[Shugart23]

Partner and I play a strong Club system where when Responder bids 2C or 2D in response to the 1C Open, Responder guarantees 5 of the respective Minor, 8+ HCP and specifically denies a 4 card Major. I think this is a simple question....does the fact that partner and I know Responder does not have a 4 card Major require an alert ? I am looking at the ACBL Alert Chart and the 2C and the 2D response seem to fall in the definition of a 'treatment' and therefore not alertable....(We have been alerting this bid, but thanks to responses to my other question I am now reviewing the Alert chart)...Thanks

[barmar]

Treatment

Quote

A natural call that carries a specific message about the suit bid or the
general strength of the hand. For example, agreeing to open five-card majors is a
treatment - when you open 1-of-a-major, partner "knows" you have five or more. This is
indeed a message but not an unexpected one, so no Alert is required.

I don't think your agreement falls into this, since the additional information is about other suits.

[mycroft]

I don't think this is Alertable simply because it denies 4cM (after all, a natural 1♣-2♣ usually denies a 4cM :-). Playing a strong club, I Alert these calls because they're GF in a way that standard players would not think of without prompting (likely not necessary, but I've never heard anyone complain about it, and I don't think I remember playing a strong club pair who didn't). If asked, of course, complete information as you explained above in your first sentence is required, with or without an Alert - I'm sure you do that though.

Of course, the potential canape nature of your 1M responses should be explained (and a later bid that shows a (potential) longer minor does need to be Alerted), and I would tend to Alert those as well.

[mcphee]

You and partner have information which the other side doesn't, therefore this is alertable.

[phoenix214]

I would alert it because of the fact that it denies having 4 card majors.

[Shugart23]

mycroft, on 2016-June-01, 09:15, said:

I don't think this is Alertable simply because it denies 4cM (after all, a natural 1♣-2♣ usually denies a 4cM :-). Playing a strong club, I Alert these calls because they're GF in a way that standard players would not think of without prompting (likely not necessary, but I've never heard anyone complain about it, and I don't think I remember playing a strong club pair who didn't). If asked, of course, complete information as you explained above in your first sentence is required, with or without an Alert - I'm sure you do that though.

Of course, the potential canape nature of your 1M responses should be explained (and a later bid that shows a (potential) longer minor does need to be Alerted), and I would tend to Alert those as well.

Thanks....yeah, our 1M responses to 1C are positive transfers; ....Just an aside, we got rid of the traditional 2H and 2S weak long suit responses and use 2M to show 8+ HCP and precisely a 4 card M and an undisclosed 5+ undisclosed Minor....This has turned out to be a much better bid than 'standard' 2H or 2S

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2016-June-01, 09:15, said:

I don't think this is Alertable simply because it denies 4cM (after all, a natural 1♣-2♣ usually denies a 4cM :-).

The difference is that most people expect that to deny a 4cM -- there's nothing unusual to warn opponents about. But the agreement this pair has is pretty unusual, so the opponents deserve a warning.

[ggwhiz]

Perhaps not technically alertable but it falls into the category of "Look out y'all".

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2016-June-02, 15:05, said:

Perhaps not technically alertable but it falls into the category of "Look out y'all".

It either requires an alert or it doesn't.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-June-02, 16:51, said:

It either requires an alert or it doesn't.

"not technically alertable" means it doesn't.

But I don't agree, since I think it falls under the "highly unusual and unexpected" general rule. The normal expectation is that if you have a 4-card major, 5+-card minor, and a game forcing hand, you would bid them in the natural order. The opponents can't be expected to know that they have a conventional way to show this type of shape, so it's denied when they bid 2 of a minor.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps you're right, barry. I will say that if an alert is required under the "highly unusual and unexpected" rule, then the bid is not "not technically alertable".

I suppose the real question is "how are we supposed to apply this "highly unusual and unexpected" rule — given that a pair using a method is not likely to think of it as such.

[mycroft]

"in light of historical usage" as the Procedures say.

I keep being told that "negative inferences are not inherently Alertable", say for 1♦-p-1♥-1♠; 2♥ promising 4 from failure to make a support double or (and I feel really uncomfortable about this one) 1♠-p-4♠ being "long or strong, no interest in slam" (because 1♠ is limited to 15, so it's "obvious"). - Sorry, I can't find the page in the set of documents that said this one ATM.

However, the Alert Procedure also says "In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable." So, I think there is some conflicting thought here. Especially because it then, immediately, goes on to say: "Some such agreements have become expected and are fairly common, therefore no Alert is required." How do you know? "In light of historical usage" again, I guess.

I think you could argue both ways, and like any good lawyer, feel like a ruling in your favour is correct. I wish there weren't so many cases where that is true. However, given that one way is "arguably technically correct" and hides information from the opponents, and the other way is "arguably technically correct" and doesn't (and is not going to misinform opponents or wake up partner), I know which is in the spirit of full disclosure as well as being (at least arguably) within the Law.

[mycroft]

And yes, the "given that the pair ... is not likely to think" their method is HU&U, I certainly get that - usually with the *standard* players who play 1♠-4♠ as "5-and-5-and-a-stiff, or 3-balanced-GF" (How is partner supposed to know? "I just bid my hand, partner, you have to bid yours." I wish I were kidding). I'm sure those who do this get a fair number of good boards from those who haven't yet learned this player/pair's tendencies, and therefore think it's not only proper, but good bridge. But this isn't that - they *know* their system is unusual, it's just a question of whether it's unusual (or the difference is relevant during the auction) enough to fit HU&U.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-June-03, 13:42, said:

I suppose the real question is "how are we supposed to apply this "highly unusual and unexpected" rule — given that a pair using a method is not likely to think of it as such.

In the given situation, I don't think that's likely.

