[jdonn]

Because there may be a bid that, by regulation, is not alertable, but you suspect the opponents may neither have understood the full meaning of nor thought to ask about. It's very common among ethical players.

[blackshoe]

Yes. Also, if 4♥ were to be alerted, that would happen after the auction, so offering an explanation has the same effect.

[pran]

jdonn, on Jun 18 2010, 08:47 PM, said:

Because there may be a bid that, by regulation, is not alertable, but you suspect the opponents may neither have understood the full meaning of nor thought to ask about. It's very common among ethical players.

An alert regulation that lacks a general safety clause on calls that may possibly not be immediately understood completely by opponents is in my opinion unsatisfactory and unsuitable.

The call we discuss was 3♦, i.e. well below the 3NT limit, and if within an auction I felt that the call might justify a question from opponents I most certainly would alert it.

My explanation of the alert statement is: You may have an interest in asking about this call

[bluejak]

The problem with over-simplified alerting regulations like this is that they spoil the overall alerting method because of individual cases. There will always be calls that are not understood by opponents. That of itself does not and should not make them alertable: it is the overall system of alerting that matters.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jun 19 2010, 02:20 PM, said:

The problem with over-simplified alerting regulations like this is that they spoil the overall alerting method because of individual cases.  There will always be calls that are not understood by opponents.  That of itself does not and should not make them alertable: it is the overall system of alerting that matters.

My reaction is closely connected with the player apparently feeling that opponents (probably) should need an explanation of his partner's call.

Once a player feels that way I see absolutely no reason why he should not also alert that call immediately (unless such alert is specifically prohibited by regulation, a prohibition I only know about for calls above 3NT).

In fact, I cannot see any reason for a player to feel that way unless the call in question has some artificial meaning instead of, or in addition to the strictly natural understanding of the call, the prime reason for a call to be alertable.

[jdonn]

pran, on Jun 19 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

My explanation of the alert statement is: You may have an interest in asking about this call

So your response to someone asking about a call is to tell them they may have an interest in asking about the call?

[pran]

jdonn, on Jun 20 2010, 01:52 AM, said:

pran, on Jun 19 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

My explanation of the alert statement is: You may have an interest in asking about this call

So your response to someone asking about a call is to tell them they may have an interest in asking about the call?

I see that you need it with teaspoons:

When someone asks me what is the purpose of the stop and alert cards I tell him:

The stop card is used in situations where a call may come as a surprise so that he may need more than the normal time to select his next call. It is used so that the time he spends is controlled by his opponent and cannot convey UI to his partner.

The alert card is used in situations where partner has just made a call which may convey information that possibly is not immediately understood by the opponents; it is an "alert" that they may want to ask about the call.

Do I have to elaborate even further?

[nige1]

pran, on Jun 19 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

The call we discuss was 3♦, i.e. well below the 3NT limit, and if within an auction I felt that the call might justify a question from opponents I most certainly would alert it.

I agree with Pran and disagree with JDonn et al. Here, the original poster specified that the partnership understanding about 3♦ is two-way. The alternative meanings are quite different:

• Either a long-suit game-try.
  
• Or a cue-bid (perhaps even a void?) slam-try.

[jillybean]

nige1, on Jun 20 2010, 05:09 AM, said:

pran, on Jun 19 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

The call we discuss was 3♦, i.e. well below the 3NT limit, and if within an auction I felt that the call might justify a question from opponents I most certainly would alert it.

I agree with Pran and disagree with JDonn et al. Here, the original poster specified that the partnership understanding about 3♦ is two-way. The alternative meanings are quite different:

• Either a long suit trial bid for game
  
  
• Or a cue-bid for slam.

I don't believe I ever said that 3♦ is a 2 way bid. 3♦ is a game try, only after we bid on after partners sign off is it apparent that 3♦ was a cue bid or something other than a pure game try. There must be many situations where the meaning of a bid can be altered by subsequent bidding and I don't agree that an explantion should be offered in this case.

[pooltuna]

jillybean, on Jun 20 2010, 07:55 AM, said:

nige1, on Jun 20 2010, 05:09 AM, said:

pran, on Jun 19 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

The call we discuss was 3♦, i.e. well below the 3NT limit, and if within an auction I felt that the call might justify a question from opponents I most certainly would alert it.

I agree with Pran and disagree with JDonn et al. Here, the original poster specified that the partnership understanding about 3♦ is two-way. The alternative meanings are quite different:

• Either a long suit trial bid for game
  
  
  
• Or a cue-bid for slam.

I don't believe I ever said that 3♦ is a 2 way bid. 3♦ is a game try, only after we bid on after partners sign off is it apparent that 3♦ was a cue bid or something other than a pure game try. There must be many situations where the meaning of a bid can be altered by subsequent bidding and I don't agree that an explantion should be offered in this case.

