[mike777]

1eyedjack, on Aug 3 2005, 12:58 AM, said:

In my view the difference between an "agreement" and a "special agreement" is that an agreement that is held by a substantial proportion of the population (and it need not be a majority) is not a "special" agreement.

I would have thought that in order for the bid to be alertable by wbf regs (note, not BBO regs, so of dubious relevance to BBO site as Inquiry has pointed out), the bid would either have to be a "special" agreement or a non-natural one.

I do no believe that a 1NT rebid that may conceal a 4 card major passes those tests.  So far I am satisfied that it is not alertable under wbf regs, and I know full well that it is not alertable under local f2f regs.  I will continue to alert it under BBO regs because it clearly may come as a surprise to some BBO players, and that is the BBO test.

Good grief!
1) Let us assume there are 25 million players who have some sense of bridge.
2) Do you think 90% or 95% or 99% of partnerships play 1nt may often conceal 4 card major?
3) Making the alert rules of bridge that apply to 1,000 or 5,000 partnerships spells doom to bridge as a game.

If you want to create a game for only the top 100 players worldwide ok. Do you want a game that has 170,000 members in USA and many more worldwide OK.
4) To be frank this thinking seems to apply to newer players of less than 20 or 30 years, who choose to ignore the vast majority of the dues paying membership.
5) They seem to think if only we can change the rules millions of 18 year old bridge players will join for life.


Take a look at chess. They do not have 100,000-200,000 thousand chess players going to world wide tourneys as bridge does.

Do you want to create a game for the top 100 players in the world or for the 170,000 money paying, book buying, bbo paying players in the USA and millions worldwide?

[coyot]

The_Hog, on Aug 2 2005, 08:01 PM, said:

coyot, on Aug 2 2005, 05:28 PM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 1 2005, 06:54 PM, said:

1nt isn't legally alertable, but i know of noone who does *not* alert it (if it can bypass a major)

Oh yes it is. It conveys a special agreement in this case (as 1♠ would be the "natural" bid in most systems and quite likely in the system used in this case.)

The 1NT rebid which may have a 4 card Major is certainly NOT alertable.

Jimmy, I don't alert it and wouldn't dream of doing so. It is a natural bid. The 1NT bid is a suggestion of a contract opposite a partner's limited response. It is totally natural and therefore not alertable. I don't know of any player in serious competitions here who alerts this.

Jilly and others, would you rebid 1S holding this shape: xxxx xxx xxx xxx for example?
I don't think so!

Sorry, Hog, not true.

There simply are two possible meanings for the 1NT bid (and 1♠)
1NT either it denies 4card major or not
1♠ either denies balanced hand or not.

(Of course, I admit that you might play a system where the above is not true and you can bid 1♠ or 1NT as you see fit - but I think that this approach is not widely used as it robs you of possibilities of better describing your hands).

We might argue which of the two possibilities is natural, but as far as I know, majority of bidding systems PREFER finding a major fit to specifying shape and point range by default. (Hence 1M openers 5332).
From this, I draw the conclusion that "hiding" your major and showing the shape and point range first is the less natural thing than bidding 4card major.

Since you and your partner most likely HAVE an agreement about the above, your opponents are entitled by the bridge rules to be made aware that a special agreement exists.

(Hiding your 4 spades with 4333 shape might be either another partnership agreement or your decision not to bid according to the system - if partner expects this type hand to be bid as 1NT, he should alert, if he expects you not to have 4 spades, he should not.)

[1eyedjack]

mike777, on Aug 3 2005, 07:21 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Aug 3 2005, 12:58 AM, said:

In my view the difference between an "agreement" and a "special agreement" is that an agreement that is held by a substantial proportion of the population (and it need not be a majority) is not a "special" agreement.

I would have thought that in order for the bid to be alertable by wbf regs (note, not BBO regs, so of dubious relevance to BBO site as Inquiry has pointed out), the bid would either have to be a "special" agreement or a non-natural one.

