[Echognome]

Well, even though I've been back living here for two years, there are still several areas where I'm unsure what the proper procedure is. Maybe these examples are in the alert procedures and I'm too lazy to look them up or maybe they are not. One thing for sure is that I've seen opponents alert them, not alert them, announce them, etc.

Help me please by telling me what should be done. I don't really mind if the opponents screw them up, I'd just rather follow the correct procedure for when my partner and I are bidding.

1) Systems on after a natural 1NT overcall.

a. (1X) - 1NT - (P) - 2♣ = stayman. Alert/No Alert/Announce

b. (1X) - 1NT - (P) - 2♦/♥ = transfer. Alert/No Alert/Announce

2) Similar after a natural 2NT overcall.

a. (2X) - 2NT - (P) - 3♣ = regular stayman. Alert/No Alert/Announce

b. (2X) - 2NT - (P) - 3♣ = puppet stayman. Alert/No Alert/Announce

c. (2X) - 2NT - (P) - 3♦/♥ = transfer. Alert/No Alert/Announce

3) Uncontested auction.

a. Fourth suit forcing to game. Alert/No Alert/Announce

b. Fourth suit forcing one round. Alert/No Alert/Announce

4) Texas/South African Texas

a. 1NT - 4♦/♥ = Hearts/Spades. Alert/No Alert/Announce

b. 1NT - 4♣/♦ = Hearts/Spades. Alert/No Alert/Announce

5) Raises of partner's major.

a. 1M - (P) - 3M = Preemptive. Alert/No Alert/Announce

b. 1M - (P) - 3M = Limit raise. Alert/No Alert/Announce

6) Ogust/Feature asks after partner's natural weak 2 bids.

a. 2M - (P) - 2NT = asks suit quality and min/max. Alert/No Alert/Announce

b. 2X - (P) - 2NT = asks min or feature if non-min. Alert/No Alert/Announce

7) Support doubles or lack thereof.

a. 1♣ - (1♥) - 1♠ - (2♥); Dbl = 3-card Support. Alert/No Alert/Announce

b. 1♣ - (1♥) - 1♠ - (2♥); 2♠ = 4-card support. Alert/No Alert/Announce

c. 1♣ - (1♥) - 1♠ - (2♥); Dbl = Good hand, takeout (doesn't deny 3-card support, nor does it show it). Alert/No Alert/Announce

d. 1♣ - (1♥) - 1♠ - (2♥); 2♠ = 3-4 card support. Alert/No Alert/Announce

I'm sure I will think of others, but thanks for any help that you give.

[jdonn]

Let's see how I do from memory.

1
a. No alert
b. Announce

2
a. No alert
b. Alert
c. Announce

3
a. Alert
b. Alert

4
a. Announce
b. Alert

5
a. Alert
b. No Alert

6
a. No Alert (Alert the rebid by opener)
b. No Alert

7
a. Alert
b. No Alert
c. No Alert (nor do I think penalty would be alertable). I could be wrong about this one, and if playing it I would alert it even if I don't think I have to.
d. No Alert

[Elianna]

jdonn, on Jan 25 2009, 11:40 PM, said:

Let's see how I do from memory.

1
a. No alert
b. Announce

2
a. No alert
b. Alert
c. Announce

3
a. Alert
b. Alert

4
a. Announce
b. Alert

5
a. Alert
b. No Alert

6
a. No Alert (Alert the rebid by opener)
b. No Alert

7
a. Alert
b. No Alert
c. No Alert (nor do I think penalty would be alertable). I could be wrong about this one, and if playing it I would alert it even if I don't think I have to.
d. No Alert

My memory agrees with yours 100%

[mtvesuvius]

jdonn, on Jan 26 2009, 02:40 AM, said:

Let's see how I do from memory.

1
a. No alert
b. Announce

2
a. No alert
b. Alert
c. Announce

3
a. Alert
b. Alert

4
a. Announce
b. Alert

5
a. Alert
b. No Alert

6
a. No Alert (Alert the rebid by opener)
b. No Alert

7
a. Alert
b. No Alert
c. No Alert (nor do I think penalty would be alertable). I could be wrong about this one, and if playing it I would alert it even if I don't think I have to.
d. No Alert

Mine too.... 100%.

[blackshoe]

I'm going to try to make sense of the actual regulation.

1a. Everybody and his brother, including me, treats this as not alertable, but the regulation doesn't actually say that. In fact, the section on conventional bids by default makes such bids alertable. It gives several examples in a list of exceptions; one of those is "Stayman". Yet the immediately following subsection, labelled "Stayman", only discusses that convention in conjunction with an opening bid. No mention whatsoever is made of Stayman in advancing an overcall. However, the alert chart says Stayman after an overcall is not alertable.
1b. In this case the regulation clearly states that the transfer requires an announcement.

2a. Same as 1a.
2b. Alert.
2c. Announce.

