[aguahombre]

An article on speculative doubles of slam contracts in the Bulletin was partly based on the premise that these doubles would be more successful when the opposing pair's auction suggests they are missing a Key Card in addition to a key suit breaking badly for them.

A reader suggested asking for Kings as a countermeasure, even when missing an Ace. In order for this to be workable, partner has to be in on it ---and not allowed to blast to a grand with a surprise source of tricks.

In ACBL, with no extended bids above 3NT alerted, there would seem to be no way to disclose this agreement before the double occurs (or doesn't).

I don't want to use this agreement, for the obvious reasons ---but someone will, and this situation will come up, now that it has been published. How can it possibly be handled by the involved players and/or the TD?

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on Jul 29 2010, 12:03 PM, said:

In ACBL, with no extended bids above 3NT alerted, there would seem to be no way to disclose this agreement before the double occurs.

Nonsense. Put it on the system card. Pre-alert it.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2010, 11:29 AM, said:

Nonsense. Put it on the system card. Pre-alert it.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2010, 11:29 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Jul 29 2010, 12:03 PM, said:

In ACBL, with no extended bids above 3NT alerted, there would seem to be no way to disclose this agreement before the double occurs.

Nonsense. Put it on the system card. Pre-alert it.

Seriously? For the one time a week you bid 5NT, half of which you still have a keycard, .003% of which the opponents would want to double only if they knew you could be missing a keycard?

[blackshoe]

Is or is not this agreement something opponents may need to know before the situation comes up? If it is, then it should be on the card, even if it only comes up once in a blue moon. As for pre-alerting, it seems to me this agreement is unusual enough to require one.

[jdonn]

I should have clarified, I definitely agree with putting it on the card. Prealerting this would be completely out of left field though.

[blackshoe]

Maybe so. The alert regulation says

Quote

Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare.

If the opponents don't need to prepare for this (and it's not a Mid-chart or Super-chart method) then I suppose no pre-alert is needed. But I don't see how it can hurt to pre-alert.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

Maybe so. The alert regulation says

Quote

Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare.

If the opponents don't need to prepare for this (and it's not a Mid-chart or Super-chart method) then I suppose no pre-alert is needed. But I don't see how it can hurt to pre-alert.

In a 15 minute round, with some of my partnerships, we might have 3 minutes left to play bridge if I had to pre-alert everything on our card that is a little unusual.

[JLOGIC]

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

But I don't see how it can hurt to pre-alert.

Haha

[blackshoe]

So, you don't pre-alert, opponents don't get to prepare, they fail against your unusual agreement. Do you feel good about that? Do you get annoyed when the director rules that you failed to meet your disclosure obligations and adjusts the score — and perhaps gives you a PP?

I don't play in the rarefied atmosphere some of you do, and perhaps it's a matter of "we know what we're doing, to hell with the rules" on both sides, but it just seems a bit unfair to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

Note that if the rules don't require a pre-alert, not pre-alerting is fine.

Phil, I was talking about one agreement, not a dozen. OTOH, if you have that many pre-alertable agreements, maybe you ought to reconsider your system.

[jdonn]

The opponents who would "fail" because we bid 5NT without having all the keycards are the same ones who don't even know 5NT is supposed to promise all the keycards?!

[blackshoe]

Think more generally, Josh, not just about this particular bid. That's what I was doing.

[duschek]

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2010, 04:25 PM, said:

OTOH, if you have that many pre-alertable agreements, maybe you ought to reconsider your system.

Quite frankly, if a system permitted by regulations contains prealertable agreements which take 12 minutes to prealert, the system would not be my primary candidate for reconsideration.

(Smiley conveniently removed from quote).

[blackshoe]

Yeah, well, when you have the power to change regulations that aren't to your liking, you go ahead and do that. For those of us who don't have that power, changing the regulation isn't a choice.