I do no believe that a 1NT rebid that may conceal a 4 card major passes those tests.  So far I am satisfied that it is not alertable under wbf regs, and I know full well that it is not alertable under local f2f regs.  I will continue to alert it under BBO regs because it clearly may come as a surprise to some BBO players, and that is the BBO test.

Good grief!
1) Let us assume there are 25 million players who have some sense of bridge.
2) Do you think 90% or 95% or 99% of partnerships play 1nt may often concel 4 card major?
3) Making the alert rules of bridge that apply to 1,000 or 5,000 partnerships spells doom to bridge as a game.

If you want to create a game for only the top 100 players worldwide ok. Do you want a game that has 170,000 members in USA and many more worldwide OK.
4) To be frank this thinking seems to apply to newer players of less than 20 or 30 years, who choose to ignore the vast majority of the dues paying membership.
5) They seem to think if only we can change the rules millions of 18 year old bridge players will join for life.


Take a look at chess. They do not have 100,000-200,000 thousand chess players going to world wide tourneys as bridge does.

Do you want to create a game for the top 100 players in the world or for the 170,000 money paying, book buying, bbo paying players in the USA and millions worldwide?

I don't understand much of this post, but will attempt to respond.

I agree with my partner that in an uncontested auction the 1D-1H-1S rebid does not deny a 4 card club suit. That is an agreement. Even if I did not expressly agree it with my partner it is an implied agreement, which comes to the same thing both in terms of alert and disclosure.

So, it is an agreement. Is it alertable? Perhaps in some jurisdictions, but I doubt it. Let us at least agree that that is not alertable, even on BBO. If it is an agreement, why is it not alertable under wbf regulations (the point that my original post was addressing)? It is not alertable because it is not a "special" agreement. Why is it not a "special" agreement? It is not a special agreement because it is an agreement shared by a substantial proportion of the population of players. It is a natural interpretation that you might reasonably expect a substantial proportion of your opponents to be playing.

I have no statistics to hand. I do not know where you get 90%, 95%, 99%, 1000 or 5000 come from. My personal experience of bridge in my country is that the vast majority will habitually rebid 1NT on a balanced hand and bid 2 suits on a 2 (or 3) suited hand. I would not want to put a percentage on it. It will be far in excess of 5000 partnerships at all levels of ability, and that is just in my country. Worldwide the practice may be a minority, but it will be sizeable one.

That you seem to think that no more than 5000 partnerships play it this way or that it suits only the top 100 players is a comment that frankly casts doubt on your objectivity.

If you read my post properly you will see that I was making no attempt at changing any alerting rules. I am happy to agree that it is alertable on BBO, and frankly I do not want to win from opponents' confusion, so I will alert if there is a shadow of doubt. I was simply questioning whether as a matter of law as it stands the practice is alertable under wbf regulations. I do not know what competitions the wbf has jurisdiction over. Bermuda Bowl, presumably. World Bridge Olympiad presumably. Possibly the European championships (actually sponsored by EBL but they may have coopted some of the wbf regs en bloc), and a few others. I doubt I will ever play in them.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Aug 3 2005, 09:21 AM, said:

Do you want to create a game for the top 100 players in the world or for the 170,000 money paying, book buying, bbo paying players in the USA and millions worldwide?

My "dream" is that Bridge will still be played in 20 years time. From my perspective, this requires some VERY significant changes in focus:

1. Accept the fact that bridge is going to transition from a mass market form of entertainment to a niche game. The current number of bridge players is a holdover from 30 years ago. This is part of the reason why AVERAGE age of ACBL memebers is has hit 68. (Love to see the mode, BTW) When these players are gone, they aren't getting replaced. There are far too many better options available for "social" recreation.

2. Recognize that there is a target audience for the niche game. Every wonder almost all the "young" players (and by young I mean anyone under 50) seem to come from technical professions such as Comp Sci or Finance. There are players out there who are interested in a challenging technical game.

The administrators have two significant challenges...

