[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

While playing in the recent Gatlinburg Regional a director was hovering
over our table. The bidding went:
N E S W
1C 1NT P 2D
P 2H P P
P

After we played the board she said East's 1NT overcall had to be
alerted for point count. West's 2D bid was alerted as a transfer
to hearts. No one at the table had ever heard of this alert.
Was she correct?

Jerry D.

[Keeper1]

From the alert chart, you should alert:

Natural NT overcalls with an expected lower limit of less
than 14 HCP and/or upper limit of more than 19 HCP

Conventional NT overcalls except those specifically not
requiring an Alert

Natural Jumps to 2NT, except in balancing seat

So if the overcall had a lower limit of less than 14 HCP and/or an upper limit of more than 19 HCP, the Director was correct.

[blackshoe]

Why was the director hovering over your table?

The statement that a bid should have been alerted appears to have been based solely on the director's observation of the hand that bid it, unless she looked at one of the pair's system cards. A single deviation from partnership agreement does not automatically imply a new and different agreement. So the elephant in the room here is "what was the actual partnership agreement as to the meaning of the 1NT overcall?"

[Keeper1]

blackshoe, on 2015-April-27, 14:11, said:

The statement that a bid should have been alerted appears to have been based solely on the director's observation of the hand that bid it, unless she looked at one of the pair's system cards. A single deviation from partnership agreement does not automatically imply a new and different agreement. So the elephant in the room here is "what was the actual partnership agreement as to the meaning of the 1NT overcall?"

Yes. The regulation does say "expected" lower limit and, as you say, she can't get that from looking at the hand.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
Our partnership agreement is that a 1NT overcall in the direct seat is
natural(15-17) and balanced.

Jerry D.

[blackshoe]

jerdonald, on 2015-April-27, 16:49, said:

Our partnership agreement is that a 1NT overcall in the direct seat is natural(15-17) and balanced.

Did East's overcall fall within these criteria? Was East a member of your partnership?

[aguahombre]

Since we aren't told what East actually had, and must speculate as to whether it was a big deviation from the stated range marked on the card --- maybe we can find out whether West dropped dead in 2H with 9+.

[jerdonald]

BBO forum,
I was West and of course partner was East. Since they were shuffled
hands I can't recreate them. My partner would have had 15-17
balanced as it states on our convention card. I was very weak
with a 5 card heart suit. I think we just made 2 hearts.

Jerry D.

[blackshoe]

jerdonald, on 2015-April-27, 20:23, said:

My partner would have had 15-17 balanced as it states on our convention card. I was very weak with a 5 card heart suit. I think we just made 2 hearts.

Then why did the director say the 1NT bid required an alert?

[aguahombre]

I think I know what happened. The TD was ill-informed about announcements of NT ranges. There is nothing in the alert procedure requiring the announcement of range on a natural 1NT overcall which is in the usual range, but people seem to think it is the same as the requirement to announce an opening NT range.

[blackshoe]

Ah. Yes, that would explain it.

[barmar]

Was it the director or the OP who also mistakenly said it should be "alerted" rather than "announced" (like 1NT openings are).

I've also run into a few people who think they should announce opening 2NT ranges.

People have a habit of generalizing things too much, perhaps because they don't understand the motivation behind the rule for announcing 1NT ranges. Opening 1NT ranges vary widely, and opponents frequently play different defenses depending on the range. Before announcements, we (in ACBL) alerted weak NT, and kept silent for strong NT. But opponents with varying defenses would frequently ask the range, just in case the player forgot to alert. But this would transmit UI, because many players only asked if they had a hand that would take action over one range or another, so the regulation was eventually changed to require alerting all ranges.

Ranges of NT overcalls and 2NT openings don't vary so widely, so there's no need to announce them every time. If you play something outside the mainstream, you alert the bids.

I do have a little sympathy for the generalizers. Sometimes rules are arbitrary and don't make intuitive sense, so you can't always figure things out from common sense. So if you're not able to memorize all the alert rules, you have to use intuition for some things, and generalizing is just as valid a way of intuiting something than trying to understand the underlying logic.

[aguahombre]

That's true of players -- they incorrectly generalize. I believe directors have an obligation to know the rules or, at least, not to spread bad info.

[fromageGB]

barmar, on 2015-April-28, 10:11, said:

I've also run into a few people who think they should announce opening 2NT ranges.

