[jillybean]

1♥:2♥
3♦*:3♥
4♥

3♦ is ostensibly a help suit game try, partner rejects the game try and opener bids game. Partner now knows 3♦ was a cue bid rather than a game try, should we alert the 4♥ bid?

[Winstonm]

I don't think 4H needs to be alerted but 3D needs to be alerted and explained as a 2-way bid possibility.

[peachy]

If you have an agreement that 4H clarifies that 3D was advance cue _then_ partner "knows it". Otherwise I would not assume it, and opener might have wanted to just know about the diamond help or even might have made a "Zia" cuebid.

If you did have the agreement that 4H changed the HSGT into an Advance Cue Bid, only then would I alert 4H, because at that time the nature of the 3D call became known. Not sure if it is alertable, but it cannot hurt to alert it.

Similar situation as in using Stayman which does not promise the asker to have a 4-card major. By ACBL regulation, don't alert the 2C bid but alert the followup bid which denies or tends to deny 4-card major.

[blackshoe]

How often will opponents have a hand which could not bid on the first round, but will come in over a game try (but not a slam try)? I would think this would be very rare.

I think, as a general principle, that if you have an agreement that a bid is probably X, but a later bid may cancel that meaning and instead show meaning Y, you should explain the first bid as X, but when that meaning is canceled, you should now alert and explain the meaning as Y. Particularly if meaning Y is rare. The alternative is to explain the first bid as "X; rarely, Y", and alert and explain when the "cancel" bid comes up that the meaning Y is confirmed. So far as I know, no RA's alert regulation addresses this directly.

In this case, 4♥ needs to be alerted because it contains a message opponents are not likely to know. BTW, it would be a bad idea to explain 3♦ by saying, among other things, "if partner bids 4♥ that will cancel the one meaning in favor of the other" or words to that effect. IOW, in explaining your agreements, you should not mention the meaning of possible future calls. Explain them when they come up.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, sounds like it should be alerted (4♥). I have failed to alert this type of situation --guilty as charged.

When I (or the opps) have bid the most expensive suit, as ostensibly a game try, then bid game anyway, my sense of logic tells me that it was a long suit which would like some help for slam --not some nondescript cue. I certainly would not feel there was damage from failure to alert or give a gratis explaination.

If our agreement is different than that, and the sequence does not show diamond length, I would really feel it should be alerted.

[kenrexford]

Why do you have to alert the opponents to that fact that you are playing bridge?

Oh, I guess that it is rare, but even if the average person does not actually plays bridge, it still should be expected.

[blackshoe]

"Because I say so. Now shut up." -- E. Gary Gygax.

Okay, he was talking about why magic in Dungeons and Dragons works the way it does, but still…

My take on alert regulations and "the principle of full disclosure" and the laws is that sometimes you do have to alert when you are "just playing bridge". As Spock said to Ston, "It is not logical, but it is often true".

[jdonn]

Obviously nothing about this being a slam try is (should be?) alertable. I agree with Ken completely even if it's just an implication.

[awm]

I'm not sure that "advance cuebids" qualify as "just bridge" in the modern game.

If my partner and I produced this auction, my interpretation would be that 3♦ showed a diamond suit and asked for help there, and that after partner showed no help (by bidding 3♥) opener concluded that game was the limit. In other words, a "help suit game try" turned out to be a "help suit slam try."

This is not the same as 3♦ being a "cuebid for hearts" as the latter seems to imply both that 3♦ could be based on a singleton ace or the like and that the 3♦ bid absolutely guaranteed a control in the suit.

An example opener hand for me is ♠AKx ♥AKJxx ♦QJxxx ♣-

[Winstonm]

Agreements need to be alerted. That is why the 3D bid should be the alertable bid as the agreement is about the 2-way nature of that bid.

4H is just bridge common sense.

[Phil]

I think it depends on the pair's tendencies.

If 3♦ is frequently 'ha-ha' on the way to game, then it should be alerted. If 3♦ then 4♥ is played as a slam try, then no alert.

Disclosure is still part of the 'modern game'.

[campboy]

This thread is ridiculous. People are just weighing in with random opinions.

The correct answer is, of course, "You should alert when the alerting regulations in your jurisdiction require an alert. What jurisdiction are you in?"

In the EBU, for example, the 3♦ bid does not show length, and is therefore alertable (OB 5G3i, 5F1a).

