[awm]

Suppose a pair is playing a fairly basic strong club system in an ACBL event. The 1♣ opening (artificial, 16+ points) certainly requires an alert. Does responder's "natural and game forcing" response require an alert? For example 1♣-P-1♠ where 1♠ shows 8+ points and 4+♠?

I'm most interested in the ACBL regulation about this, although I'm also curious as to the rules elsewhere.

[blackshoe]

My reading of the ACBL Alert Procedure is that these responses should be alerted because they are game forcing.

They're alertable in England for the same reason [OB 5G2{c}{6}].

[duschek]

I don't think I have ever seen anybody alert it in Denmark, and I would not expect it either.

My partner and I have switched the meanings of responses to 1♣ completely, so we don't have the problem

[blackshoe]

duschek, on Nov 18 2009, 03:21 PM, said:

I don't think I have ever seen anybody alert it in Denmark, and I would not expect it either.

Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily mean that the rules in Denmark don't require an alert.
OTOH, I have no idea what the Danish alert regulations actually say.

[duschek]

blackshoe, on Nov 18 2009, 04:15 PM, said:

Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily mean that the rules in Denmark don't require an alert.
OTOH, I have no idea what the Danish alert regulations actually say.

The Danish alert regulations are basically a translation of the WBF alerting policy.

[awm]

The opposite to Blackshoe's view would be something like this.

The alert procedure is pretty clear that natural bids are usually not alertable. The exception is a natural bid with highly unexpected implications about strength or shape. However, this particular bid shows very much the same shapes that one would expect for a 1♠ response. The strength of the bid is very close to normal also (very slightly higher minimum than in standard). The bid is forcing and unlimited, but that's not unexpected either.

In fact the only thing that might be at all unusual about this call is that it's forcing to game. Of course, anyone with a marginal familiarity with a strong club system would expect this. And the alert procedure makes it very clear that 1♠-P-2♣ does not become alertable simply because the 2♣ call is game forcing. So it doesn't seem clear why a natural call which everyone plays as forcing and showing a hand of this approximate shape and strength should suddenly become alertable simply because it is forcing to game.

[blackshoe]

You asked for a reading on the ACBL regulation, I gave you one, and now you want to argue with me?

If you believe it's not alertable, why didn't you say that in the first place?

I stand by my reading. If you want a more "official" one, call Memphis.

[TimG]

I have not read the regulations, but...

It would seem to me that it would be more useful to alert 1♣-1♠ when 1♠ is not game forcing. Game forcing is the expected meaning after a strong club.

After I read the opening post, I wondered if a non-game forcing (but natural) 1♠ response to a Polish 1♣ ought to be alerted.

Edit: I now have read the alert regulations that Blackshoe linked. I think a natural and game forcing 1♠ response to a strong 1♣ opening falls into the "natural calls not specifically noted" that are "about expected strength and shape".

[awm]

Well, I personally have always alerted these. But Elianna recently encountered a player at her club who didn't alert them. She thought they were alertable (which matched my intuition) and this player argued with her.

She asked me about it later and even though both of us have this vague feeling these things are alertable, looking through the regulations there isn't really a lot of support for that position. Since "two over one game force" is not alertable, it seems like just because a call is game forcing when it might not be game forcing in "standard" is not be sufficient to make it an alert.

When I posted this, I was kind of hoping for some discussion of exactly what makes this call alertable from the alert procedures, or at least some range of opinions from different folks, rather than just Blackshoe's opinion that it's alertable without a lot of basis in the regulations (which is sort of what I had to begin with, if we substitute Awm for Blackshoe).

[jdonn]

If 1♠ was not forcing then it would be alertable. If it is forcing then I don't think it's alertable. Whether or not it's forcing to game is moot imo.

[Sadie3]

Does it promise a spade suit?

[blackshoe]

Under "Responses to suit bids" the Alert Regulation gives the example 1♣-(p)-1♥/1♠ and says "Not Alertable if it is natural (four or more cards in the suit) and forcing one round." Since it specifically says "one round" I think in Precision, where the bid is forcing to game, it's alertable. That said, I would not be surprised to find that (a) the regulation actually in force is not the one on the ACBL website, or at least not this one on the ACBL web site, or {b} someone in Memphis will say it's not alertable, probably without explanation (even if asked for one).

Edit: Given the high quality of the ACBL Alert Regulation, I don't think you're going to find a better basis in it.

[blackshoe]

I should add that while I do not consider the Alert Chart to be definitive (I consider it a summary, and if there is a difference between what it says and what the Alert Procedure (the actual regulation) says, the latter governs) it does not say anything about these responses to a Precision 1♣.

[blackshoe]

I looked through the Tech Files in ACBL Score and didn't find anything new about this particular question - but I did notice that in discussing 2/1 bids (1♠-2♣, for example, uncontested) the regulation says that a 2/1 which is "forcing for at least one round" (emphasis mine) is not alertable, and goes on to emphasize that a 2/1 which is forcing to game is not alertable. I have to wonder why, if they intended the same interpretation of the 1M response to Precision 1♣ about which we're talking here, they didn't use the same words.