First, these two audiences don't get along. While this "problem" is a temporary one, I really worry that "audience 1" will drive out "audience 2" before it wanders off into the Sunset.

Second, there is a real need to adjust spending patterns. The existing "infrastructure" can't be supported by a much smaller user base. I suspect that this is driving decision making more than anything else.

[the hog]

Quote Coyot:

"We might argue which of the two possibilities is natural, but as far as I know, majority of bidding systems PREFER finding a major fit to specifying shape and point range by default. (Hence 1M openers 5332).
From this, I draw the conclusion that "hiding" your major and showing the shape and point range first is the less natural thing than bidding 4 card major."

I disagree. Coyot, I don't know where you play but I will postulate that the majority of players here follow the principle that a balanced hand is a balanced hand and should be treated as such. This includes opening 1NT with possible 5332 (Major) hands.
Imo to rebid 1S on a 4333 shape is unnatural in that it guarantees an unbalanced hand with C&S. If anything, the latter auction, (4333), is alertable and no, I am not joking even though I would not alert that either.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't care whether the majority of people play 1 minor - 1 heart - 1NT as denying four spades or not. I am also certain it is not alertable either way under WBF, EBL or EBU alerting regulations.

The "Alert" procedure is NOT repeat NOT repeat again NOT supposed to be used to alert your opponents to every bid about which you and your partner have a special agreement that the opponents may not know about. I have a great many detailed agreements with my partner. If we alert every time we have a special agreement, you will see things like this:

me: 1NT (15-17) ALERT.
them: explain
me: we upgrade most 17s with 4-4 in the majors. We upgrade many but not most 14s with a 5 or 6-card minor. We open most 6322s with a 6-card minor 1NT if in range. We generally don't have a 5 card major, but might if it looks very suitable for NT play. We never have a singleton. (etc etc....) These are all special agreements that aren't part of general "15-17".

or
me: 1D ALERT
them: explain
me: it's natural, 4+ cards, but becase we haven't opened a multi, it can't be a strong two in diamonds with a solid suit.

If you go down this route you have to alert every bid in every sequence. There's then no benefit to the alert system.

In the absence of a fully-defined set of alert regulations, you should alert bids where the opponents will i) be surprised to find out how you play the bid and ii) it might affect their choice of call. There is time at the end of the auction to explain all negative inferences etc if the opponents want them.

As long as 1D - 1H - 1NT is non-forcing and shows a balanced hand of a speficied range somewhere between 11 and 18 HCP without 4-card heart support I don't think it should be alerted. Save the alert for when it's forcing, or it shows clubs, or it promises 3-card heart support or something seriously unusual.

I happen to play a style where I raise 1H to 2H with 3-card support and a low doubleton. Does that mean I alert my 1NT rebid because it denies 3 hearts and a low doubleton?

It's possible that when we have had the auction 1D - 1H - 1NT - Pass, you misdefend because you assume opener cannot have four spades, and you didn't even think to ask. Well, tough. Live with it. You'll know better next time. There's no conceptual difference between that and when we bid 1NT-3NT and you misdefend because you were taught that a 1NT opener must be balanced i.e. 4432 or 4333 but I turned out to have a 5-card minor. You've learnt something.

[FrancesHinden]

mike777, on Aug 3 2005, 01:21 AM, said:

Good grief!
1) Let us assume there are 25 million players who have some sense of bridge.
2) Do you think 90% or 95% or 99% of partnerships play 1nt may often concel 4 card major?
3) Making the alert rules of bridge that apply to 1,000 or 5,000 partnerships spells doom to bridge as a game.

If you want to create a game for only the top 100 players worldwide ok.

I'm not quite sure where this rant is going.
But to answer question 2:

I don't know. From my experience, 90% of relevant English partnerships play that 1NT may conceal a 4-card major. The irrelevant partnerships are those that would have opened 1S in the first place.

I note that in Bridge World Standard, you rebid 1NT with 4 spades in a 4333 and rebid 1S with a 4-4.

[jillybean]

If that is so can someone explain what "full disclosure" means?