[Phil]

Blackshoe, I don't know that its been specifically asked, but I was under the impression that I only had to pre-alert my stuff that isn't GCC. If you can cite a regulation, or something in the alert charts that actually requires me to alert usual agreements, I might take you more seriously.

Clearly the OP's idea about having 5N not promise all of the key cards would not qualify. As a matter of fact, this isn't a convention at all; its a modification of a treatment.

LOL at any director telling a player that he should consider modifying his system. I think the alert charts needs to be modified is these 'unusual' agreements create problems, even for the Billy Millers of the world.

[TimG]

Phil, on Jul 29 2010, 07:50 PM, said:

Clearly the OP's idea about having 5N not promise all of the key cards would not qualify. As a matter of fact, this isn't a convention at all; its a modification of a treatment.

A 5N which asks for kings is conventional whether or not it promises all the aces, isn't it?

[blackshoe]

The governing regulation is the Alert Procedure, including the alert definitions. (The chart is an aid, not definitive where it may conflict with the regulation).

The alert regulation says, in part I regarding natural calls

Quote

A treatment is a natural call that carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand.

5NT as part of Blackwood is not natural, so it can't be a treatment by this definition. OTOH, the Bridge World defines "treatment" as "a partnership's interpretation of an action" so I suppose you can go with that one if you want, for purposes of argument, anyway.

The section of the alert procedure on pre-alerts says

Quote

Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning system of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare. Pre-Alerts must be given before the auction period begins on the first board of a round or match.

1) "TWO-SYSTEM" METHODS

Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is agreeing to play a forcing-club system not vulnerable and "two over one" vulnerable.

Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods still require normal Announcements (notrump ranges; transfers) or Alerts (forcing Stayman over some notrump ranges) when appropriate.

As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents' methods.

2) SYSTEMS BASED ON VERY LIGHT OPENINGS OR OTHER HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE METHODS

If it is your partnership style to routinely open hands with fewer than 11 HCP, preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx) suits, and/or overcalls with fewer than 6 HCP at the one level, the opponents must be pre-Alerted.

3) SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS

Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include either strong or weak notrumps with or without five-card majors. The forcing opening bid will most often be an artificial forcing opening of 1 or 2 .

When you play a system structured along different agreements than these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canapé system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction begins (a 10-12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the opponents.

That's the whole thing. As you can see, it is not limited to "stuff that isn't GCC" so your impression is incorrect. Note that it doesn't say you must alert "usual" agreements, and neither did I. I said that I think this one is unusual enough to require a pre-alert. But then, I'm not on the C&C Committee, nor am I the ACBL's CTD (although as I understand it, the ACBL no longer has a CTD) so I could be wrong.

LOL all you want. I don't tell players at the table they should change their system. I thought we were having a conversation here, not making a table ruling. And if you want to lobby the C&C to change the alert regulations, go ahead, more power to you, and good luck. You'll need it, I expect (that too is "conversational" and not a TD ruling).

[Siegmund]

You're going to have a very hard time characterizing never jumping to 7 over 5NT as an "unusual" agreement, requiring disclosure beyond checking the Blackwood box. The world is FULL of people who whisper silently to themselves "zero, 6c, one, 6d, two, 6h" and then reach for the 6H card and wouldn't dream of leaping to 7.

I actually know quite a number of admittedly non-experts, who are very fond of asking for kings even when one ace is missing, with an eye toward playing 6NT rather than 6 of a suit at MPs. (I've told them the rationale behind allowing the 7-jumps, etc, etc, and they don't believe it's as useful as reaching the good 6NTs is. I am not 100% sure they are wrong.)

[jdonn]

The entire pre-alert section is about SYSTEMS (at least certainly part 3 which is the only part that could conceivably apply to the 5NT bid). The 5NT bid is not a system, it is a convention, or treatment, or whatever else you want. So this is all really moot as it's not even governed by the section on pre-alerts.

[blackshoe]

What is the (legal) definition of "system," Josh?