[thorvald]

---

It is a difficult hand but 2♠ looks wrong to me

[Douglas43]

There seem to be a lot of points in this pack. With the clubs breaking badly (assuming that the 2♣ not alerted was indeed natural rather than a UCB), I'd be worried about source of tricks, and about the long trump hand suffering forces. call me a pessimist, but I'd probably pass 2♥ unless my system allowed it to be 5 Hearts and 6 Clubs, which this system doesn't.

[Douglas43]

There seem to be a lot of points in this pack. With the clubs breaking badly (assuming that the 2♣ not alerted was indeed natural rather than a UCB), I'd be worried about source of tricks, and about the long trump hand suffering forces. call me a pessimist, but I'd probably pass 2♥ unless my system allowed it to be 5 Hearts and 6 Clubs, which this system doesn't.

[thorvald]

Douglas43, on 2022-November-05, 20:22, said:

There seem to be a lot of points in this pack. With the clubs breaking badly (assuming that the 2♣ not alerted was indeed natural rather than a UCB), I'd be worried about source of tricks, and about the long trump hand suffering forces. call me a pessimist, but I'd probably pass 2♥ unless my system allowed it to be 5 Hearts and 6 Clubs, which this system doesn't.

2♣ is a 3+♠ raise

[pescetom]

thorvald, on 2022-November-06, 07:11, said:

2♣ is a 3+♠ raise

which should have been alerted in any sane jurisdiction.

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2022-November-06, 13:49, said:

which should have been alerted in any sane jurisdiction.

Really?

ACBL alert procedures 2022:

Quote

Do NOT Alert the following bids:
..
After an Opening Suit Bid and an Overcall, a Cuebid by either side that shows a raise, or
an Average Strength or stronger hand, or either possibility

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2022-November-06, 14:14, said:

Really?

ACBL alert procedures 2022:

I said sane
It does not show what it says and there is no natural reason to assign it any other meaning, that's what alerts were invented for.

[smerriman]

I thought alerts were invented to alert opponents to the fact that your bid may not have the meaning they'd expect. I don't see any difference between this and having to alert Blackwood because it's not a natural no trump, or having to alert a strong 2♣ opener because it's not a natural club bid.

You of course have to choose what the most common 'expected' meaning is, but I'm sure if you polled this on BW as to what the bid meant without agreement, support for spades would be near unanimous.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2022-November-06, 16:16, said:

I thought alerts were invented to alert opponents to the fact that your bid may not have the meaning they'd expect.

I would be interested to know where it is written that that extends to not alerting conventional bids.
WBF which is the global regulating body of bridge says that one should alert bids which are not natural.

smerriman, on 2022-November-06, 16:16, said:

I don't see any difference between this and having to alert Blackwood because it's not a natural no trump, or having to alert a strong 2♣ opener because it's not a natural club bid.

Nor do I, nor does WBF for that matter.
If you want to look for a chink in the armour, try doubles.

[smerriman]

Fair enough. Just seems like it would be a big waste of time alerting bids like that where everyone knows the meaning, and then there's the 1 pair who plays it differently, and you'd never know unless you asked your opponents to explain what every single one of the obvious bids meant every time they bid it. Seemingly going against the whole idea of alerts in the first place.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2022-November-06, 16:48, said:

Fair enough. Just seems like it would be a big waste of time alerting bids like that where everyone knows the meaning, and then there's the 1 pair who plays it differently, and you'd never know unless you asked your opponents to explain what every single one of the obvious bids meant every time they bid it. Seemingly going against the whole idea of alerts in the first place.

I guess it depends partly upon how homogeneous your local interpretations are in the first place, then how close they are to natural.
In the US there is a wide range of low level or Ace-checking conventions that almost everyone seems to play and expect, so it is understandable that the WBF policy looks like a waste of time.
Here like much of the world, there is more variety and also more chance that any given bid is natural, plus the expectation that opponents will alert it if not.
Online, which is the future of bridge, I think alerts are a non-issue as the agreement should be disclosed automatically.
Which of course means that the formulation of agreements and the disclosure mechanisms are an urgent issue instead.

[smerriman]

I guess that's precisely why there are regional alerting procedures, and why the WBF policy says it's not intended to replace those.

[thorvald]

Sorry I did not add the alert, when creating the board in the forum, but I assumed it was well-known that is how the bot plays.

Personally I believe in Full Disclosure, and alerting is not waste of time, but help us to a nice game.

[smerriman]

thorvald, on 2022-November-06, 18:10, said:

Personally I believe in Full Disclosure, and alerting is not waste of time, but help us to a nice game.

No arguments there. My "waste of time" was referring to in-person bridge, which is what all of the alert regulations were written for (ie where 'alerting' and 'providing a description' are independent).