This is taken from http://www.umich.edu...m/ruleinfo.html

Full disclosure
Winning is more meaningful when your opponents had all of the information to which they were entitled. Players who practice active ethics give their opponents full disclosure of partnership agreements whenever appropriate (for example, give complete answers to requests for information (when asked to explain your partner's 2NT response to your 1D opening, include not only the point range, but also whether your partner's call denies a 4-card major--don't wait for the opponent to ask exactly the right question to give that information)).

[kgr]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 3 2005, 02:32 PM, said:

I don't care whether the majority of people play 1 minor - 1 heart - 1NT as denying four spades or not. I am also certain it is not alertable either way under WBF, EBL or EBU alerting regulations.

....If you would ever play in Belgium/Flanders:
It is in Belgium (at least in Flanders, not sure about French speaking part):

"Na opening 1 in kleur:
Niet alerteren!: 1ZT = 6-9 HP, geen 4-kaart hoger dan opening
Wel alerteren!: als 4-kaarten in opgaande volgorde kunnen overgeslagen worden"

...In English:
After opening 1 in suit:
No alert: 1NT: 6-9 HCP, no 4-card in suit higher then opening
Alert: if 4-card can be skipped.

[FrancesHinden]

jillybean2, on Aug 3 2005, 08:49 AM, said:

If that is so can someone explain what "full disclosure" means?

This is taken from http://www.umich.edu...m/ruleinfo.html

Full disclosure
Winning is more meaningful when your opponents had all of the information to which they were entitled. Players who practice active ethics give their opponents full disclosure of partnership agreements whenever appropriate (for example, give complete answers to requests for information (when asked to explain your partner's 2NT response to your 1D opening, include not only the point range, but also whether your partner's call denies a 4-card major--don't wait for the opponent to ask exactly the right question to give that information)).

<sigh>
This is the second time recently someone has suggested that I am suggesting concealing information from the opponents.

At NO POINT am I debating the merits of full disclosure.
I am only talking about alerting regulations.
Full disclosure and the alerting regulations ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
None of your quotation mentions alerting regulations.

In an ideal world, there is no need for any alert, because there is no UI (screens or online) and there is plenty of time for you to explain to your opponent(s) all the information, negative inferences etc that come from your call, your partner's call(s) and the calls you chose not to make.

We aren't in an ideal world, and we use the alert procedure to try and overcome this. What we choose to alert is a matter of regulation only, only indirectly to do with full disclosure. For an alert regulation to be meaningful, there have to be some things that are not alertable. So, as I have detailed ("special") agreements about virtually every contested or uncontested sequence with my regular partners, simply saying that all "special agreements" have to be alerted is nonsense.

[FrancesHinden]

kgr, on Aug 3 2005, 09:06 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Aug 3 2005, 02:32 PM, said:

I don't care whether the majority of people play 1 minor - 1 heart - 1NT as denying four spades or not. I am also certain it is not alertable either way under WBF, EBL or EBU alerting regulations.

....If you would ever play in Belgium/Flanders:
It is in Belgium (at least in Flanders, not sure about French speaking part):

"Na opening 1 in kleur:
Niet alerteren!: 1ZT = 6-9 HP, geen 4-kaart hoger dan opening
Wel alerteren!: als 4-kaarten in opgaande volgorde kunnen overgeslagen worden"

...In English:
After opening 1 in suit:
No alert: 1NT: 6-9 HCP, no 4-card in suit higher then opening
Alert: if 4-card can be skipped.

Your quotation refers to a 1NT response to an opening bid, not to a 1NT rebid so is in fact totally irrelevant.

In any case, Belgium regulations are not WBF, EBL or EBU regs, so wtp? If I play in Belgium, under Belgium regs, I shall read the regulations first, and alert what they tell me to alert. At least the one you quote is specific & unambiguous.

