[jillybean]

Here is the situation I was trying to describe with my last post, somewhat different – I was rather mixed up.

---

Bidding:

1♠:1NT
2♦

In a regular partnership, should 2♦ here be alerted ‘could be short’ ?

thanks
jb

[paulg]

ACBL: no alert
EBU: no alert
SBU: no alert
WBF: alert

Paul

[jtfanclub]

jillybean2, on Aug 9 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

In a regular partnership, should 2♦ here be alerted ‘could be short’ ?

From my understanding of the ACBL rules, not unless you would bid it with a longer club suit (ie., with 4 clubs and 3 diamonds he would bid 2♦).

[jillybean]

thanks, can you qoute the section of the WBF law please

[Elianna]

jtfanclub, on Aug 9 2006, 08:31 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Aug 9 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

In a regular partnership, should 2♦ here be alerted ‘could be short’ ?

From my understanding of the ACBL rules, not unless you would bid it with a longer club suit (ie., with 4 clubs and 3 diamonds he would bid 2♦).

I just want to clear one thing up: In a face-to-face ACBL game, this should be alerted with an alert, if anything. Only 1♣ or 1♦ openings that could be less than three are announced "could be short".


Of course, online alert and announce are the same thing, so this doesn't really help Jillybean. I just get very tired of people announcing things that are either alertable or even not alertable, and wanted to make sure that someone reading this thread didn't come away with the idea that you're supposed to announce something in a f2f game about this.

[jillybean]

Correct, I should make it clear these are online games.
I'm not sure that online alert and announce are the same thing, maybe its a typo and you meant alert and explain?

I do ask people to include the explanation with the alert (and alert with the bid, not delayed) , online things can happen in seconds, any delay can be MI



oops I see I am using the wrong title - its not reopening

This post has been edited by jillybean2: 2006-August-09, 13:16

[paulg]

In the ACBL, if the 2[di] shows 3+ diamonds then it is not alertable.

[quote name='http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html']
PART VI: OPENING SUIT BIDS, RESPONSES AND REBIDS

Opener's Rebids

Opener's rebid of two of a minor over partner's forcing or semi-forcing notrump response to a major does not require an Alert if it shows three or more of the suit bid (4-5-2-2 does not require an Alert as long as responder expects three or more cards in the minor).[/quote]

[paulg]

jillybean2, on Aug 9 2006, 05:32 PM, said:

thanks, can you qoute the section of the WBF law please

http://www.worldbrid...tems/alerts.asp

I've changed my mind - I do not think it requires an alert according to the WBF policy

Assuming that 2♦ shows 3+ diamonds, then it is not conventional as the bidder is offering the suit as a potential contract and it is not forcing.

Paul

[hrothgar]

Few different issues that need to get sorted out here:

First and foremost, this is an experienced partnership. What the hell does a 2♦ rebid promise? Most systems that I know treat 2♦ as natural and non-forcing. I find it difficult to believe that such a bid is the best choice with the hand in question. (In general, if I introduce a 3 card minor at the two level or the three level, I'm temporizing, however, this requires that a forcing bid)

I'm left with one of two conclusions:

1. 2♦ is forcing, in which case its alertable
2. The partnership has no clue what its doing, in which case they probably don't know the alerting structure.

If case 2 is true and opener thought that a natural and non-forcing 2♦ rebid is the best description of his hand, he doesn't need to alert nor should their be any adjustment for a failure to alert.

[awm]

On some previous threads on these forums, several different posters have suggested the following:

(1) Opener's rebid of 2M in the auction 1M-1N-2M shows a very minimum hand with 6-card M, and responder should pass even holding 10-11 points balanced with two-card support.

(2) With a "better" hand holding 6M, but not good enough for a fairly sound 3M rebid, opener should "temporize" by bidding a minor (usually 2♣) on three or even two cards.

(3) The above treatment is "standard" in the context of "modern" 2/1 where opening 1M with nine or ten high card points and a six card suit is typical. The 2m rebid will almost never be passed, but is not technically forcing.

