[Helmer]

Hi

My partner opens 1♣ - next hand 1NT - me.....

♠ Q x x
♥ x x
♦ K J 10 x x x
♣ J x

I bid 2♦ - and all pass.

ALERT 2♦ - or NOT ALERT?

**************************

After the board one of the many experts on BBO blamed me for not alerting,
and my partner for not bidding.

My reply was that an expert would know that in many (if not all natural) systems this is not forcing, as if I had enough points, I'd have a lot better bid than 2♦, I'd double as the declarer would find his partner with around 0 points.

** If it had been a beginner back home in the club, I think we would alert the bid as it could be a surprise.
But I think the law would say NO alert, as it is basic system rule.
What do you say?

See you

Helmer

[FrancesHinden]

In some cases, the answer to "is this alertable" is "depends where you are playing".

But in this case, no it isn't. Not only is it natural (hence unlikely to need alerting) but that is the normal, standard meaning for the call. I wouldn't alert against a beginner either, because I cannot see the scope for a surprise.

[kenberg]

I held a similar hand, spades not diamonds, just yesterday. I bid two spades, did not alert, but sent a private message to the opponents that I intended my call as non-forcing. This is more for public relations (I feel a little silly doing it but who knows, maybe I am facing the opponents you had) than anything else, since I can't imagine why anyone would think it to be forcing. It's also hard to imagine who would be damaged. Fourth hand heard his partner bid 1NT and can presumably base his bid on that knowledge, whatever his opponents are up to. In f2f bidding I have never alerted such a call, have never heard it alerted, and have never seen anyone complain.

Ken

[SteelWheel]

I've actually served on appeals committees at some regional tournaments where matters like this have been contested (no alert on a bid which is obviously non-forcing, based upon bridge logic), I always ask the same question of the appellants: "If your partner had a strong notrump, LHO had an opening bid, and you had whatever values you had, how many points did you want RHO to have?". At this point they get kind of tongue-twisted and slink away, knowing how we're about to rule.

Yet another example of not thinking about "the bridge part" of the game.

[luis]

SteelWheel, on Mar 2 2006, 07:31 PM, said:

I've actually served on appeals committees at some regional tournaments where matters like this have been contested (no alert on a bid which is obviously non-forcing, based upon bridge logic), I always ask the same question of the appellants: "If your partner had a strong notrump, LHO had an opening bid, and you had whatever values you had, how many points did you want RHO to have?". At this point they get kind of tongue-twisted and slink away, knowing how we're about to rule.

Yet another example of not thinking about "the bridge part" of the game.

I agree the bid is alertable but I find your methods to handle an appeal terrible.
If my pd has a strong NT and LHO opened and I have X I don't care what can the 2foo bid have, what you have to analyze is if there is missinformation or not not lecture the players.
Of course this is a clear case but I still find your comment very irritating.

Luis

[hrothgar]

luis, on Mar 2 2006, 10:47 PM, said:

I agree the bid is alertable but I find your methods to handle an appeal terrible.

Is there a "not" missing here?

I can't conceive of a playable regulatory regime under this bid could be considered alertable

1. Natural non-forcing is the "standard" meaning of this bid
2. 2♦ is a natural bid

If we're now extending alerts to natural / standard bids the system is unredeemable

[Al_U_Card]

In the same light, 1x-1NT-DBL if this was not penalty, would you alert it? (Say negative for the other suits.)

[Limey_p]

I was just re-reading the January 2005 ACBL Bridge Bulletin (the member's magazine) - Marty Bergen on page 49:

"By the way: We all know players who incorrectly treat responder's double as negative after a 1nt overcall. This is definitely not standard and is Alertable. I don't recommend it, because a negative double should be played only after a natural overcall in a suit"

[luis]

hrothgar, on Mar 2 2006, 08:03 PM, said:

luis, on Mar 2 2006, 10:47 PM, said:

I agree the bid is alertable but I find your methods to handle an appeal terrible.

Is there a "not" missing here?

I can't conceive of a playable regulatory regime under this bid could be considered alertable

1. Natural non-forcing is the "standard" meaning of this bid
2. 2♦ is a natural bid

If we're now extending alerts to natural / standard bids the system is unredeemable

Yes a "not" was missing :-)

The bid is clearly non-alertable and the harrasing lecture approach in an appeal is horrible.

[han]

Agree of course that 2D is not alertable. The experts that blamed you for not alerting were beginners in disguise.

Not only is Luis correct that the lecture is uncalled for, I think the lecture is also wrong. The 2D call is not non-forcing because there aren't enough values in the deck. It is non-forcing because with a strong hand you have the double available. So even if the 1NT overcall not strong and artificial, then non-forcing is still the standard meaning of 2D and for good reasons.