[coyot]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 3 2005, 07:32 AM, said:

As long as 1D - 1H - 1NT is non-forcing and shows a balanced hand of a speficied range somewhere between 11 and 18 HCP without 4-card heart support I don't think it should be alerted. Save the alert for when it's forcing, or it shows clubs, or it promises 3-card heart support or something seriously unusual.

I happen to play a style where I raise 1H to 2H with 3-card support and a low doubleton. Does that mean I alert my 1NT rebid because it denies 3 hearts and a low doubleton?

It's possible that when we have had the auction 1D - 1H - 1NT - Pass, you misdefend because you assume opener cannot have four spades, and you didn't even think to ask. Well, tough. Live with it. You'll know better next time. There's no conceptual difference between that and when we bid 1NT-3NT and you misdefend because you were taught that a 1NT opener must be balanced i.e. 4432 or 4333 but I turned out to have a 5-card minor. You've learnt something.

WBF says it clearly. If you have a special explicit OR implicit agreement, you should alert the call.
I'm not saying the rules are perfect, but there are no better rules.

If you have your CC posted, most of the alerts shown are unnecessary.

To the quoted part: Why do you exclude 4card heart support? Should 1NT rebid with full support be alerted? Why? It shows a non-forcing balanced hand, doesn't it?

I simply think that full disclosure has it's merits. When I play SA based system, whose primary objective is to find major suit fit, I alert bids that would make opponents assume the absence of major suits when it is not true. If 1♠ rebid promises a two-three suited hand and my partner knows it at this very moment, I think the opponents should be given the knowledge as well.

I've been playing this way for 4 years and RARELY it happens that somebody feels discomforted by our frequent use of alerts.

Maybe coming from a place where there are about 6 frequently used systems spread among a thousand players teaches you respect and full disclosure more. Maybe, if everyone around me played some variant of SAYC, I wouldn't care a bit.

Frances, alerting rules and full disclosure ARE closely related. Alerting rules protect the defenders. Alerts give them the hint that they SHOULD ask, because the bid is wider/narrower than they might think. Strict alerting rules are good because you can then keep the auction quiet if opps don't alert - and you KNOW that you're not missing anything interesting.

CC contains enough room to cover the opening bids in detail. Yes, my CC says that we open 1NT with any 15-17 up to 7222, but NEVER with a major 5card. Yes, my CC says that the upper limit of 1M opener is 5 losers and of 1m opener 4 losers, no matter what the point count. I am doing my best to give the opps all the information my partner has, because it is the right thing to do.

I wonder how would the attitude towards alerting correspond to nationality . I don't know about most of the folks around here, but so far I have the feeling that Europeans are generally more inclined to alerting than Americans.

Frances, be fair - kgr's post is NOT totally irrelevant. It is just a matter of system approach! In Belgium, they evidently consider the "majors first" as a Holy Grail (as do I). I am sure that for example The Hog (following the spirit of his last post when he quoted me) will tell you that to make a 6-9 BAL bid of 1NT with a major 4card is perfectly OK and does not need to be alerted, when it shows balanced hand.

If you really want to throw regulations around, I am not aware of ANY alerting regulations in practice on BBO. When you visit the website, nothing. When you install the client, nothing. When you join a table, nothing. Does that mean that we don't have to alert anything at all? If I enter a tournament that does not say anything in it's description about alerts, I'm free to play whatever system and alert no bid, because there are no regulations?

I don't think so. Everyone who plays on BBO assumes there are "some regulations". Americans assume they're ACBL regulations, maybe. Majority of others follow the regulations they're used to. I came to the conclusion that in the absence of any mentioned regulations, WBF regulations apply - because almost everyone knows that WBF exists AND their regulations are not complicated.

If you play in Belgium and under Belgian regulations, you read them first. OK, what regulations did you read to play on BBO?

[jillybean]

[quote name='FrancesHinden' date='Aug 3 2005, 07:41 AM'] [/QUOTE]
<sigh>
This is the second time recently someone has suggested that I am suggesting concealing information from the opponents. [/QUOTE]
I am not suggestingyou are concealing information from the opponents, I do not know how alert & disclosure laws should be applied, I am learning.
And all I have to go on is what I read in wbf/acbl regulations, my interpretation of those laws, what other people say and my very little experience.