[Mbodell]

awm, on Nov 18 2009, 10:36 AM, said:

Suppose a pair is playing a fairly basic strong club system in an ACBL event. The 1♣ opening (artificial, 16+ points) certainly requires an alert. Does responder's "natural and game forcing" response require an alert? For example 1♣-P-1♠ where 1♠ shows 8+ points and 4+♠?

I'm most interested in the ACBL regulation about this, although I'm also curious as to the rules elsewhere.

Well there are other bids to that are iffy in strong club too.

Consider (opponents silent):

p - 1♣* - 1♠*

Now since it is a passed hand and natural in standard it would not be forcing (although not often passed), but in a strong club that could be 100% forcing and thus require an alert.

The other one that comes up for me is, playing weak nt (opp silent):

1♣-1♦-1nt*

The 1nt is alertable showing 15-17 and balanced.

Playing precision the same auction:

1♣*-1♦*-1nt*

showing 16-18 and balanced and I know some people who don't alert the 1nt, but do alert the 1♣ and 1♦. The theory being if the 1♣ guaranteed 16 points, then it is not surprising that the 1nt shows 16-18 balanced.

My default if just to alert all of these bids, erring on the side of over alerting. I think that jives with the way the ACBL encourages alerting and hasn't lead to anything too strange or anyone too upset.

[blackshoe]

The alert regulation does say that alerting when it's not needed is okay, while not alerting when one should is not okay.

[bluejak]

While I am not arguing whether the ACBL regulation requires an alert, I think it is clear that commonsense says you do not alert. If someone ignores the alert of 1♣, does not know that opponents are playing a strong club, it is true they will be surprised to find that a 1♠ response [a] shows 8+ [b] shows 5+ cards and [c] is game forcing. But I really do not believe that anyone who discovers the 1♣ opening is strong would expect a non-alerted response to be based on Standard bidding.

It is not alertable in England, in my view. The basis for alerting a natural bid is that it "has a potentially unexpected meaning". Once you know the 1♣ is strong, I do not believe that a Precision 1♠ response is potentially unexpected. The same applies to 1♠ after passing.

[blackshoe]

Earlier, I referred to OB 5G2{c}{6}:

Quote

Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:
...
© Responses to an opening bid of one of a suit:
...
(6) A new suit without a jump that is forcing to game.

This seems pretty clear to me. OTOH, David's interpretation is no doubt current English practice- he's been directing there for quite a while, after all, and he is the editor of the OB. It wouldn't be the first time I've read what seemed to me plain English, only to have David tell me I'm reading it wrong.

I understand the argument that hearing an alert of 1♣ (and presumably then getting an explanation of the bid) a sensible player not be surprised that a 1♠ response is GF - but I've always understood alert regulations as not considering any dependency on previous alerts or explanations. So whether 1♠ in this auction requires an alert depends only on the meaning of 1♠, not on the meaning of the previous 1♣ bid. No doubt I'm wrong about that, too.

Perhaps the argument is that once a player understands that the opponents are playing Precision, 1♠ being forcing to game would not be unexpected. But that, it seems to me, violates the principle stated in the previous paragraph.

[duschek]

blackshoe, on Nov 19 2009, 12:53 PM, said:

I understand the argument that hearing an alert of 1♣ (and presumably then getting an explanation of the bid) a sensible player not be surprised that a 1♠ response is GF - but I've always understood alert regulations as not considering any dependency on previous alerts or explanations. So whether 1♠ in this auction requires an alert depends only on the meaning of 1♠, not on the meaning of the previous 1♣ bid. No doubt I'm wrong about that, too.

I find it obvious that alertability depends on the meaning of the previous auction. Consider the following auction: 2♣-(pass)-2♥.

In Precision, 2♥ is probably either non-forcing or forcing for one round. In standard bidding, 2♣ being a strong artificial bid, 2♥ is probably game-forcing.

Should 2♥ be alerted if it is not forcing to game, or if it is forcing to game? (in case you say "neither", we can probably find a different example with the same point).

[awm]

Maybe a clearer example than duschek's:

2♣-P-3♣. If 2♣ is strong and artificial, then the expected meaning of 3♣ is natural and game forcing. If 3♣ shows five or more clubs and game values, it would not be alertable. On the other hand, if 3♣ showed some sort of very weak hand (i.e. to play opposite 22-23 balanced) and was not forcing, it would require an alert.

On the other hand, if 2♣ is natural and intermediate (i.e. precision), then the expected meaning of 3♣ is some sort of non-forcing raise. Normally such a raise would not be alertable (although there might be an exception if it shows serious "limit raise" values or something). On the other hand, if 3♣ is a forcing raise, that would be alerted.

Thus the "expected" meaning of 3♣ as well as which meanings are alertable changes substantially based on the meaning of 2♣. Of course, one of these two meanings of 2♣ should be alertable (2♣ intermediate is the alertable one in ACBL).