[rduran1216]

 peachy, on 2011-July-21, 23:56, said:

You are mistaken, sorry. The Alert regs give three examples (among many others) that are alertable.

EXAMPLE: 4M openings which are natural but are weaker than might be expected because the partnership has some other method (an example is the Namyats convention) for showing a good 4, opening.

EXAMPLE: 1H-P-4h when playing a forcing club where the 4H call may have, by agreement, values for game but not slam.

EXAMPLE: A natural 3C opening which is stronger than expected since the partnership has agreed to open 2S (a Mid-Chart agreement so the Mid-Chart has to be in effect) with weak minor-suit preempts.

These examples are not exclusive, the principle applies.

Edit: Discussing ACBL regs.

Those are all calls which are not "standard" treatment. My point was that their 1S response to 1h falls into the standard response of 4+ spades and 6+ HCP. Therefore I see no reason why it would be alertable.

[peachy]

 rduran1216, on 2011-July-22, 11:13, said:

Those are all calls which are not "standard" treatment. My point was that their 1S response to 1h falls into the standard response of 4+ spades and 6+ HCP. Therefore I see no reason why it would be alertable.

The reason I posted a reply to you is that you said this:

"There's a quote in Berkowitz Precision today about alerting 1M pass 4M since it could show opening strength, but again, it is a natural bid, so the ACBL does not require an alert."

THE ACBL alert regulations specifically say this is alertable.

[kenberg]

 peachy, on 2011-July-22, 22:09, said:

The reason I posted a reply to you is that you said this:

"There's a quote in Berkowitz Precision today about alerting 1M pass 4M since it could show opening strength, but again, it is a natural bid, so the ACBL does not require an alert."

THE ACBL alert regulations specifically say this is alertable.

This is something I believe the ACBL has done correctly. 1M-Pass-4M was a preemptive bid when I learned bridge by reading Goren in 1961, and with non-big-club players, and even with some of them, it still is. Part of the reason for alerts is simply to save time. I could read their card after each bid but I prefer trusting that they will alert me to non-standard meanings.

[mgoetze]

 rduran1216, on 2011-July-21, 22:35, said:

Natural bids never have to be alerted.

Since the majority of your posts are in the "Advanced- and Expert-Class Bridge" forum, I suppose you claim this because you are at such a high level that you only bother to play WBF events and nothing else.

However, in the jurisdictions we mere mortals usually play in, this is not the case. For instance, in my jurisdiction, and I know you will find this incredible, a 2♣ opening showing 6+ clubs and 11-15 points is alertable!

[mycroft]

I would add to that, of course:

• (1C)-2C
  
• (1H)-X
  
• 1H-(1S)-X
  
• and Fantunes 2M bids

to the list of defined Alertable-if-natural in the ACBL; obviously, because the natural meaning is so unexpected.

And, "once the Alert chart is updated", very weak preempts will become Alertable rather than pre-Alertable.

Having said that, to the OP, the theory is that negative inferences from natural are not generally Alertable; I don't see why they should be any more Alertable if they are "not the standard negative inferences" that the opponents would draw playing their version of your system. This goes as far, according to the TDs I was talking about this with in Toronto, to not Alerting 1NT-2H (transfer); 2S explicitly denying 4 Spades (which I feel uncomfortable with, as the point of super-accepting in some way with *all* 9-card fits is LoTT-esque in nature, and could very well be important in the bidding. But my beliefs are not ACBL policy).

I would, however, like many cases of "special partnership information" about your sides "treatments", disclose it prior to the opening lead (assuming you are the declaring side, of course).

[ArtK78]

 kenberg, on 2011-July-22, 10:21, said:

...

3. On this hand, I am very uncertain that alerting and explaining our agreements would have helped, and I can well imagine an opponent wondering a bit about my intent if, after I explain that the spade holding can be on any four cards, he leads a spade and I show up with AKx.

...

Whether to alert or not has nothing to do with the actual holding that either you or your partner have on the given hand. If you have an agreement that requires an alert, an alert should be given. If an explanation is requested, it should be given.

Experienced players should not believe that you had any motive in properly alerting and explaining an agreement, regardless of the holding that you have in the suit.

[rduran1216]

 mgoetze, on 2011-July-24, 04:13, said:

Since the majority of your posts are in the "Advanced- and Expert-Class Bridge" forum, I suppose you claim this because you are at such a high level that you only bother to play WBF events and nothing else.

However, in the jurisdictions we mere mortals usually play in, this is not the case. For instance, in my jurisdiction, and I know you will find this incredible, a 2♣ opening showing 6+ clubs and 11-15 points is alertable!

because the standard treatment of 2C is artificial and strong.

look I play against people who routinely raise majors on 3 cards because of their 2NT response which is 3344. 1D 1S 2S is not alertable even though its frequently on 3 cards, but the 2NT bid and the follow ups are alertable. Similar thoughts here. 2D opener of flannery is alertable, but the 1H 1S is not because it falls into the realm of a standard treatment.

[mrdct]

In all jurisdictions it is extremely rare to get in trouble for alerting something that turns out to be non-alertable; but it is quite common to get into trouble for failing alert something that is alertable. I think the best advice is that apart from things that your NBO explicitly deems as self-alerting or non-alertable, if you are in any doubt you should err on the side of alerting.

[aguahombre]

FWIW, I believe we have sufficiently confused the issue for those who respond 1S with four simply because they don't open Flannery with 4-6 in the majors. I know it is different than the OP's agreements, since they sometimes do and sometimes don't.

Nevertheless, those who are reasonably sure of current ACBL and other jurisdiction alert regulations should clarify. Even though I know a pair is using Flannery, I still assume when they don't alert 1♠ that it doesn't show five; because that is what I am used to. Should I get used to something different?

The problem I have with MrDct's "when in doubt" answer is that if one style is alertable, and the other is not...then alerting the non-alertable variable could mislead the opposition who will assume you alerted as required.

[awm]

I'm extremely certain that if a 1♠ response to 1♥ shows at least four spades and is forcing, it is not alertable. It does not matter whether it shows four spades or five spades, or with which hands (if any) including four spades you might choose not to respond 1♠.

This is justified by specific indication that 1♠ response showing five is not alertable, and by the general rule that negative inferences alone do not make a bid alertable.

[mrdct]

 awm, on 2011-August-02, 22:20, said:

... and by the general rule that negative inferences alone do not make a bid alertable.

That may well be true in some jurisdictions, but when it comes to explaining bids if and when asked, Law 20F1 (which applies where ever you are) requires disclosure "... about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding".

In my country, our regulations require alerts where "the call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect".

aquahombre said:

The problem I have with MrDct's "when in doubt" answer is that if one style is alertable, and the other is not...then alerting the non-alertable variable could mislead the opposition who will assume you alerted as required.

The only thing an opponent can reasonably infer from a bid being alerted is that it potentially carries an unexpected meaning. If they choose not to ask and it's not something I was required to pre-alert under my NBO's alerting regulations, they do so entirely at their own risk. Also, I don't think there would be a single bid in bridge where only two "styles" were in use in the game. I can think of at least three common meanings of 1♥:1♠.