[kenrexford]

"Alert."

"Yes? "

"Partner's pass shows any hand where he would not have opened/overcalled. Here are the definitions of the 11 most common opening bids or overcalls..."

This is why they made me stop it.

[helene_t]

Ken this is silly.

Alert!

Yes?

We play a 1NT as a very light take-out so he could have a balanced 16 count but he can't have a 3-suited hand short in spades unless he has less than 7 HCPs.

You don't need to say that he doesn't have a hand suitable for a normal (jump) overcall.

[the hog]

 helene_t, on 2014-June-06, 04:17, said:

I don't see why RUNT itself should be pre-alertable. It doesn't seem to require a special defense.

Maybe the pass should be alerted. In Ken Rexford's case I think it should be, but that is pretty extreme.

I know the ACBL doesn't require negative inference to be alerted. I can sorta understand this but probably the idea is that you don't need to alert when it doesn't matter much. Since there isn't any difference between positive and negative inference. You could for example define Muiderberg as a 5-card preempt showing an unbalanced hand and denying a 4-card in the other major. Then it becomes negative inference that you have a 4+ card in a minor, but obviously that doesn't make it any less alertable.

Once my partner passed in direct seat holding a completely normal 1NT overcall - but we play raptor. Declarer misguessed because he thought my partner couldn't have 16 points and be silent in the auction. Afterwards he said he thought I should have alerted my partner's pass. I think he has a point. It is a bit difficult to formalize, though. And some opps get annoyed if you alert too much.

I disagree totally with this. It is not your role to give lessons in bidding. Pd opens 1C. Do you say, "He may only have 3 Cs. If he has 3 Cs he does not have a 5 card M. He does not have a bal 20-22 etc etc etc?" You get the idea.
You open 1NT and pd bids 3. Do you alert and say pd does not have a 5 card M or a 4 card M unless he is 4333 etc etc?" For heavens sake! In your example above, I do not bid on crappy bal 16 counts without a source of tricks. This is Bridge in my opinion.

[helene_t]

 the hog, on 2014-June-06, 07:51, said:

In your example above, I do not bid on crappy bal 16 counts without a source of tricks. This is Bridge in my opinion.

Not sure what you disagree with. Sounds like you are mixing up my post with Ken's.

My p passed because he didn't have a natural 1NT bid available, not because he found the hand unsuitable for a natural 1NT bid.

Of course it is just bridge that when partner passes over opps opening he is likely to have some length in opps' suit if he has decent values. In Ken's system, the pass virtually guarantees length in their suit. I don't think that is GBK.

[kenrexford]

If full disclosure is taken too far, you can get into what seems like the absurd. Consider a few examples.

1. You open One Heart. Do you alert, noting that you play Flannery? The 1♥ opening in the context of Flannery tends to show shorter spades on average than the 1♥ opening usually has, and the 1♥ opening tends to have slightly longer hearts on average than the normal 1♥ opening (because you eliminate from the mix all 5-card holdings with four spades).

2. Do you disclose impending inferences? If one needs information to determine a call to make, future possible actions are important. For instance, I have selected between two options on the basis of whether the opponents do or do not use Rosenkranz Doubles. Should I be alerted to this convention being used when RHO overcalls 1♠? Or, should I be expected to ask or to look at their card? This might seem silly, but nuances to a past auction are important, but nuances to a possible future auction are also important. Knowing the opponents' defense to a weak two, for instance, impacts whether I do or do not make a weak two. A "future" penalty double in the context of Fishbein impact whether I do or do not open a light 3-bid. Should I be alerted after the deal to Fishbein?

3. Should I be alerted as to the options available to opponent's partner in general? Their structure may impact their decisions and give nuance to their bids. For example, consider a third-seat 1♥ opening. In the abstract, the 1♥ opening might not seem to have any plausible nuances from a response structure. However, Drury impacts the type of hands opened 1♥. Equally, a 2♦ response as showing 3♥/4♠, for instance, might make a 4-4 major holding more likely. Should 1♥ be alerted because of Drury and 2♦ as described, because this gives nuance to their opening bid?

