is a natural call. The treatment involves the strength that the bid promises. If the call is forcing to game, no Alert is required. If it is weak or invitational, then it must be Alerted.

Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them.

So, taking this as a guideline, I would be hard-pressed to consider any of the calls mentioned to be alertable with one exception. As was mentioned, if 2♣ over 1♦ absolutely denies a 4CM, then I agree it should be alerted. This means that one would always call 1♠ holding 6 or 7 clubs and 4 spades.

Just my 2 cents.