[jillybean]

Sorry, ACBL

[campboy]

The ACBL rules are much less clear, but appear to me to say that 3♦ is alertable unless it is natural. Also it says

Quote

Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted.

I do not think this bid promises the expected strength or shape, since if it is the first move on a slam hand it may not have any length at all.

I can't see anything in the ACBL alert charts to suggest that 4♥, rather than 3♦, should be alerted, but I may well be missing something.

[jillybean]

campboy, on May 30 2010, 04:29 PM, said:

The ACBL rules are much less clear, but appear to me to say that 3♦ is alertable unless it is natural. Also it says

Quote

Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted.

I do not think this bid promises the expected strength or shape, since if it is the first move on a slam hand it may not have any length at all.

I can't see anything in the ACBL alert charts to suggest that 4♥, rather than 3♦, should be alerted, but I may well be missing something.

In our system 3♦ is essentially a natural, help suit game try and therefore does show length. Only after partner rejects the game try and opener continues to game is it apparent that 3♦ could be a cue and slam try.

[blackshoe]

A help suit game try does show length (at least three cards), at least the way I've seen it played (i.e., you don't make a help suit game try on a two card suit).

Help suit game tries are not alertable in the ACBL. Help suit slam tries at the four level are not alertable. A natural rebid at the three level in this auction that is explicitly a slam try is alertable because it conveys the message of more strength than the opponents will expect. I stand by my opinion that in the auction in question, no alert is due until the auction is over (4♥ requiring an alert because it conveys the message that partner has the slam try rather than the game try, and "until the auction is over" because alertable bids above 3NT after opener's second call required a delayed alert — delayed that is until after the final pass, but before the opening lead is chosen.

I have requested an opinion from the ACBL Competitions and Conventions Committee (which I do not expect to get) and from "rulings", which I do.

Heh. According to my online dictionary, "alertable" is not a word.

[peachy]

Winstonm, on May 30 2010, 04:19 PM, said:

Agreements need to be alerted. That is why the 3D bid should be the alertable bid as the agreement is about the 2-way nature of that bid.

4H is just bridge common sense.

However, if you had the agreement that 4H in the given auction says opener has a diamond cuebid instead of a help suit bid, then 4H needs an alert while 3D certainly does not need an alert in ACBL where help suit game tries are not alertable. Absent agreement to the contrary, the 3D is still a Help Suit Try but turned out to be a slam try instead of game try.

[peachy]

jillybean, on May 30 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

In our system 3♦ is essentially a natural, help suit game try and therefore does show length. Only after partner rejects the game try and opener continues to game is it apparent that 3♦ could be a cue and slam try.

The terms "natural game try" and "help suit game try" are mutually exclusive, they are not synonyms and there is a difference.
Natural game try shows a suit.
Help suit game try asks partner about that suit and the person making that try typically has three cards in the suit of interest such as xxx or even as good as Qxx. Neither of these are alertable in the ACBL.

[jillybean]

peachy, on May 30 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

jillybean, on May 30 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

In our system 3♦ is essentially a natural, help suit game try and therefore does show length. Only after partner rejects the game try and opener continues to game is it apparent that 3♦ could be a cue and slam try.

The terms "natural game try" and "help suit game try" are mutually exclusive, they are not synonyms and there is a difference.
Natural game try shows a suit.
Help suit game try asks partner about that suit and the person making that try typically has three cards in the suit of interest such as xxx or even as good as Qxx. Neither of these are alertable in the ACBL.

Doesn't the ACBL consider a bid natural if it shows three or more cards in minor and four or more in a major? Anyway, I was trying to distinguish between an artificial bid (a cue in this example) and a natural bid, not a help suit and second (natural) suit game try.

[peachy]

jillybean, on May 30 2010, 07:46 PM, said:

peachy, on May 30 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

jillybean, on May 30 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

In our system 3♦ is essentially a natural, help suit game try and therefore does show length. Only after partner rejects the game try and opener continues to game is it apparent that 3♦ could be a cue and slam try.

The terms "natural game try" and "help suit game try" are mutually exclusive, they are not synonyms and there is a difference.
Natural game try shows a suit.
Help suit game try asks partner about that suit and the person making that try typically has three cards in the suit of interest such as xxx or even as good as Qxx. Neither of these are alertable in the ACBL.

Doesn't the ACBL consider a bid natural if it shows three or more cards in minor and four or more in a major?

Yes.