[blackshoe]

I agree with Andy here - and I would say that unless you are familiar with opponents, you have to assume they are not familiar with any conventions you might be playing. I once had a partner who did not "get" Stayman. If we were bidding, she opened 1NT, and I bid 2♣, she would inevitably either pass or bid 3♣, usually the latter. I'm pretty sure that if the opponents bid 1NT-2♣, she assumed responder had clubs. And I couldn't ask, because I would be asking for her benefit. She wouldn't ask, because it would not occur to her to do so - she seemed not to remember from one week to the next that there had been a problem. Of course, the fact that neither of us asked let opponents off the hook, but I suspect that if she had asked, the answer would have been "Stayman" - after all, everybody knows Stayman, right?

I also don't agree with the idea one should be "sparse" with explanations absent screens, in order to minimize UI to partner. Players have an obligation to provide full disclosure. That obligation supersedes any desire to minimize UI.

[Vampyr]

This highlights a problem with the philosophy of the ACBL's alerting rules - neither a weak takeout into clubs nor Stayman is announced or alerted. In the EBU there are never two non-alertable/-announceable meanings for a call. This helps a lot with basic disclosure.

Actually I suppose that there is one exception: after 1m-(1♥), double is not alerted whether it is just takeout or promises exactly four spades.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-17, 08:18, said:

This highlights a problem with the philosophy of the ACBL's alerting rules - neither a weak takeout into clubs nor Stayman is announced or alerted.

A natural 2♣ response is alerted. From http://www.acbl.org/...rtPamphlet.pdf: "ALERT: Next level higher of clubs if other than asking for four-card (or longer) major and rebids." And from http://www.acbl.org/...rocedures.html: "RESPONSES TO ONE NOTRUMP OPENINGS: 2♣: If it requires partner to bid a four-card major it is not Alertable; all other uses must be Alerted."

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2014-March-17, 08:18, said:

This highlights a problem with the philosophy of the ACBL's alerting rules - neither a weak takeout into clubs nor Stayman is announced or alerted. In the EBU there are never two non-alertable/-announceable meanings for a call. This helps a lot with basic disclosure.

Actually I suppose that there is one exception: after 1m-(1♥), double is not alerted whether it is just takeout or promises exactly four spades.

There are at least three four more exceptions:
- Notrump bids above 3NT
- Suit bids above 3NT after the first round
- A sequence like
     1x-pass-pass-dbl
     rdbl-pass
- A game-try after agreeing a major (neither strength-showing nor help-suit game-tries are alertable)

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2014-March-17, 11:24

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-March-17, 11:20, said:

There are at least three four more exceptions:
- Notrump bids above 3NT
- Suit bids above 3NT after the first round
- A sequence like
     1x-pass-pass-dbl
     rdbl-pass
- A game-try after agreeing a major (neither strength-showing nor help-suit game-tries are alertable)

Suit bids above 3NT after the first round that would otherwise require an alert must be alerted — but the alert is delayed until after the final pass. That's not quite the same thing as "not alertable". I haven't looked at the other examples.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-17, 13:09, said:

Suit bids above 3NT after the first round that would otherwise require an alert must be alerted — but the alert is delayed until after the final pass. That's not quite the same thing as "not alertable". I haven't looked at the other examples.

I think you misunderstood. I was responding to a post that read "In the EBU there are never two non-alertable/-announceable meanings for a call.", and my comments related to the EBU alerting rules.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2014-March-17, 13:09, said:

Suit bids above 3NT after the first round that would otherwise require an alert must be alerted — but the alert is delayed until after the final pass. That's not quite the same thing as "not alertable". I haven't looked at the other examples.

This is not true in the EBU, and Andy, I wasn't counting calls above 3NT, though I suppose I could have mentioned them. I didn't know that that pass of that redouble is not alertable ever. Maybe because it gives too much UI?

I think that help-suit and strength-showing bids are considered "natural" since they show length, which is defined as at least three cards. So, sort of like a second suit, although this criterion is rather odd.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2014-March-17, 13:50, said:

I think you misunderstood. I was responding to a post that read "In the EBU there are never two non-alertable/-announceable meanings for a call.", and my comments related to the EBU alerting rules.

Never mind, then.

[mycroft]

Emily? Emily? Is that you?

</too old>

[richlp]

mycroft, on 2014-March-18, 10:17, said:

Emily? Emily? Is that you?

</too old>

Nope......Not too old.........very good