Alerting

[Gary Wilson]

A discussion arose at our club about whether a bid should be alerted or not.

The bidding went (no interference):

1NT* - 2C**
2H - 4H
all pass.

After the alert of the 1NT, but before the 2C bid, it was asked why 1NT was alerted. The answer was, that their 1NT could contain a 5card major, that it was balanced and that it had 15 to 18 HCPs.

Then the 2C bid was alerted, no questions asked.
The 2H bid was not alerted.

Dummy's hand is opened up, and dummy has 3 Hearts.

In the post mortem we ask how dummy knew that declarer had 5 Hearts (which she had). We were told that they play 5card major Stayman, so a response of 2 in a major shows a 5card suit in that major, not a 4card.

We of course, should have asked which version of Stayman they were playing. Not that it mattered much, because the contract was cold.

But:

- should 1NT (as used in this way) be alerted?
- should the 2H bid be alerted?

[Matthew McManus]

The question of whether one should alert a 1NT opening with a five card major can be a vexed one. The purpose of alerts is to give your opponents the same information that you and your partner have in terms of your agreements. Therefore, if there is anything which they may not reasonably expect, then it should be alerted. The question of course then is: would the opponents expect that a 1NT opening may contain a five card major? This often depends on what is

[bluejak]

Once 2C was alerted there seems no need to to alert 2H which is a perfectly natural bid.  More importantly, how can it affect the opponents?  If they needed to know what was going on they could [and should] have asked the alerted calls, and would have been told that 2C was 5-card Stayman.

[pwg]

Once 2C was alerted there seems no need to to alert 2H which is a perfectly natural bid. . .

ABF alerting regs require that  "natural responses [to Stayman] which convey a message about strength or special distribution" be alerted.  It seems to me then that  the 2H should be alerted as 5 card.

[Paul Sherman]

ABF alerting regs require that  "natural responses [to Stayman] which convey a message about strength or special distribution" be alerted.  It seems to me then that  the 2H should be alerted as 5 card.

Nope. 2H shows hearts, so it's natural. As for it being a 5-card suit, that could have been discovered one bid earlier. That is why the 2C was alerted. If the opps didn't ask about the alert, it's their loss. No need to alert the same thing twice.

[pwg]

Nope. 2H shows hearts, so it's natural. As for it being a 5-card suit, that could have been discovered one bid earlier. That is why the 2C was alerted. If the opps didn't ask about the alert, it's their loss. No need to alert the same thing twice.

The 2C was, in any case, self alerting, so I don't think the 2C alert is meaningful.  My interpretation of the regulations is:
2C response to INT is self alerting and should not be alerted.
The only responses to Stayman which should not be alerted are 2H or 2S to *simple* Stayman.
see also the thread "Are systematic responses to 2C (Stayman) alertable?"  earlier in this forum.

Peter.

[Paul Sherman]

Peter, several points here. First, the original question stated that the 2C was alerted. This is what the topic is about, we should stay on the topic. Second, and I quote Matthew above, "if there is anything which they may not reasonably expect, then it should be alerted". The 2C was specifically alerted to alert the opponents that it was an enquiry for a five card major. I'm not sure that all 2C-s are self-alerting but surely it should be here. Suppose you don't play Stayman and 2C is weak takeout! Almost nobody plays that (and therefore would not be expecting that) and an alert would be in order as 100% of players would assume it's some sort of Stayman. Imagine the faces around the table if it goes 2C - P - P - P!

The only reason you could be alerting the 2C bid (which you say is self-alerting) would be to draw attention to the fact that there is something unusual going on, out of the ordinary. And that can only be either: 1) 5-card stayman; 2) weak takeout; 3) transfer to diamonds or something the opponents would just not be expecting. There was their chance to find out that it was 5-card Stayman. If they didn't ask, especially if a self-alerted bid was nevertheless alerted, they shouldn't be surprised when dummy goes down. Just my view but there are mediators and heroes to put me in my place if I wuz wrong  :D

[pwg]

Paul,

Just my view, but I disagree on a couple of your points:

The original post asked "should the 2H be alerted?", so I don't think I'm going off topic.  What I was asserting was that (as the alert regulations say) *any* 2C response to a 1NT opening in an uncontested auction is self-alerting. The additional alert (of an already alerted bid) adds no information for the opponents.  So, the requirement to alert the 2H bid (showing distribution) is not affected.

Cheers & Happy New Year to everyone.
Peter.

[bluejak]

Even if 2C is self alerting, the fact is that it was alerted, and that tells the opponents that it was not regular Stayman.  Once you know it is 5-card Stayman, then you only need to alert 2H if it shows some unusual strength or distribution - and showing five cards in response to 5-card Stayman is not unusual.

