[kevperk]

I don't think there is a legal requirement, but I do feel that an opponent who claims damage by lack of knowledge of the negative inferences about a bid will have a case if the director is called. By actively giving these negative inferences, this will be avoided. In theory, the director will give the benefit of the doubt to the opponents, so one is better off giving the info up front.

[bluejak]

WellSpyder, on 2012-March-14, 04:44, said:

But you make an interesting distinction between what is a negative inference, and what is a (perhaps surprising) lack of a negative inference. One of these came up in a match recently, that I think is even clearer than the 1NT rebid issue, namely a 1NT response to a 1♥ opening. To most people, I suspect, this will tend to deny 4 spades (unless playing Flannery, perhaps). But we have a couple locally who play 5-card majors with a forcing NT response (not as common an approach in the UK as in the US, for example), who will often have 4 spades within their forcing 1NT response to 1♥. As far as I can tell their 1♠ response shows 5 "because they play 5-card majors" not because they play Flannery, which AFAIK they don't. To me it seems clear that any explanation of the forcing 1NT bid (which is alertable in England, not announced) should include the information that it doesn't deny 4 spades, but this suggestion is resisted by the couple in question and I'm not a TD so it isn't really up to me......

It is normal to play a forcing no-trump as denying 4 spades. So if their forcing no-trump can have four spades that is clearly part of their agreements and must be disclosed, certainly in answer to a question.

aguahombre, on 2012-March-14, 08:02, said:

I was quoting what you posted for the context. The UK regulations are interesting, in that a bid of one thing which shows or denies another thing is apparently not alertable.

Basically, there are two things that make a bid alertable in England: if it is artificial, or if it has a pretty unusual meaning so the opponents do not expect it.

If you alert something because there are negative inferences then you will alert every natural bid: just consider your choice of opening bids with a 5-5 or 4-4 hand. So long as you have a policy, then your opening one-bids have negative inferences.

If you consider that 1m - 1♥ - 1NT is a sequence where it is normal but not universal to play that it could have four spades, that is not alertable because it is a reasonable expected negative inference. If you want to know you ask.

I do not believe that alerting every bid where there are negative inferences is practical, workable, nor correct under ACBL alerting. It is certainly not correct under EBU alerting.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-March-15, 16:05, said:

I do not believe that alerting every bid where there are negative inferences is practical, workable, nor correct under ACBL alerting. It is certainly not correct under EBU alerting.

Nor do I. But, surely only rebidding 1S if unbalanced...or always implying longer clubs if we rebid 1S...are significant enough in the sense of "carrying a message other than the natural meaning of the bid" to warrant an alert.

What a lot of people "expect" in their jursidiction should not really be a determining factor in alerts. Most people expect, for instance, transfers and Stayman in NT seqences. But that doesn't affect whether those things are alertable or announced.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-15, 16:17, said:

What a lot of people "expect" in their jursidiction should not really be a determining factor in alerts. Most people expect, for instance, transfers and Stayman in NT seqences. But that doesn't affect whether those things are alertable or announced.

Of course it does. The reason that those things are announced, rather than alerted, in the EBU is that they are so expected that making them alertable would be silly.

If you start alerting natural bids because of negative inferences which are not unusual then the vast majority of alerts of a 1NT rebid, say, are going to be made for that reason and the small number of alerts for artificial 1NT rebids -- which are the alerts people actually need to take notice of -- will get lost in the noise.

This is exactly the problem we used to have with 1NT - 2♣ alerted; either you asked just in case, only to be told "Stayman" 99% of the time, or you just assumed it was Stayman and missed the 1% of pairs playing Keri or whatever. Now Stayman is announced and an alert actually means something.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-15, 16:17, said:

Nor do I. But, surely only rebidding 1S if unbalanced...or always implying longer clubs if we rebid 1S...are significant enough in the sense of "carrying a message other than the natural meaning of the bid" to warrant an alert.

What a lot of people "expect" in their jursidiction should not really be a determining factor in alerts.

Well, I disagree with you, and, considerably more importantly, so does the EBU.

aguahombre, on 2012-March-15, 16:17, said:

Most people expect, for instance, transfers and Stayman in NT seqences. But that doesn't affect whether those things are alertable or announced.

We are discussing natural bids: these are artificial, which are alertable or announceable.

[CSGibson]

Just for clarification, the OP was talking specifically about things that are demonstrably not alertable in the ACBL during the auction without screens, and (voluntary?) supplemental disclosure after the auction period.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-15, 16:17, said:

Nor do I. But, surely only rebidding 1S if unbalanced...or always implying longer clubs if we rebid 1S...are significant enough in the sense of "carrying a message other than the natural meaning of the bid" to warrant an alert.

When would you rebid 1♠ without a) longer clubs or b) 4-4-4-1? You would if you weren't playing checkback... don't most people near you play checkback?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-16, 10:30, said:

When would you rebid 1♠ without a) longer clubs or b) 4-4-4-1? You would if you weren't playing checkback... don't most people near you play checkback?

Yes they do. But, as stated in previous threads, plain old NMF and the old Hardy-adjunct continations are quite adequate when we don't have to add the concern of opener having a 4-card spade fit with us. That possibility is the main reason people must play 2-way checkback and lose the ability to get out low in clubs. Style decisions affect much more than what originally seems to be.

We rebid 1S with any hand which has four of them; and don't jump shift to 2S unless G.F. and unbalanced. A balanced 19 with 4 spades rebids 1S. 1/1/1 is forcing unless responder didn't have a response. We don't particularly advocate this style to anyone else, but it works fine for us. We are content to find our 4-4 spade fit when responder has 4-4M's and minimum, and we have simpler ---easily defined auctions after 1NT and 2NT rebids.

[CSGibson]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-16, 10:42, said:

we have simpler ---easily defined auctions after 1NT and 2NT rebids.

With the tradeoff that you don't have as closely defined auctions after a 1♠ rebid. 1♠ rebid implying unbalanced (or semi-balanced) is a really useful inference, imo, that makes it very attractive to rebid 1N with all balanced hands. I'm not saying one is better than the other, though I have a preference for the unbalanced 1♠, but that both sides have strong merits.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-16, 10:30, said:

When would you rebid 1♠ without a) longer clubs or b) 4-4-4-1? You would if you weren't playing checkback... don't most people near you play checkback?

It is interesting what you mean by "most people near you". For example, if you are referring to club players in my area, not in ten plays checkback.

[barmar]

Around here, I think most intermediate-to-advanced players play New Minor Forcing, while many (but I'm not sure most) experts play Checkback or two-way NMF. Beginners and novices don't play anything artificial.

[blackshoe]

Beginners and novices have been known to refuse to play anything artificial here. "It's too hard! I can't learn that!"

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 09:49, said:

It is interesting what you mean by "most people near you". For example, if you are referring to club players in my area, not in ten plays checkback.

By "near me" I don't mean the Great Wild North!