While I don't personally advocate the above style, I find it an interesting contrast to the reactions to the 2♦ rebid on this hand. What exactly is "standard" and what is alertable these days anyway?

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on Aug 9 2006, 02:44 PM, said:

2. The partnership has no clue what its doing, in which case they probably don't know the alerting structure.

If the partnership has no clue what they're doing, then they have no agreement as to the meaning of 2 ♦. Technically then, it should be alerted if the alerting player thinks opponents might need to ask about it, and explained (if asked) as "no agreement". OTOH, if he doesn't know what it means, but thinks he knows, he would no doubt give an explanation corresponding with what he thinks it means - and also probably with what's in his hand.

Another point: in f2f bridge, when you alert, you just alert - you don't give explanations unless asked for them. Online it's different, I gather (I haven't played online since OKbridge was in its infancy).

Regarding "promises": agreements aren't promises. Not to partner, and certainly not to opponents. I mention this because I've seen a lot of players who seem to think they are - at least when opponents make them.

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Aug 10 2006, 01:04 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 9 2006, 02:44 PM, said:

2.  The partnership has no clue what its doing, in which case they probably don't know the alerting structure.

If the partnership has no clue what they're doing, then they have no agreement as to the meaning of 2 ♦. Technically then, it should be alerted if the alerting player thinks opponents might need to ask about it, and explained (if asked) as "no agreement". OTOH, if he doesn't know what it means, but thinks he knows, he would no doubt give an explanation corresponding with what he thinks it means - and also probably with what's in his hand.

Alert procedures say conventional bids and special partnership agreements should be alerted. Suggesting that you alert a bid that you think your opps may need to know about and then wait until asked to say ‘no agreement’ is likely to give misinformation – you are telling your ops this is a conventional bid when in fact you have no agreement?

[paulg]

blackshoe, on Aug 10 2006, 09:04 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 9 2006, 02:44 PM, said:

2.  The partnership has no clue what its doing, in which case they probably don't know the alerting structure.

If the partnership has no clue what they're doing, then they have no agreement as to the meaning of 2 ♦. Technically then, it should be alerted if the alerting player thinks opponents might need to ask about it, and explained (if asked) as "no agreement".

I may easily be misunderstanding your point here, but I am concerned that you are suggesting that a player makes a conventional bid, alerts it, but then says "No Agreement" because the partnership has not explicitly agreed to play the convention or is generally clueless.

This is always a hot topic on these forums, but my personal view is that any player who makes a convention bid does so in the expectation that his partner will understand it - otherwise why would you make the bid? In such circumstances alerting, and then explaining the conventional meaning if asked, is required in my opinion (though others differ).

Paul

[barmar]

cardsharp, on Aug 11 2006, 03:29 AM, said:

This is always a hot topic on these forums, but my personal view is that any player who makes a convention bid does so in the expectation that his partner will understand it - otherwise why would you make the bid? In such circumstances alerting, and then explaining the conventional meaning if asked, is required in my opinion (though others differ).

What about ftf bridge, where you alert partner's bids? Sometimes you know from general principles that a bid is conventional, but you haven't agreed on a specific convention. E.g. you're playing with a pickup partner and didn't have time to discuss your NT response system in detail, and he responds 2♠ -- it could easily be any of Minor Suit Stayman, 4-way transfer to ♣, or 3-way transfer to ♣ (he'll pass or correct to 3♦). All you're really sure of is that it is not natural.

So you're going to have to guess what it is, but the opponents still need to be alerted -- all the possibilities require an alert. If asked for an explanation I suppose it would be better to list the 3 possibilities you think are likely, rather than just say "No agreement", although the latter is strictly correct.

[blackshoe]

If a player makes a bid about which he and his partner have no agreement, intending a conventional meaning, he has made a mistake - one should not do that. If he expects that, from partnership experience, or knowledge of his partner's level of expertise, or whatever, his partner will be able to figure it out, then his appropriate explanation is "we have no agreement, but..." This might be followed with "I know partner plays it as a transfer with other partners" or some such. In f2f bridge, at least, this conveys a lot of UI, but that's just tough. You have to do it anyway, and hope that the constraint it puts on partner doesn't land you in the soup.