Hero member?  Ye gods!  ::)

[Chris]

Peter and I have been around this Mulberry bush a few times - it started when a pair in our Region suddenly decided to start playing 2C natural after partner's 1NT opening !!  Peter is quite right when he says that the ABF Alerting Regulations state quite clearly - ANY 2C response to a 1NT opening is self-alerting and SHOULD NOT BE ALERTED.  We came to an agreement that this natural bid should be pre-alerted - 3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them ... etc. Perhaps playing 1NT with a 5-card major might come into that category?

[Paul Sherman]

The point behind self-alerting bids is heavily focussed on the contention that special methods and treatments (such as playing a natural 2C over a 1NT) are pre-alerted before play begins. That's all very well but how many times have we followed a pair that is always 5 minutes behind the rest of the room? So by the time they finish their last board, say goodbye to the opponents, look for the pen they've lost, gather their system card (etc. etc.) most of the room have finished one board already by the time you sit down. Then, playing 2 board rounds, you are already under tremendous pressure to try to catch up (even though it's not your fault) and if you now start explaining to the opps that 2C over your 1NT may be natural/puppet/whatever, you will for sure never catch up. So much simpler to wait, see if the situation happens (with 2 boards, your side is the opener only once and for that situation to come up is really way against the odds) and just alert if and when it happens to arise.

Unfortunately, I must agree with Peter and Chris: ABF Alerting Regulation 7.2 clearly states: "Self-alerting calls should not be alerted." My personal opinion is that this regulation should be looked at because there are many instances where things like this pop up and for whatever reason (such as being late at a table) you may not have time to fully pre-alert. In my own case my partner and I play Swine rescue sequence after 1NT - X and partner's pass requires a XX from me; his own XX is also systematic, far far too long to go into in a pre-alert especially running late: and of course they may never come up. But I would feel like cheating if I didn't alert his pass or XX which have special meanings. I would really like to hear from Matthew on behalf of the ABF how to handle such situations. I just don't believe not alerting (just because they are self-alerting) is the answer. How could the opponents even guess that partner's pass after the X of the NT is systematic??

                                                 P   1NT   X   P   

Tell me the pass after the double doesn't look the most natural in the world? Yet it shows either a 2-suited hand or a strong hand asking opener to XX for penalties!

[Matthew McManus]

It is generally agreed that whatever alerting regulations are in place, there will be situations where things just don't seem right.

The beauty of the concept of self-alerting calls is that there is a fairly simple set of rules as to what needs to be alerted. Calls become self-alerting because they have so many different meanings that in most cases they are going to be alerted. Self-alerting simply takes away the need for the partner to make the alert. Continuing the education of players is the best way of making everyone more comfortable with the concept. This means making your players aware of the need to ask the meaning of doubles and redoubles whenever it is relevant to them.

Those of you who have been directing for a long time will recall the nightmare of dealing with the complex rules we used to have about when a double should be alerted. Much of a director's time was spent resolving disputes about what sort of double it was (penalty, negative, takeout, optional , action,...) and making a decision as to whether a double should have been alerted, or, more ridiculously, whether a double which was alerted should not have been. Since self-alerting came into practice, things have very much settled down, and I think that the game generally is more peaceful and less at the mercy of "bush lawyers".

There will be the occasional situation where things don't quite work out and it does get awkward, but I think that this is far outweighed by the benefits.

[bluejak]

That is one view.  But as someone who plays some very strange things which are self-alerts in Australia, I do not approve at all.  Playing against mediocre opposition, I overcall 1S.  A round or two later my partner doubles 4S.  I really feel very bad that I do not alert, since it says "Do not lead a spade" and who is going to ask?

But for a forum like this, we are being asked how to rule.  For that we follow the rules, even if we do not agree with them.  But it is still interesting: when a self-alerting call does, in fact, get alerted, I cannot believe damage should lead to an adjustment for a pair who do not ask the meaning of the self-alerting call.

[Paul Sherman]

That is one view.  But as someone who plays some very strange things which are self-alerts in Australia, I do not approve at all.  Playing against mediocre opposition, I overcall 1S.  A round or two later my partner doubles 4S.  I really feel very bad that I do not alert, since it says "Do not lead a spade" and who is going to ask?

I assume you meant that partner doubles 4H. If your side is bidding spades the opps are unlikely to be and he can't double your bid.

[bluejak]

I am surprised that people do not use cue-bids in Australia!  In England, a 4S bid would show the ace of spades and be looking for a slam, and a double of 4S says "Do not lead a spade".

No Paul, when I type 4S I mean 4S not 4H!  :)

Totally off-topic for the moment....I would like to wish you - and the entire panel including the moderators - a very happy Christmas and an equally happy New Year.

Looks like you have already received a nice, if fitting Christmas present: a promotion to 5-star Hero Membership (whatever "Hero" means  :D ;) ;D )

I got a much nicer present, which I shall tell you all about if you allow me one mildly off-topic post.  :)