[mrdct]

barmar, on 2011-November-13, 23:54, said:

ACBL's alerting rules say you generally don't have to alert negative inferences based on the fact that you could have made some other call.

Do you have a reference for that? The copy of the ACBL Alerting Procedures that I have says, "In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable".

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-November-10, 21:39, said:

As barmar has alluded to, in my part of world there is a radical difference between "accept" which says nothing extra about your hand and "super-accept" which explicitly promises primary support and in some cases other extra information as to strength and/or shape. Hence my disgreement with your suggestion that if you play "accepts" an alert is required.

In which case my post makes no sense whatever. I really do not understand how you can misunderstand it, I really don't.

Are you suggesting that I said that it is alertable if he completes the transfer and not if he doesn't. What is he going to do, pass the transfer?

So in Australia, to accept the transfer is to bid [say] 2♥ over 2♦, yes? What else do you do, reject it? Very strange!

Cyberyeti, on 2011-November-11, 04:41, said:

If it is then literally nobody has ever alerted one of these in my experience, so it is something that needs more publicity. We break on everything except minimum 4333s with 4 card support, does that require an alert ?

No. The completion would only be alertable if it denied four cards.

[aguahombre]

When I open one thing, and partner has the inference that I didn't want to open something else, should she alert?

[Bbradley62]

mrdct, on 2011-November-14, 05:30, said:

The copy of the ACBL Alerting Procedures that I have says, "In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable".

aguahombre, on 2011-November-14, 20:04, said:

When I open one thing, and partner has the inference that I didn't want to open something else, should she alert?

I think the key word in that ACBL procedure is "unexpected".

[aguahombre]

I would hope so. And when accepting a transfer becomes unexpected, anywhere but on these fora, I will consider its alertability.

[barmar]

mrdct, on 2011-November-14, 05:30, said:

Do you have a reference for that? The copy of the ACBL Alerting Procedures that I have says, "In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable".

However, the sentence after the above says, "Some such agreements have become expected and are fairly common, therefore no Alert is required." The examples it gives are 1♥-1♠ showing 5 ♠ when you play Flannery, bypassing a 4-card major to respond 1NT, and bypassing ♦ to bid a major over 1♣. I'll wager that simple super-accepts are more common than any of those examples. So the fact that just completing the transfer denies a super-accept would fall into this exception.

[blackshoe]

One cannot know that in the auction 1♥-1♠ responder has at least 5 spades unless one knows they are playing Flannery. Flannery does not require a pre-alert; ACBL regulations do not require players to examine their opponents' system cards before the round. So how are we supposed to know they're playing Flannery? Telepathy?

Okay, that's a side issue.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-14, 20:20, said:

I would hope so. And when accepting a transfer becomes unexpected, anywhere but on these fora, I will consider its alertability.

So if you are told by your TO to alert, you will not? I hope that you will expect to be thrown out of bridge.

It is not up to individuals to decide when to alert: that was tried in the early days of alerting and was a failure.

Alerting is for the benefit of your opponents who do not always [some might say often ] think the same as you. Unless the regulation contains some personal judgement as some do, you have to follow it precisely.

The completion of a transfer was alertable in England for over 20 years: refusing to do so would upset opponents and have various other effects. Expulsion from the game is the only way to treat people who cheat, ie deliberately and knowledgeably fail to follow the rules for their own benefit in a non-trivial manner - and refusal to follow alerting rules that everyone expects is in that league.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-November-15, 08:29, said:

So if you are told by your TO to alert, you will not? I hope that you will expect to be thrown out of bridge.

The completion of a transfer was alertable in England for over 20 years: refusing to do so would upset opponents and have various other effects. Expulsion from the game is the only way to treat people who cheat, ie deliberately and knowledgeably fail to follow the rules for their own benefit in a non-trivial manner - and refusal to follow alerting rules that everyone expects is in that league.

You do get carried away. More power to England for coming to its senses after that 20 years.

If I am told by my TO to alert, I will alert. So far, thankfully, I am not told by ACBL to alert when I have transferred to a major and partner does so. There ARE situations where we make bids which sound normal but carry unexpected extra meaning ---and we alert them where many don't, not really knowing whether we need to or not.

Accepting a transfer, when once in a while we might have bid M+1 with a great 4-card support and a max, is just plain silly. When the people who only accept seldomly and breaks are the expected, I suppose we will be told to alert a simple 2M transfer acceptance and explain that it doesn't mean much.

Until then, my post stands.

[mycroft]

I have been told by National TDs that "most" negative inferences aren't Alertable (but you should let the opponents know anything relevant and unusual about your auction before the opening lead, if you're declaring), and that includes "a simple acceptance of the transfer *denies* 4-card support" (which I play in one partnership). I feel that's going too far, but that's my ethics, not the regs as they is being told to be enforced. So, it's clear that "denies some hands with 4-card support" doesn't make the acceptance Alertable in the ACBL.