[joker_gib]

I usually alert all the sensible bids but I must admit I would never think to alert 2♦ in this case !

Alain

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would not alert it, but the answer to the question:
to alert or not, is depend on the law book relevant
for the place your playing.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[SteelWheel]

In the interests of defending myself....

I wouldn't take this approach in an appeal with a beginner, of course. With a truly good player, all of this would be moot--no appeal would be made.

Here in the US though, there are a large number of what I'll refer to as "Flight B Secretary Bird" types--some of these people have been playing so long, and earned so many ACBL ma$terpoints, that they have become "Flight A Secretary Bird" types. I'm not sure what the equivalent descriptions would be in other countries. Perhaps Justin or someone else who has played internationally would be able to suggest an equivalent term.

At any rate, I admit to being somewhat short with such folk. It is irritating to see people who attain such reputedly high standing in ACBL-land (Life Master or higher still), who still do not truly understand the game (see my recent post in the convention bashing thread about players who only know rules and never actually learn the game).

It's actually only people in this group who might lead me to take this approach. Surely, we could hope that an appeals committee process might do more than merely adjudicate the game? If we can inform and educate as well, is this not "a good thing"?

Regardless, I'll attempt to be more diplomatic in the future, should such situations arise. I'm always willing to learn, whether it's about bridge, how to be a better committee member, or how to be a better person.

Peace.

[Trinidad]

I would probably apologize to my "expert" opponent and add a note to his profile that he doesn't understand elementary bidding.

Rik

[helene_t]

SteelWheel, on Mar 3 2006, 10:11 AM, said:

Surely, we could hope that an appeals committee process might do more than merely adjudicate the game?  If we can inform and educate as well, is this not "a good thing"?

Yes, but not in this way. If you earn a reputation as a good TD and AC member, you can use that status to make people listen to your educative talk in columns and such.

But in a concrete appeal, be professional and stick to the case. "2♦ as non-forcing is standard and your opps rightly assumed a player of your level to know this" is sufficient. No need to tell them why it is standard. That only blurs the case.

[luis]

SteelWheel, on Mar 3 2006, 08:11 AM, said:

In the interests of defending myself....

I wouldn't take this approach in an appeal with a beginner, of course. With a truly good player, all of this would be moot--no appeal would be made.

Here in the US though, there are a large number of what I'll refer to as "Flight B Secretary Bird" types--some of these people have been playing so long, and earned so many ACBL ma$terpoints, that they have become "Flight A Secretary Bird" types. I'm not sure what the equivalent descriptions would be in other countries. Perhaps Justin or someone else who has played internationally would be able to suggest an equivalent term.

At any rate, I admit to being somewhat short with such folk. It is irritating to see people who attain such reputedly high standing in ACBL-land (Life Master or higher still), who still do not truly understand the game (see my recent post in the convention bashing thread about players who only know rules and never actually learn the game).

It's actually only people in this group who might lead me to take this approach. Surely, we could hope that an appeals committee process might do more than merely adjudicate the game? If we can inform and educate as well, is this not "a good thing"?

Regardless, I'll attempt to be more diplomatic in the future, should such situations arise. I'm always willing to learn, whether it's about bridge, how to be a better committee member, or how to be a better person.

Peace.

So not only you harrass the players with uncalled lectures from an authority position when you are in the AC but you do that with "some" players in a clear discriminatory way.
Let's just say you like to lecture and humiliate players because if you try to fix it you make it worst :-)

[Sigi_BC84]

In Germany non-forcing 2/1 shifts are alertable, so this would be alertable under our regulations. If your regulations say it's not alertable than it's not. Period.

Alertability is not about what one deems to be "obvious" but what the regulations demand. Maybe these regulations are silly or inconsistent but that doesn't change the facts. Therefore I don't undertstand why everybody here is repeating the argument that because this is so "obvious" and "natural" you don't have to alert it.

--Sigi

[luis]

Sigi_BC84, on Mar 3 2006, 03:04 PM, said:

In Germany non-forcing 2/1 shifts are alertable, so this would be alertable under our regulations. If your regulations say it's not alertable than it's not. Period.

Alertability is not about what one deems to be "obvious" but what the regulations demand. Maybe these regulations are silly or inconsistent but that doesn't change the facts. Therefore I don't undertstand why everybody here is repeating the argument that because this is so "obvious" and "natural" you don't have to alert it.

--Sigi

I bet you a beer 2♦ is not alertable in Germany with the 1NT overcall in the middle.