[Phil]

Of all of the alerting regulations, the ones I have a serious issue with are the ones that tell my partner how I am responding to their bid.

Puppet Stayman is the most egregious. Partner opens 2N, and I bid 3♣. Well, maybe we forgot to discuss Puppet Stayman on the drive over to the game, but why bother? Partner alerts and I instantly know what his bid means! Furthermore if partner doesn't alert 3♣, I can also draw this inference.

Asking Bids are another. Over the weekend, we faced a pair that played Berkowitz/Manley Precision, but weren't practiced with the other. This auction was perpetrated:

1♣ - dbl - 1♠* - 2♥;
2♠** - pass - 3♦***

- * - 8-13 balanced without the double. Turns out it was 5-7 with spades. NOT alerted.
- ** - alerted
- *** - alerted

(You get the picture)

What about the 'Meckwell' asking bids? 1♣ - 1M - 2M - 2N. Nothing like an alert of 2N to 'tell partner that I need to show trump length / hand strength to 2N'.

The ACBL sort of gets it right by specifically requiring a 2N response to a weak 2 as 'not alerted'. However, if responder is unsure of their system, they have to guess if its 'feature' or 'Ogust'.

[mycroft]

I would make an argument that the 2NT-3C shouldn't be Alerted if it's Puppet (and I play it; I hate that part of it), but that's about as far as it goes.

1C!-1H!
1S!-2C!
...

If you don't ask, it's just noise. Yes, there are cases where if partner doesn't Alert, then "we know we're on a different page in this auction"; but regulating it? Very hard. The best part of my Precision system is that the information-passing part is pretty much irrelevant; If I don't Alert it, I'm passing (or it's a Delayed Alert, or its that one case where we drop off the map).

In the specfic case you mention, it's unfortunate, but 1S showing spades is not Alertable, whereas 1S showing a balanced hand *is* - and it's important that you know which it is (given that your double is also probably Alertable, and might show spades, and you might easily bid 2S (I have a fit)-X -500 into nothing because you "knew" from the last auction that 1S is balanced GF).

And if you're griping about Precision, I'll trade that for 1D-2C!; 2D!-2H!; 2S...in BART, or NMF auctions, or whether they play passed hand psychic controls (oh, I'm sorry, I meant, "Drury"), or complicated 1M-2NT schemes...

There's no difference between 2H-2NT! (were asking bids like this Alertable) and 2H-2NT (as it is in the ACBL); in both cases the *only* thing you can say about the auction is that 2NT isn't natural.

[shintaro]

There is nothing Like 'Self Abuse' (self alerting) to get a partnership running on the same rails
Why dont we just do away with systems and merely say 'I have 17 HCP 5 ♠ to AKQJ and 1 ♥ 7 ♦ to AK and ♣ void

Make life easier all
round

[Echognome]

Obviously this problem is avoided with screens. Since the overwhelming majority of F2F bridge is played without screens, it is a problem. However, I cannot think of major changes where the alternative is better than the current system. As such, I'm all for fine tuning around the edges. For example, I definitely agree that one should not alert Puppet Stayman. It is similar enough in nature to regular stayman that an alert at the time will not help. Perhaps a better thing to do is have it be a post auction alert.

[blackshoe]

Frankly, if 2♣/1NT or 3♣/2NT is any form of Stayman, I wouldn't think it should be alerted. Opener's responses where they differ from responses to regular Stayman (e.g. 3♠ shows a five card suit) should be alerted.

[Echognome]

I don't think that would help Ed, as then opener will know how responder is taking his calls. I really cannot see why the meanings of my calls would change whether or not opener has shown or denied a 4 or 5 card major. The only bid I would like to see alerted is responder's rebid, where 2NT - 3♣ - 3♦ - 3♥ may show 5S/4H (if playing Smolen) or showing 4S (if playing Puppet). That would make a big difference to me in wanting to double for the lead or not.

[blackshoe]

The UI laws treat as extraneous, and hence unauthorized, information gained from unexpected alerts or failures to alert. As long as there's an alert procedure at all, there is the potential for UI. But if the alert is expected, there's no UI. Granted it can sometimes be difficult for the TD to determine, after the fact, whether an alert was actually expected by the bidder, but that's why we get paid the big bucks.

I frankly don't see a better alternative. Better/more complete system cards would help, if you can get people to look at them, but they won't solve all the problems.

[barmar]

We already have the rule in ACBL that no bids above 3NT are alerted starting with opener's rebid (and other countries have comparable rules). The idea is that these alerts are more likely to wake up partner than help the opponents during the auction (although I suppose they would like to know when some bids are artificial, as it's easier to make lead-directing bids that way). In some cases, the rule is that they get post-alerted once the auction is over, so the opponents have the information they need during the defense.

It seems like similar logic would apply to things like Puppet Stayman. That's Echognome's point -- during the auction, the opponent doesn't really need to know whether opener is showing 4 or 5 cards when he responds to 3♣, as it's unlikely to change how they bid. But they need to know it after the auction is over.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-April-20, 21:19, said:

We already have the rule in ACBL that no bids above 3NT are alerted starting with opener's rebid (and other countries have comparable rules). The idea is that these alerts are more likely to wake up partner than help the opponents during the auction (although I suppose they would like to know when some bids are artificial, as it's easier to make lead-directing bids that way). In some cases, the rule is that they get post-alerted once the auction is over, so the opponents have the information they need during the defense.

The rule in ACBL is that when a bid above 3NT is made, starting with opener's rebid, any alert required is delayed until after the final pass. Other calls (doubles, redoubles and passes) are, when an alert is required, immediately alerted. So there are no cases where a bid which, if it had been made on the first round of bidding would have required an alert, would not require one at all if it were made after the first round.

[mycroft]

"It seems like similar logic would apply to things like Puppet Stayman..."

Yes, it would, and yes, it does. With the "conventional calls are Alertable with the following exceptions" and "these kinds of treatments do not make the call Alertable" rules of the Alert Procedures being the way they are, the way it would be added, I'm sure, is as one of those exceptions. And while I'm sure it's been raised to the C&C committee before, the proper way to get this "fixed" is to petition the C&C committee.

If they get evidence that this is a real issue for real players (and not just SBs like me, and "I wish I could tell those Precision people not to Alert - they're using the Alerts to stay on the same page" people (not saying that that doesn't happen; but it's not *everybody* playing systemic conventions, and there's a reason why "don't Alert, please" isn't allowed any more)), it's more likely that they'll actually say something about it. And I think it's around time for them to be reviewing the various charts (it's been 10 years, after all).

[blackshoe]

Doesn't matter how long it's been. If they're changed, people are still going to gripe that they're changed "too frequently".

[barmar]

I've given up on correcting my regular partner every time he alerts my queen-ask in RKCB. For some reason, the simply rule about bids above 3NT won't stick in his mind.

I'm not too worried about all the alerts in Precision. They're annoying, but I don't think they give the players much UI. They know from the beginning that they're about to get into a sequence of artificial bids. But as long as we don't make the mistake of asking them about their bids during the auction, they're just as likely to forget the specific meanings of the bids as without the alerts.

[Vampyr]

shintaro, on 2011-April-19, 12:50, said:

There is nothing Like 'Self Abuse' (self alerting) to get a partnership running on the same rails

On the other hand, self-alerting is, as far as I know, normally used only with screens and online, the two environments where you cannot know that your partner has alerted.