My (crude and basic) understanding of the 'laws' is that special understandings between partners ARE alertable - and as such, full disclosure applies.


jb

[pbleighton]

"My crude and basic understanding of the "laws" is that special understandings between partners ARE alertable - and as such, full disclosure applies."

True, but it is not that simple.

What are "special understandings"? Norms vary from country to country.

Peter

[1eyedjack]

coyot, on Aug 3 2005, 04:13 PM, said:

WBF says it clearly. If you have a special explicit OR implicit agreement, you should alert the call.

Indeed, that is why you have to consider whether an agreement (explicit or implicit) is a special one, and then only when playing in a wbf sponsored event (unless that provision is replicated by the particular sponsoring organisation).

coyot, on Aug 3 2005, 04:13 PM, said:

Should 1NT rebid with full support be alerted? Why? It shows a non-forcing balanced hand, doesn't it?

Whether it should be alerted depends on the regulations of the particular sponsoring organisation. I have not checked whether the EBU regulations (my stomping ground) consider this situation expressly. I would be surprised if it does (certainly it cannot expressly consider all possible auctions) in which case we are down to general principles and philosophy set out by the regulators. Where I play F2F I would alert a 1NT rebid that habitually conceals sufficient support for a major as to guarantee an 8+ card major fit, despite that I would not alert a 1NT rebid that habitually could conceal a bypassed 4 card major. And I would do so because although the wbf regulations do not have jurisdiction I do not believe there is a significant divergence on this issue of principle which is applied thus: a 1NT rebid that habitually conceals active support is a highly unusual treatment within the jurisdiction under consideration. As it is a highly unusual treatment, so an agreement to adopt that treatment would be a special agreement. That connection does not apply, within this jurisdiction, in relation to a 1NT rebid that may habitually conceal a bypassed 4 card major, because that is a popular treatment.

coyot, on Aug 3 2005, 04:13 PM, said:

Frances, be fair - kgr's post is NOT totally irrelevant. It is just a matter of system approach! In Belgium, they evidently consider the "majors first" as a Holy Grail (as do I). I am sure that for example The Hog (following the spirit of his last post when he quoted me) will tell you that to make a 6-9 BAL bid of 1NT with a major 4card is perfectly OK and does not need to be alerted, when it shows balanced hand.

Frances is being fair. kgr's post is irrelevant. For the same reason that I would alert a 1NT rebid that habitually may conceal 4 card support for a major, so I would alert a 1NT response that habitually conceals a bypassed 4 card major (again, I am talking about a local F2F game, EBU regulated, where I would not alert a 1NT rebid in like circumstances). And the reasons are the same as those stated above: Habitually to respond 1NT when bypassing a major suit is a highly unusual treatment and for that reason an agreement so to act would be a special agreement. In this respect I may disagree with The Hog, but perhaps the regulations in his jurisdiction differ. If I played in his region I would expect to have to make adjustments to my policy

coyot, on Aug 3 2005, 04:13 PM, said:

If you really want to throw regulations around, I am not aware of ANY alerting regulations in practice on BBO.

Then I suggest you read the site rules, as recently repeated in this forum by Inquiry. EDIT: Sorry coyot I now note that you have acknowledged this in another thread.

coyot, on Aug 3 2005, 04:13 PM, said:

OK, what regulations did you read to play on BBO?

I don't believe Frances plays online.

This post has been edited by 1eyedjack: 2005-August-03, 11:28

[coyot]

kgr's post is not irrelevant. The whole issue about alerting or not 1NT rebid of an opener that might conceal unbid (and biddable) major is very similar to 1NT response to a minor opening.

If your system's approach is to look for a major fit first, alerting 1NT rebid that conceals spades is equal to alerting 1NT response that may conceal majors - because the mentioned bidding sequence violates the premise of majors-first.

I'm not sure whether the popularity of the treatment should be the deciding factor.