You mean we can assume the opponents are supposed to be able to use logical thought processes!!!! and we aren't required to assume they are idiots?

In other words if we make a game try and partner declines but we bid game anyway they are supposed logically deduce that our "game try" was actually a "slam try". So that all we have to alert is the "game try"

[jdonn]

pran, on Jun 20 2010, 03:18 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 20 2010, 01:52 AM, said:

pran, on Jun 19 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

My explanation of the alert statement is: You may have an interest in asking about this call

So your response to someone asking about a call is to tell them they may have an interest in asking about the call?

I see that you need it with teaspoons:

When someone asks me what is the purpose of the stop and alert cards I tell him:

The stop card is used in situations where a call may come as a surprise so that he may need more than the normal time to select his next call. It is used so that the time he spends is controlled by his opponent and cannot convey UI to his partner.

The alert card is used in situations where partner has just made a call which may convey information that possibly is not immediately understood by the opponents; it is an "alert" that they may want to ask about the call.

Do I have to elaborate even further?

I don't think changing the meaning of a carefully selected statement (emphasized in bold lettering!) qualifies as elaborating. But I do agree that when something makes no sense to my stomach and makes me ill that I should receive it in small doses.

[blackshoe]

The meaning of "Alert!" is, in fact, "you may have an interest in asking about this call". Generally, a player who alerts (even Sven ) will, when asked "what does that mean?" understand that his opponent is asking for the meaning of the call, not the meaning of the alert. Sorry if that upsets your stomach, Josh. Take some Maalox.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jun 20 2010, 06:03 PM, said:

The meaning of "Alert!" is, in fact, "you may have an interest in asking about this call". Generally, a player who alerts (even Sven ) will, when asked "what does that mean?" understand that his opponent is asking for the meaning of the call, not the meaning of the alert. Sorry if that upsets your stomach, Josh. Take some Maalox.

I would (of course), but if you knew how many times I have had to explain the alert card (and the stop card) as such to ignorant players you would appreciate that my explanation depends on whether they ask about the alerted call or about the alert card itself.

Understanding the different reasons is harly ever a problem.

And as you correctly confirms: The meaning of the alert card is just "you may have an interest in asking about this call", not as many players assume "the call is artificial".

One example: In Norway an otherwise natural call is alertable if there (reasonably) can be doubt about the forcing characteristics of the call. (e.g. inverted minor raises must be alerted.)

[bid_em_up]

..

[bid_em_up]

pran, on Jun 18 2010, 03:42 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 18 2010, 06:53 PM, said:

I said I would ask HQ what the policy is. Here's Mike Flader's reply:

Quote

Like you, I wouldn't alert 3D. I would offer to explain the agreement to the opponents after the auction was over.

This surprises me:

If there is a reason for at the end of the auction offering opponents an explanation of a call I don't understand why this call should not have been alerted at the time it was made (except when the call is above 3NT and the relevant alert regulation specifies "no alerts above 3NT")?

Because, at the time the call was made, it was simply a HSGT, and the meaning of that call did not change until the 4H bid was made.

See the alert procedures for the auction:

1N-2C-2x-2N*

The 2N bid is alerted as may or may not contain a four card major (when playing 4-way transfers), because it does not become clear that this was an invitational hand that may not have a four card major until the 2N bid is made.

This scenario is exactly the same. The intent of the 3D call does not become clear until the 4H call is made, and that is when the alert (if necessary) is given, or is explained at the end of the auction.

(imo, of course).

[mjj29]

bid_em_up, on Jun 22 2010, 01:35 PM, said:

pran, on Jun 18 2010, 03:42 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 18 2010, 06:53 PM, said:

I said I would ask HQ what the policy is. Here's Mike Flader's reply:

Quote

Like you, I wouldn't alert 3D. I would offer to explain the agreement to the opponents after the auction was over.

This surprises me:

If there is a reason for at the end of the auction offering opponents an explanation of a call I don't understand why this call should not have been alerted at the time it was made (except when the call is above 3NT and the relevant alert regulation specifies "no alerts above 3NT")?

Because, at the time the call was made, it was simply a HSGT, and the meaning of that call did not change until the 4H bid was made.

See the alert procedures for the auction:

1N-2C-2x-2N*

The 2N bid is alerted as may or may not contain a four card major (when playing 4-way transfers), because it does not become clear that this was an invitational hand that may not have a four card major until the 2N bid is made.

This scenario is exactly the same. The intent of the 3D call does not become clear until the 4H call is made, and that is when the alert (if necessary) is given, or is explained at the end of the auction.

(imo, of course).

I disagree. The meaning of the bid is one of two things, not both natural and which one will be revealed later. It should be alerted and described as "Either invitational with a help-suit or a slam try with a cue". There is no difference between this and the multi 2D (hearts or spades or some strong option) or, if you want one option which is natural, psycho-suction or the "LOL defence to a short club" of (1C - short)-2C = clubs or the majors.