First, they're playing a strong club system, which by itself is a minority in most areas. Second, they have a special convention to show 4M+5m hands, I'm sure they know this is alertable. And they know that it's only because of this convention that they have the negative inference that a minor bid denies 4M.

Where you run into players who don't know that they're doing something unusual are people who think it's normal to make a takeout double on almost any opening hand that they can't overcall with.

[Shugart23]

barmar, on 2016-June-04, 11:09, said:

In the given situation, I don't think that's likely.

First, they're playing a strong club system, which by itself is a minority in most areas. Second, they have a special convention to show 4M+5m hands, I'm sure they know this is alertable. And they know that it's only because of this convention that they have the negative inference that a minor bid denies 4M.

Where you run into players who don't know that they're doing something unusual are people who think it's normal to make a takeout double on almost any opening hand that they can't overcall with.

Second, they have a special convention to show 4M+5m hands, I'm sure they know this is alertable. And they know that it's only because of this convention that they have the negative inference that a minor bid denies 4M.

Yes, we alert out 2H and 2S bid over partner's 1C opening and yes, logically, our 2m responses infer no 4 Card Major.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-June-04, 11:09, said:

First, they're playing a strong club system, which by itself is a minority in most areas. Second, they have a special convention to show 4M+5m hands, I'm sure they know this is alertable. And they know that it's only because of this convention that they have the negative inference that a minor bid denies 4M.

First, that strong club systems are a minority doesn't make them "highly unusual and unexpected" especially when that is supposed to be viewed in the light of historical usages. Also the alert procedure specifically mentions such systems as among those with which all players are expected to be familiar.

All that aside, the real problem IMO is the "negative inferences do not require an alert" paradigm. It's much too easy to hear that and think "Oh! That my 2m bid denies a 4cM is a negative inference, so does not require an alert." And maybe it doesn't. But as with others, it seems to me in the spirit of full disclosure to alert it. I would expect players with considerable experience to come to the same conclusion, but that doesn't mean they will — and it certainly doesn't mean that inexperienced players will. Not to mention directors.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2016-June-02, 16:51, said:

It either requires an alert or it doesn't

IMO, rules are rarely clear about this.

Thus, some jurisdictions require that you alert a "natural" call, about which you have an understanding that opponents might not expect; but players rarely comply with such rules; and directors rarely enforce them.

For example, the OP scenario is common to several systems. (When holding a 4-card major, biddable at the 1-level, you don't respond at the 2-level in a minor, unless you have a strong hand, prepared to reverse into the major). Some partnerships use such canapé conventions but few alert them.

An ultra simple solution would be a rule that you announce the meaning of partner's every call. Unfortunately such a change would render rain-forests of regulation redundant.

[Shugart23]

nige1, on 2016-June-04, 14:18, said:

IMO, rules are rarely clear about this.

Thus, some jurisdictions require that you to alert a "natural" call, about which you have an understanding that opponents might not expect; but players rarely comply with such rules; and directors rarely enforce them.

For example, the OP scenario is common to several systems. (When you holding a 4-card major biddable at the 1-level, you don't respond at the 2-level in a longer minor, unless you have a strong hand, prepared to reverse into the major). Some partnerships use such canapé conventions but few alert them.

An ultra simple solution would be a rule that you announce the meaning of partner's every call. Unfortunately, such a rule would render rain-forests of regulations redundant.

Partner and I probably bend over backwards to let Opponent's know what our bids mean, and I think she and I will continue to alert almost all our bids, and err on the side of 'when in doubt, alert'......

[blackshoe]

Nigel's suggestion turns alerting into insanity. If you're going to announce (rather than alert) the meaning of every call, why not just do that for your own calls, and eliminate "bidding" altogether? Instead of "one spade" say "I have five or more spades, no longer suit, some 11 to 21 HCP, and am not balanced in the range of 15-17 or 20-21". Of course, this eliminates all those fun auctions where somebody forgets the system. It also will take a lot longer. Players already complain that three and a half hours is too long for a session. If it goes to five or six, they're probably going to give up and stay home.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2016-June-05, 03:37, said:

Nigel's suggestion turns alerting into insanity. If you're going to announce (rather than alert) the meaning of every call, why not just do that for your own calls, and eliminate "bidding" altogether? Instead of "one spade" say "I have five or more spades, no longer suit, some 11 to 21 HCP, and am not balanced in the range of 15-17 or 20-21".

The proposed rule would divulge to opponents only the information to which current rules entitle them. To announce a call, the bidder's partner would need to remember the partnership agreement. And the conventional meaning of a call is rarely a complete description of the hand. Explaining every call has numerous advantages e.g.

• You don't need complex alert-rules.
• The onus is on you to disclose rather than on opponent to find out.
• You must explain calls that players often forget to alert, such as forcing passes.
• You have to disclose natural meanings that opponents might not expect.
• Opponents don't have to wait for you to alert and then waste time asking questions.

blackshoe, on 2016-June-05, 03:37, said:

Of course, this eliminates all those fun auctions where somebody forgets the system.

The introduction of alerting, itself, did a lot of that. Nevertheless, Blackshoe makes an excellent point. IMO, you should be allowed you to switch-off opponents' alerts (under current rules) or announcements (under the proposed rules).

blackshoe, on 2016-June-05, 03:37, said:

It also will take a lot longer. Players already complain that three and a half hours is too long for a session. If it goes to five or six, they're probably going to give up and stay home.

IMO, the proposed rule would speed up the game (see 5 above). Each table would be supplied with a card of common explanations (e.g. F1, FG, T/O, NEG, 3-card support, Asks for lead, etc). Players would become accustomed to pointing to relevant boxes, after each call by partner. This would accelerate disclosure and reduce disturbance to other tables.