But, if so, you would then alert 1♠ rebid as it denies balanced hand.

I don't really care which of the two gets alerted, as long as one gets and the regulations are clear on which one. I don't want to have to investigate this each time the sequence occurs and the opps KNOW something I don't know.

[1eyedjack]

coyot, on Aug 3 2005, 06:48 PM, said:

kgr's post is not irrelevant. The whole issue about alerting or not 1NT rebid of an opener that might conceal unbid (and biddable) major is very similar to 1NT response to a minor opening.

If your system's approach is to look for a major fit first, alerting 1NT rebid that conceals spades is equal to alerting 1NT response that may conceal majors - because the mentioned bidding sequence violates the premise of majors-first.

I'm not sure whether the popularity of the treatment should be the deciding factor.

But, if so, you would then alert 1♠ rebid as it denies balanced hand.

I don't really care which of the two gets alerted, as long as one gets and the regulations are clear on which one. I don't want to have to investigate this each time the sequence occurs and the opps KNOW something I don't know.

Again it is a matter of jurisdiction.

I would alert a 1S rebid that denies a balanced hand, on BBO, because under BBO regulations an alert is required if this is likely to be strange to an opponent, and I have enough experience of BBO players to appreciate that this is the case.

I would not alert a 1S rebid that denies a balanced hand in UK F2F bridge, nor would I alert a 1S rebid (in that jurisdiction) that might conceal a balanced hand, because neither agreement is artificial and both agreements attract widespread support within that jurisdiction. To that extent the finer nuances can be enquired into if relevant, but players are on notice (in the absence of an alert) that either agreement might be in place. In fact it is unlikely to be relevant to them in the bidding although it might be in the play, and we regularly have requests for disclosure (and accompanying disclosure) in F2F bridge on issues of this nature after the auction is concluded, before play commences, on bids that are unalerted as well as alerted. If a "round" is likely to be more than about 4 or 5 boards we would normally identify such tendencies before the start of the first hand.

Popularity cannot be ignored in determining the likelihood that a treatment will come as an unexpected surprise to opponents. That applies as much on BBO as it does in other jurisdictions.

As to the fixation with majors first, I would expect an alert if you habitually respond 1S to 1D opening bid with

S:Kxxx
H:Ax
D:x
C:AQxxxx

But this may indeed be an irrelevant tangent

[luke warm]

The_Hog, on Aug 2 2005, 08:01 PM, said:

The 1NT rebid which may have a 4 card Major is certainly NOT alertable.

Jimmy, I don't alert it and wouldn't dream of doing so. It is a natural bid. The 1NT bid is a suggestion of a contract opposite a partner's limited response. It is totally natural and therefore not alertable. I don't know of any player in serious competitions here who alerts this.

Jilly and others, would you rebid 1S holding this shape: xxxx xxx xxx xxx for example?
I don't think so!

i agree, it's a natural bid... i'd still alert it though, the same as if partner opened 1c, i bid 1h and he rebids 1s i'd alert that as guaranteeing an unbalanced hand... if asked i'd say i expect 4/5 in the blacks or maybe a 4441 hand

no, i don't think that's absolutely necessary to do but it just feels right

[jillybean]

Sorry but I am not clear on this!

Let’s assume playing on BBO, sayc, and no common system between all pairs, WBF laws.

1m (p) 1x
1nt denies a 4 card major playing “standard” sayc.

If a partnership has an understanding that 1nt here could conceal a 4 card major, should this be alerted and if not – how do you interpret wbf alerting laws?

jb

(edited the auction was wrong)

[the hog]

Most of the time it denies a 4 card M. If I have an awful 4 card M or if I am 4333 shape with points in the other suits I would probably bid 1NT. This does not need alerts, I would regard it as just common sense.

Note Kathryn in my original post I did say "rebid"- (eg 1C 1H 1N can have 4S). If on the other hand you have an agreement that 1m 1NT can have a 4 card M with any responding hand, then this is alertable imo.