3. Alert both.

4a. Announce.
4b. Alert. Again, the alert chart specifies the transfer must be to the next higher suit for an announcement; the actual procedure doesn't make this distinction.

5. The procedure does not address the question, except to say that "unexpected" meanings are alertable. The chart says alert the weak jump raise, not the limit raise.

6. Both the procedure and the chart agree, 2NT responses to a weak two which ask for more information do not require an alert. I would alert Ogust rebids under the admittedly vague "unusual or unexpected" clause.

7. Regarding doubles, both the procedure and the chart say only that "highly unusual and unexpected" doubles require an alert; other doubles do not. Of that phrase, the procedure says

Quote

This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

I don't know about anybody else, but I have no idea what that means.

7a. Alert.
7b. The procedure says "In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable." On that basis, this bid might be deemed to require an alert, since it denies 3 card support (else double). I agree that "nobody" alerts it, though.
7c. Again, pretty fuzzy, but I think no alert.
7d. No alert.

I have been of the opinion that where the alert chart and the alert procedure differ, the procedure governs, but it seems pretty clear that, rightly or wrongly, that's not the case in practice.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on Jan 26 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

4b. Alert. Again, the alert chart specifies the transfer must be to the next higher suit for an announcement; the actual procedure doesn't make this distinction.

4 suit transfers are in blue on the ACBL cc, and they aren't the 'next suit'.

The alert chart under 'announce' does say announce if ♦=♥ and ♥=♠, however under the "definitions" a transfer is "a bid of a suit to show another suit".

Under procedures, four suit transfers aren't specified, but it does say that any other use of 2♠ and 2N must be alerted.

So, in typical ACBL style, SA Texas and four suit transfers are about as clear as mud.

[blackshoe]

I would not trust the ACBL CC to get it right wrt to what's alertable or announceable, but looking at my card, in the 1NT section I see 2♦ transfer to ♥, 2♥ transfer to ♠, and the same bids at the four level, in blue. There are no potential meanings given for 2♠ and 2NT, but the bids are in black, and the (blank) lines after them are red (which would indicate an alert).

[H_KARLUK]

The New Alert Procedure

http://www.mabcbridge.com/News/NewsArchive...203NewAlert.htm

http://www.acbl.org/...procedures.html

http://www.acbl.org/...alertchart.html

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Jan 26 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

7. Regarding doubles, both the procedure and the chart say only that "highly unusual and unexpected" doubles require an alert; other doubles do not. Of that phrase, the procedure says

Quote

This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

I don't know about anybody else, but I have no idea what that means.

I think this means that even if a convention is really common in your club, you're still required to alert it if it's unusual in most other places.

Quote

7a. Alert.
7b. The procedure says "In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable." On that basis, this bid might be deemed to require an alert, since it denies 3 card support (else double). I agree that "nobody" alerts it, though.

I think this is because raising responder's suit normally shows 4-card support; while 3-card raises are not unusual, they're not generally expected. So promising 4-card support with a single raise is not really an unexpected understanding.

That said, I've encountered some pairs who alert it.

[blackshoe]

H_KARLUK, on Jan 27 2009, 02:39 AM, said:

The New Alert Procedure

http://www.mabcbridge.com/News/NewsArchive...203NewAlert.htm

http://www.acbl.org/...procedures.html

http://www.acbl.org/...alertchart.html

That first link to the "New" alert procedure is dated nearly seven years ago.

[jdonn]

barmar, on Jan 27 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 26 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

7. Regarding doubles, both the procedure and the chart say only that "highly unusual and unexpected" doubles require an alert; other doubles do not. Of that phrase, the procedure says

Quote

This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

I don't know about anybody else, but I have no idea what that means.

I think this means that even if a convention is really common in your club, you're still required to alert it if it's unusual in most other places.

I wonder what someone who learned bridge and has only ever played at one particular club is supposed to do.

[Echognome]

Thanks for all the replies.

[barmar]

jdonn, on Jan 27 2009, 04:37 PM, said:

barmar, on Jan 27 2009, 11:50 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 26 2009, 10:39 AM, said:

7. Regarding doubles, both the procedure and the chart say only that "highly unusual and unexpected" doubles require an alert; other doubles do not. Of that phrase, the procedure says

Quote

This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

I don't know about anybody else, but I have no idea what that means.

I think this means that even if a convention is really common in your club, you're still required to alert it if it's unusual in most other places.

I wonder what someone who learned bridge and has only ever played at one particular club is supposed to do.

Hopefully the people he learned from are not so sheltered, so they alert their bids properly and he emulates them.

If this is a cloistered club where everyone bids that way without alerting, they're not going to complain to the TD if he follows suit. The first time he goes to another club or a tourney, he may learn the error of his way. C'est la vie -- it's similar to the problem players have when they go to a foreign country and aren't familiar with the local bidding systems and alert rules.