But we do in GB. {Can't call it UK any more with the Scots trying to leave, and maybe the G is past its sell-by date, so here in B ...}

That's the trouble, there is no consistency, and you cannot rely on logic but have to learn the regulations by rote. For example, for a 1NT you announce if it may contain a singleton, but not for 2NT.

[aguahombre]

fromageGB, on 2015-April-28, 12:55, said:

That's the trouble, there is no consistency, and you cannot rely on logic but have to learn the regulations by rote. For example, for a 1NT you announce if it may contain a singleton, but not for 2NT.

That must be a joke. Every 1NT opening bid must be announced, because common sense tells us once in a great while any reasonable player will judge to open 1NT with a singleton??? Or are you talking about an agreement to do so, based on explicit or implicit history with this partner??

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-28, 18:49, said:

That must be a joke. Every 1NT opening bid must be announced, because common sense tells us once in a great while any reasonable player will judge to open 1NT with a singleton??? Or are you talking about an agreement to do so, based on explicit or implicit history with this partner??

The announcement is made in the form "13-15, may contain a singleton" when there is an agreement to open 1nt with some shapes containing a singleton. When the agreed shape is only one with a singleton in a specific suit, this is part of the announcement as well.

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2015-April-28, 18:49, said:

That must be a joke. Every 1NT opening bid must be announced, because common sense tells us once in a great while any reasonable player will judge to open 1NT with a singleton??? Or are you talking about an agreement to do so, based on explicit or implicit history with this partner??

When I play Acol and my partner opens 1NT, I announce "12-14", even though for all I know I might find 1 in 1000 times that partner has a singleton. When I play Fantunes and my partner opens 1NT, I announce "12-14, may contain a singleton" since there are some hands where the system doesn't really provide any alternative on 4441 hands with 12-3 points. Another local pair announces "12-14, may contain a singleton club" since their other agreements don't provide a good solution for 4=4=4=1 hands.

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on 2015-April-29, 03:53, said:

When I play Acol and my partner opens 1NT, I announce "12-14", even though for all I know I might find 1 in 1000 times that partner has a singleton. When I play Fantunes and my partner opens 1NT, I announce "12-14, may contain a singleton" since there are some hands where the system doesn't really provide any alternative on 4441 hands with 12-3 points. Another local pair announces "12-14, may contain a singleton club" since their other agreements don't provide a good solution for 4=4=4=1 hands.

I understand disclosing agreements where there are inferences/negative inferences involved --- or if there are tools built in to one's NT structure to accommodate such openings. I was reacting to announcing "may contain a singleton" otherwise -- which apparently is not what fromageGB meant. Over here, where agreements/controls to facilitate an opening nt containing a singleton are not allowed, an announcement that opener might choose to do it with a singleton would be silly.... much like a player who watched Justin in action once and announces "may have eight clubs and two singletons".

[mycroft]

Right. This is in a context where the restriction on "4441 or 3451 is NOT BALANCED, and you can't agree to do that" does not exist.

I, too, wonder about the pairs who don't have that agreement, but will treat the "ACBL looks balanced to me and anyone else who can play" hands as 1NT openers. Did the fact that they didn't announce "may have a singleton" get them in trouble?

I assume not, given the usual sanity of EBU regulation interpretation. But I'm sure it's fun.

In the original case (ACBL), I know several who *do* announce their NT overcall range, and I don't mind that (as opposed to those who Announce Flannery, or "waiting" 2♦ or...) It's wrong, but it's not "keep us on the same page" wrong, and we do keep having to harp on "yes, you have to announce strong NTs, still, and yes, that won't change no matter who tells you differently, and..." and given the choice of wrongs, ah well.

I have had to explain to people that "yes, 12-14 NT overcalls are in fact Alertable", and in at least one case, the pair involved figured out why all by themselves and a few -800s (and switched to a 15-17 NT overcall).

[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2015-April-29, 11:19, said:

I have had to explain to people that "yes, 12-14 NT overcalls are in fact Alertable", and in at least one case, the pair involved figured out why all by themselves and a few -800s (and switched to a 15-17 NT overcall).

This is an interesting phenomenon and observation. I have explained to people at the club that a weak 1NT overcall must be alerted so that the opponents will know they should double it for penalty.