I'm still going to be Alerting 1NT-2♦ ("Transfer"); 2♥-2♠, because the negative inference is that partner will *not* have 5 hearts and 4 spades (although she can have 5 spades and 4 hearts). I think *that* comes under the heading of "unexpected" :-)

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-15, 05:45, said:

One cannot know that in the auction 1♥-1♠ responder has at least 5 spades unless one knows they are playing Flannery. Flannery does not require a pre-alert; ACBL regulations do not require players to examine their opponents' system cards before the round. So how are we supposed to know they're playing Flannery? Telepathy?

Okay, that's a side issue.

Yes, it does seem like they went too far with that one. But the example is in there, so I guess they do expect you to figure out when your opponents are playing Flannery, even though it's not pre-alertable and ACBL players practically never exchange CC's (although in team games I've encountered a number of pairs who make a quick scan of our CC at the beginning of the round).

[aguahombre]

The Flannery situation might be a "side issue" to the transfer acceptance scenario, but considering them both in a discussion of alerts is quite appropriate.

If we step out of whether whether a particular organization requires an alert and focus on reasonable disclosure, consider:

Alerting 1S/1H because it shows 5 is disclosing unexpected additional information about suit length which could not be assumed by the opponents even if they knew you had Flannery. Not everyone, perhaps not even most, who use Flannery guarantee 5 spades for the 1S response. Not everyone who plays Flannery uses it when 4-6 in the majors. Regardless of any inappropriate exception in the alert procedures, I have yet to encounter a pair known to me to be competent and experienced who do not Alert 1S if it shows 5+.

Accepting a routine transfer to 2M after a 1NT opener, however, does not --- for most people --- deny holding four pieces; it doesn't deny or guarantee holding three. If it did, then it should have been alerted. Going through a litany of other bids one could have made with different holdings in this situation when we accept a transfer most of the time is not practical.

[blackshoe]

In Romex when, in a game forcing auction, opener bids 2NT (natural) and responder transfers, accepting the transfer shows at least three card support. Without 3 trumps, opener rebids 3NT. An example would be 1NT!-2♦!;2NT-3H!;3S! where the ! indicates an alert or announcement, 1NT is strong and artificial, 2♦ shows 6+ HCP, 0-4 controls, and if 3-4 controls, fewer than 3 cover cards, 2NT is natural, 19-20 HCP, and 3♥ is a transfer to spades.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-17, 10:16, said:

In Romex when, in a game forcing auction, opener bids 2NT (natural) and responder transfers, accepting the transfer shows at least three card support. Without 3 trumps, opener rebids 3NT. An example would be 1NT!-2♦!;2NT-3H!;3S! where the ! indicates an alert or announcement, 1NT is strong and artificial, 2♦ shows 6+ HCP, 0-4 controls, and if 3-4 controls, fewer than 3 cover cards, 2NT is natural, 19-20 HCP, and 3♥ is a transfer to spades.

Of course. The 3-level follow-ups are way beyond the simple immediate transfer scenario, and after the first two alerted bids, I am not even certain that the natural 2NT shouldn't also be alerted to at least explain to the opponents that you are back into a NT structure auction. By regulation, it probably doesn't have to be, but I certainly would think it appropriate.

[blackshoe]

Well, if that doesn't suit you, how about 2NT! (natural, GF, 25-26 HCP)-3H! (transfer)?

The 1NT auction above is analogous to 2♣ (strong, artificial)-2♦! (0-1 control);2NT (23-24 HCP). Would you alert 2NT here?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-17, 10:30, said:

Well, if that doesn't suit you, how about 2NT! (natural, GF, 25-26 HCP)-3H! (transfer)?

The 1NT auction above is analogous to 2♣ (strong, artificial)-2♦! (0-1 control);2NT (23-24 HCP). Would you alert 2NT here?

No, because I don't think anyone would doubt the 2NT bid or rebid established that we are in a NT auction.

And, I would alert a 3NT transfer break but not the acceptance with a different hand unless it always showed exactly 3 of the major. Again, I am not claiming expertise in alert procedures everywhere; I am just trying to discuss disclosure from a standpoint of reason.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure the two aren't mutually incompatible.

I alert both the bid of the transfer suit and the 3NT bid. Maybe that's just me.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-17, 11:29, said:

I alert both the bid of the transfer suit and the 3NT bid. Maybe that's just me.

Yeh, and how can your choice possibly hurt? Not the point I am unsucessfully trying to make: that it seems unneccesary on a simple NT sequence such as 1NT-2(red), for the responder to alert and explain (unless asked) at that point what any transfer break which did not occur might have meant. It isn't likely to be useful to the opponents at that moment anyway.

[blackshoe]

Are you talking about alerting and then explaining without being asked to explain, or alerting and then explaining when asked?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-17, 12:46, said:

Are you talking about alerting and then explaining without being asked to explain, or alerting and then explaining when asked?

Come on, be real.