[mycroft]

I will absolutely say that I would ask for two changes to the ACBL Announcements:

• After a Natural NT Opening, Announce the suit shown by any Response that shows a specific suit. After a Natural NT Overcall, Announce the suit shown by any Advance that shows a specific suit.
  
• Steal the EBU Announcements for 2-of-a-suit openers wholesale (except *possibly* "do not Alert Artificial Very Strong 2♣ opening").

The number of issues those of us who still play 2-way Stayman, or cuebid Stayman after 1NT overcall, or rescue system/1NTx that has natural bids, or "2 bids to play" with lebensohl, or... have are legion. Also, the number of cases where the transfer Announcement is late in a situation where the call is highly likely to be Natural (say that same 1NT-X, or "stolen bids", or...) and the problems *that* causes is also legion. If *something* had to be said, 100% of the time, and if "if you didn't ask, you didn't care, they had to say *something*"; these issues would go away. Yes, the number of UI cases would go up where there either was a misunderstanding or "of course it's not a transfer, remember?" - but these are much easier for the Director to protect the NOS than 1NT-2♦!-2♥-wait for Announcement, p-"Oh, that's spades" 2♠ and the like.

And, of course, Announcing the nature of all Natural 2-of-a-suit openings (that aren't Alertable for *promising* another suit) would solve my personal bugbear of "when you open 2♦, wait to see who asks if it's Weak. Play that hand for about 13, balanced if they pass."

But perfect is the enemy of good, and I'd rather have something simple, consistent, and flawed than adding to "oh we get to explain all our bids so partner knows we're on the same page".

[mycroft]

Agreeing with PaulG again with "BBO explanations". Even the ACBL suggests that with self-Alerting (where there is little information given to partner), explaining calls proactively, even ones that aren't Alertable F-t-F, that the opponents will not expect, is a good idea. If they call the director and complain that you didn't explain that it was not-a-transfer, then you fall back on the regulations that say "Natural isn't Alertable (in this case, the *only* thing that isn't Alertable), we did what we were required to" - but there's no reason *not to* explain it as natural and save all that bother.

As I said above, I'd actually *like* this to become a required Announcement, just to avoid the nasty looks we get after 1NT-X-2♥ (and, when playing with That Other Weak NT pair, the nasty looks we get after 1NT-p-2♥ :-).

[barmar]

 mycroft, on 2026-April-02, 21:52, said:

I will absolutely say that I would ask for two changes to the ACBL Announcements:

• After a Natural NT Opening, Announce the suit shown by any Response that shows a specific suit. After a Natural NT Overcall, Announce the suit shown by any Advance that shows a specific suit.

Isn't that the current procedure?

It used to be that you just announced "transfer" when transfering to hearts or spades, and used "alert" for anything else. But now you announce the name of the suit for any transfers that just show a specific suit, and "alert" something else.

I play Compressed Transfers with one partner, so we alert these responses.

[mycroft]

Any response that shows "a specified suit". Not just "a specified suit not the suit bid".

So 1NT-X-2♥ is [Ed: would be, with my suggested rewording] Announced "Hearts".

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2026-April-03, 11:16, said:

Any response that shows "a specified suit". Not just "a specified suit not the suit bid".

So 1NT-X-2♥ is Announced "Hearts".

I think that would be great, wish we had it here.
Also in line with yet another strong point of announcements that I did not labour previously, namely that they work best when all (or almost) reasonably possible calls are covered by an announcement, without leaving space for gratuitous alerts or no action because "natural" or hesitations and forgets.
Which is why I like our current scheme of standard announcements for almost all likely 1 and 2 level openings (and why I dislike the apparently innocuous exception of silence for 1M showing 5+).
Another situation where I think obligatory announcement does a great job is any reply to 1NT-2♣ asking (ex-"Stayman").

[Zelandakh]

 jillybean, on 2026-April-02, 11:18, said:

You don't and you can't. Its a quick fix and I see the attraction however, Redealing removes a potentially a top board for you, or an above average, it's not bridge.
This is akin to clubs who skip boards after an infraction.

Play with friends and people who disclose, boot the others

I think it's right and fair to give random opponents a warning before booting them, particularly as there is a wide tolerance of non-alerting in many quarters. We ask them to alert stuff in the box and if the MI affects our bidding, we re-deal. If they are shirty about it, they get blacklisted. If not, I write a note in their profile and we go on happily. Three notes in a profile is a blacklist. It's a method we've used for a while and in (almost) 25 years of playing on BBO, I haven't found a better one.

[blackshoe]

"that the opponents will not expect"

How is someone supposed to know what some stranger will expect?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2026-April-03, 19:28, said:

"that the opponents will not expect"

How is someone supposed to know what some stranger will expect?

This has always been interpreted relative to local custom, since we can't read each opponent's mind. So opponents are assumed to "expect" the meanings that are common where you're playing.

And if you're the visitor, you're supposed to familiarize yourself with local customary bidding.

Alert regulations try to enumerate the most common understandings to avoid many of these problems.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2026-April-06, 15:09, said:

And if you're the visitor, you're supposed to familiarize yourself with local customary bidding.