Actually, at the time of my earlier post what I was thinking about was the situation where one can't remember what agreement one has with this partner. In that case, the explanation should be something like "I play X with some partners, and Y with others; I'm not sure what I'm playing with this partner."

It is always incumbent on a player to explain as fully as he can his pertinent agreements with his current partner - including agreements on other calls that may affect the meaning of the call made. He is not, of course, required to explain things that are "general bridge knowledge", but "general bridge knowledge" is a slippery concept. Better not to rely on it as a reason to withold something or other, IMO.

Bottom line: when you are unsure whether a call requires an alert, you should alert it. When you are unsure of the meaning of a call, you should say so, and where possible (it usually is) give alternative possible meanings.

[paulg]

barmar, on Aug 11 2006, 04:19 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Aug 11 2006, 03:29 AM, said:

This is always a hot topic on these forums, but my personal view is that any player who makes a convention bid does so in the expectation that his partner will understand it - otherwise why would you make the bid? In such circumstances alerting, and then explaining the conventional meaning if asked, is required in my opinion (though others differ).

What about ftf bridge, where you alert partner's bids? Sometimes you know from general principles that a bid is conventional, but you haven't agreed on a specific convention. E.g. you're playing with a pickup partner and didn't have time to discuss your NT response system in detail, and he responds 2♠ -- it could easily be any of Minor Suit Stayman, 4-way transfer to ♣, or 3-way transfer to ♣ (he'll pass or correct to 3♦). All you're really sure of is that it is not natural.

So you're going to have to guess what it is, but the opponents still need to be alerted -- all the possibilities require an alert. If asked for an explanation I suppose it would be better to list the 3 possibilities you think are likely, rather than just say "No agreement", although the latter is strictly correct.

I find ftf bridge easier. People can tell you are trying to be helpful and hence there is not the confrontational attitude you can sometimes find on-line. Stating "This is one of the things that we have not discussed, but it will not be natural" goes a long way, and you can clarify potential options if the opponents are less experienced.

Paul

[paulg]

blackshoe, on Aug 11 2006, 05:26 PM, said:

It is always incumbent on a player to explain as fully as he can his pertinent agreements with his current partner - including agreements on other calls that may affect the meaning of the call made. He is not, of course, required to explain things that are "general bridge knowledge", but "general bridge knowledge" is a slippery concept. Better not to rely on it as a reason to withold something or other, IMO.

I really dislike this phrase too. 'General bridge knowledge' is an elusive term that is highly dependent on skill level and location that can be used to deny full disclosure to less experienced opponents.

I believe it is particularly inappropriate to use this 'excuse' in on-line play..

Paul

[McBruce]

Getting back to the original question...

If your partnership agreement is that opener can rebid 2♦ after a forcing notrump, with 6!=2-3-2 (the ! signifies a strong six-carder) and take the risk that it might be passed, knowing that it seldom will be, it cannot possibly matter that the ACBL defines this as a natural bid because you are bidding a minor of 3+ cards. You have an unusual inference available--opener does not deny rebiddable spades. This is highly unexpected to a huge number of players. The opponents are entitled to this information, unless you enjoy arguing with TDs and ACs. (If you do, a suspension is in your future.)

I believe failing to alert here, forcing or not, is an infraction. If partner later rebids spades and still there is no alert that the diamond call may be short, this is a concealed partnership understanding and a serious warning at the very least is called for.

And if you are about to reply something along the lines of "2/1 is the world's most popular system, this sequence is general bridge knowledge," I remind you that BBO is an international site where a sizable majority do not play 2/1.

[barmar]

This month's Bridge World opens with an editorial titled "Keep It Simple Stupid", and the gist of it is: we should do away with all the detailed alert regulations and just use common sense, i.e. tell the opponents what they need to know, when they need to know it.