[blackshoe]

If I ask a question like that Aqua, it's because I'm not sure what you're on about. If you don't want to tell me, fine. I'll go read some other thread.

[aguahombre]

Blackshoe: I think I have made it clear in this thread, and in other law threads that I am not coming from being an official, nor being an expert in laws of all jurisdictions.

What I espouse are things which I believe are reasonable and logical about how the game should be played and about reasonable disclosure. I also sometimes believe players at the table, and directors who post on these fora defy logic and seek out stretches of rules to to validate their position.

When, above, you asked if I what I said meant I believe in alerting something, then explaining it without being asked, that reached a point of silly. Of course I don't believe that should happen. Hence, "Come on, be real".

If you were joking when you asked, I certainly missed the humor. We were, I thought, on almost the same wavelength in our back-and-forth about alerting NT sequences. Maybe, upon rereading the post just before you asked the question which set me off, you will see that I intended no such thing.

[blackshoe]

People do alert and then immediately explain. Most of them should know better.

I did not ask what you believe, I asked what you meant. The reason I asked is because I wasn't sure. I suppose I could go back and read the entire thread, and perhaps I'd be able to suss out what you meant. Or perhaps not. In any case, it just seemed it would be easier to simply ask, but apparently I was mistaken.

We may well be on the same wavelength, or close to it, as you say. It's a shame, but your response my simple honest question has led to my losing all interest in the thread. So we may never know for sure how close (or not) we are.

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2011-November-15, 16:02, said:

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" :-)

It is too late by the time 2S comes. You have already misinformed the opponents by describing/announcing 2D as "Transfer" if it can contain 4 hearts and 5 spades. This is not a negative inference but a completely different convention.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-17, 18:52, said:

People do alert and then immediately explain. Most of them should know better.

Hopefully it should go without saying that the participants in this forum know better. If it was a serious question, you seemed to be insulting him by implying that he doesn't.

[blackshoe]

I implied no such thing. And I certainly didn't insult anyone.

[barmar]

You asked if he was talking about explaining without being asked to explain. Only someone who doesn't know better would do so. Your question thus implies that he could be one of those people; otherwise, why bother asking if you believe otherwise?

[mycroft]

Zelandakh, on 2011-November-18, 15:51, said:

It is too late by the time 2S comes. You have already misinformed the opponents by describing/announcing 2D as "Transfer" if it can contain 4 hearts and 5 spades. This is not a negative inference but a completely different convention.

I'm guessing you won't be surprised that I disagree with you; for two reasons:

1) It is a transfer to hearts - and partner has hearts. Rarely, she'll have only 4; but there's nothing in the Announcement that promises any specific *number* of hearts. When the next bid shows (and denies) unexpected hand-shapes by negative inference, I believe that makes that call Alertable.

2) The following is in the ACBL Alert Procedure (in effect where I play):

Quote

An Announcement also is used for those methods that initially treat the bid as a transfer even though rarely the bidder will have a strong hand without the next higher suit. When the message is sent that the transfer was not a transfer, just the first step in showing another type of game-going hand, the call that sends that message must be Alerted.

While it's not obvious from that statement that my agreement should not be treated the same way, certainly if a hand that *does not have hearts at all* should be Announced-and-Alerted, I would think that a case can be made that an equally rare, strong (it's INV) hand that is likely missing ONE heart from expectations fits into the same category.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2011-November-21, 14:17, said:

While it's not obvious from that statement that my agreement should not be treated the same way, certainly if a hand that *does not have hearts at all* should be Announced-and-Alerted, I would think that a case can be made that an equally rare, strong (it's INV) hand that is likely missing ONE heart from expectations fits into the same category.

That quote from the Alert Procedure specifically says that the non-transfer meaning has to be game-going, so I don't think invitational counts.

I also play a modified transfer convention. In order to transfer to a minor, you first transfer to a major, then transfer again (e.g. 1NT-2D-2H-2S-3C is the way to show clubs, and denies 5 hearts). We alert the 2D bid, and explain "usually it's a transfer to hearts, but it could be the beginning of a transfer to clubs"