Sometimes the locals themselves don't know. When I first move to a part of Germany where Acol was the dominant local system, I asked some of the better players what the correct opening bid would be with 15-19hcp and 4M4m(32) shape. Not a single player was able to give me a sensible response. Another one is the auction 1M - 2m; 2NT in Germany's national system (Forum D). According to the documentation, this shows 15-17hcp and 5M(332) shape. But of the many dozens of pairs I know who say they play Forum D, I can probably count on one hand those that play it that way. There's plenty more like this.
Even when pairs are playing less common systems, asking often doesn't help. Playing against a Precision pair in a German online tournament, I tried asked about the range for that precise auction (1M - 2m; 2NT) and the opponents simply refused to answer. The TD came and went and eventually the board simply didn't get finished. Admittedly the pair in question is a notorious married couple who shortly thereafter received a ban for their questionable actions but the idea that this is just some simple procedure is far from the mark.

[barmar]

Sometimes there isn't any common agreement.

In the US, I don't think there's a concensus on what to open with 4-4 minors. For many years the majority opened 1♣. These days I think opening 1♦ is more common. I usually open 1♦, my regular club partner mostly opens 1♣, but I think he sometimes opens 1♦ based on criteria I haven't been able to discern. As far as I know, neither style needs to be alerted -- neither is uncommon enough that "openents will not expect".

[akwoo]

barmar, on 2026-April-07, 09:49, said:

Sometimes there isn't any common agreement.

Most not particularly serious players don't actually know what all their bids mean. They just bid what they feel like and hope their partners understand. If there is a mixup, they discuss, but they won't remember the results of their discussion next week.

Quote

In the US, I don't think there's a concensus on what to open with 4-4 minors. For many years the majority opened 1♣. These days I think opening 1♦ is more common. I usually open 1♦, my regular club partner mostly opens 1♣, but I think he sometimes opens 1♦ based on criteria I haven't been able to discern. As far as I know, neither style needs to be alerted -- neither is uncommon enough that "openents will not expect".

I believe Michael Rosenberg is on record as saying that he has a rule for 44 minors that he does not share with his partners (and is complicated enough that his regular partners haven't figured it out) because he thinks the opponents benefit more from knowing his rule than his partner would.

[mycroft]

I'm reminded of the Britisher pair who opened 1♣ or 1♦ with 3-3 and 4-4 based on the parity of the spot cards in the two suits...

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2026-April-08, 10:10, said:

I'm reminded of the Britisher pair who opened 1♣ or 1♦ with 3-3 and 4-4 based on the parity of the spot cards in the two suits...

The classic is "weaker minor", which you don't tell partner about so that you can "ethically" continue to mislead the opponents. There's quite a well known player in Germany who is famous enough for doing this that when my partner and I visited the Island Bridge Festival, a half dozen players warned us about him in advance. I've also noticed an abundance of relatively good club players fond of the explanation "just kitchen bridge" to avoid giving any real explanations. The weak players often say too much but purely in the aim of being helpful. The truly strong players give their agreements accurately and without fuss. The layer below that who want to be counted in the strong group are often extremely cagey. This is one of the things that causes serious disengagement in me towards bridge in general, particularly as not all TDs actually enforce the regulations, and most of the players are upset about the "interference" when they do.

[blackshoe]

My partner, who has I think about twice as many Monkey Points as I do, flat does not understand the UI rules. She's a smart lady, but...

Last week we had an interesting hand. Board 19 in the Tuesday afternoon (eastern US time) Common Game, if anyone wants to look it up. The bidding that I saw went like this:

---

The bidding as partner saw it was:

---

No announcement of her heart bid was made, since I saw it as natural. We were playing against a local expert pair. Yesterday I asked North how many clubs he had bid. "Three," he said, "I had six clubs". He didn't, he had five, and thirteen HCP. I guess even experts can miscount.

Four spades made four. No directors were involved with this hand. :-)

I did talk to her about "using UI" but she just didn't get it. OTOH, looking at the hand, I think one could argue that there was no LA to 4♠. Maybe.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2026-April-15, 08:19, said:

I did talk to her about "using UI" but she just didn't get it. OTOH, looking at the hand, I think one could argue that there was no LA to 4♠. Maybe.

It would help if you posted her hand.

If she has a singleton or void in hearts, she may be OK unless you're in the habit of opening 1NT with a 6-card major.

This week we had the auction (I was East).

---

I wasn't exactly sure what partner's 3♣ bid was. Without North's double it would be natural and forcing, I thought he might be asking me if I have a club stopper (we don't have an agreement about whether my Stayman response after the double says anything about a club stopper). I bid 3♥ because I didn't have a stopper and my hand looked appropriate to play in the Moysian.

After the auction an opponent asked what my bidding showed, and partner said I could be 5-4 in the majors. I don't think I've ever opened 1NT with that shape, and we've been playing together for 25 years. 5-4 minors, sure, but never majors. And certainly not 5 spades and 4 hearts, since there's no rebid problems.

OTOH, there's a first time for everything and this auction has probably never come up before.

Partner actually had ♣AK872, the doubler had QJ10943. I made 4♥. 3NT makes 4 double dummy, but we got a decent result because only one other pair achieved that.