[hallway]

A pair playing a Natural System against a pair playing Precision

The First board the Precision Pair opened and alerted 2C and stated it was Precision.

The next board, they opened with 2C that was not alerted.

On this board, their Opps had a nice Club holding and passed - assuming that as the bid had not been alerted that it was a natural 2 bid.

They raised the question (after the hand had been played) Why the first bid was alerted and not the second.?

(personally I would have presumed that any subsequent bids would have had the same meaning as that given the first time it was used) ?

however, that is not the question - is an Alert of a bid given once during a round sufficient or should the bid have been alerted each time it was used ?

[the hog]

It should be alerted each time. Just like here in OZ Stayman needs to be alerted each time you bid it. It is your responsibility, not mine, to tell opps what you are playing, and not my responsibility to remember your system.

However:

If I were directing, my ruling would depend on who the opposition is. Experienced opps should be able to take care of themselves to some extent, and if experienced opps called the director for this, they would get short shrift from me.

[1eyedjack]

ALL alerting rules are laid down by the sponsoring organisation.
In this case the sponsoring organisation would be the tourney host (in a tourney) or BBO management (in the main playing area).
It is probably impractical for any tourney host to set out detailed alerting rules for each tourney. That being the case it needs to have either (a) a simple set of rules or (b) rules adopted en bloc, warts and all, from some other sponsoring organisation.

There are problems associated with both approaches. Perhaps the best method would be for BBO to get its head together and, just as it has "BBO standard" bidding systems, publish on its home site some "BBO standard" alerting regs, hopefully simple, that a tourney host could AT ITS DISCRETION adopt (perhaps adopted by default unless overridden). In fact I think such regs have been published but they are probably TOO simple/vague to answer the question posed in this thread.

In brief, if there are no regulations to cover the question asked, within whatever published alerting regulations the tourney host has chosen to adopt, then no-one in this forum will be able to answer that question.

[inquiry]

Alert each time... else prealerts would be sufficient.... and they are not.

Ben

[bearmum]

ANY bid which requires an alert HAS to be alerted EACH and EVERY time -- without exception!!! so the precision pair should be sanctioned by director (IMHO)

[paulg]

You always have to alert - and it is easy enough to do!

I'd probably wouldn't provide a voluntary explanation on the second occasion in two boards for a bid like a Precision 2♣, but it must be alerted.

In the UK you cannot ask the opponents not to alert (which I believe some SOs permit)

Paul

[mikestar]

I would warn the pair for failing to alert the second two clubs, but I would not adjust the score--the inconsistent alerts should have woke up the opponents to ask timely questions.

By the way, Precision 2C is natural. It is alertable in ACBL for two reasons:

1. Any 2C opening that is not game forcing or nearly so is alertable.

2. The distributional inferences of the typical Precison 2C where the opener either has a side 4 card major or has 6 clubs.

My prefered explanation was "11-15 or distributional equivalent, at least five clubs. He will have a 4-card major or extra club length."

[paulhar]

mikestar, on Aug 2 2004, 11:07 AM, said:

I would warn the pair for failing to alert the second two clubs, but I would not adjust the score--the inconsistent alerts should have woke up the opponents to ask timely questions.

If this happened in a BIL-sponsored event, the natural pair might not have even noticed the inconsistency. Indeed, I have heard many anecdotes from different teachers who made a mistake and played the same hand twice in their class and none of the students noticed.

So, if an adjustment would have been made on the first board, it should still be made.