This might seem silly, but nuances arise all the time that are applied by the partnership but not necessarily disclosed, because the nuance is not spotted unless you have a strange reason for the nuance to become important. For that matter, it is extremely difficult to accurately describe nuances.

Consider describing the nuances of a 1♣ opening. Would most people be able to remember to describe the nuance of the hand with 5M/6♣? How about the subtlety of the Rule-of-Twenty and freak hands? How about the nuance of the balanced ranges (if 14, poor 14, if 19, poor 19, could be good 17)? What about nuances like describing what balanced hands in the 15-17 range are not opened 1NT?

When you start getting into the extremely nuanced, it seems that there becomes a point where the disclosure on the convention card should be enough to inspire questions, or where knowledge of the GCC should inspire questions, or knowledge of the game should inspire questions. If the convention card has "RUNT" listed, or 0+ overcalls, the opponents should be expected to use logic to realize that maybe a pass is significant and ask. If you in general decide that a failure to overcall 1NT means something in the play, knowledge of the GCC suggests asking to be sure. When someone opens 1♥ in third seat and nuances might matter to you for some reason, knowledge of the game might inspire asking whether the nuances are or are not present.

[kenrexford]

 helene_t, on 2014-June-06, 07:56, said:

Not sure what you disagree with. Sounds like you are mixing up my post with Ken's.

My p passed because he didn't have a natural 1NT bid available, not because he found the hand unsuitable for a natural 1NT bid.

Of course it is just bridge that when partner passes over opps opening he is likely to have some length in opps' suit if he has decent values. In Ken's system, the pass virtually guarantees length in their suit. I don't think that is GBK.

If the convention card indicates that 1NT shows 0+ with any three suits, and if the overcall range is stated as 0+, don't you now have general bridge knowledge that the pass implies length in Opener's suit? Granted, not everyone reads the convention cards. But, shouldn't the opponent in your scenario have known that 1NT overcalls can be used as artificial bids and have checked the convention card, or asked?

The question to me is not whether GBK gives you an automatic answer to every nuanced question. The question is whether the specific disclosure tool of an alert is always the required avenue for disclosure. The two alternative means of disclosure are the convention card and answers to inquiries.

The alert is not a means of disclosure, when you think about it. Rather, an alert is a tool of economy. Without alerts, auctions would be silly, with everyone asking what every bid means. You see that sometimes anyway. Alerts serve the function of saving time in some situations by eliminating the need to ask questions when questions would be likely.

Consider the negative double. Without alerts, you would always be able to ask what these doubles show. That would be annoying. So, we started out alerting the negative double, to eliminate the need for too many questions. Only the nuanced question would need an inquiry, and those being rare. We then decided to alert penalty doubles, instead, because "Alert" all the time became annoying and because the Alert potentially lulled the opponents into apathy when the double might be really weird. There was the idea of a "special alert" for a while, to combat this issue. But, imagine alerts for every nuance available and how annoying that would become.

When you realize that alerts are NOT the disclosure but rather a tool for eliminating out too many dumb questions, you then realize, IMO, that the ACBL policy about negative inferences makes sense.

[manudude03]

I think disclosure wise, you should only alert the opponents if it might affect their bidding or play. In Helene's 1NT post, I don't think pass should be alerted. After all, suppose you play 1NT as natural, but partner elected not to make the call for whatever reason, does the meaning of the pass change? I don't think so. However, playing RUNT, partner's range of hands for passing is rather dramatically changed. I also hope the cuebid is alerted if it is natural but known to be a 3 card suit on occasion.

[blackshoe]

"A strange game. The only way to win is not to play." -- "Joshua", aka "The WOPR", in "War Games", ca. 1983.