[dickiegera]

I posted recently whether a certain 2♥ bid should be alerted. There has been a 50/50 response. Yes and No.
If bids that partner knows something that the opponents may not should always be alerted then I am thinking that many many bids would need an alert.

Example #1 We play super acceptance with major suit transfers: 1NT-2♦-2♥ I know partner does not have 4 hearts or he would have bid 3♥ showing 4 with a minimum, or 2NT to show 4 with a maximum.
We alert the 3 Heart bid and the 2NT bid/
Should we alert the 2 Heart bid as showing less than 4 hearts?

Example # 2 Over a weak 2 Bid we play liebenshol . 2♥-X-P-2NT we alert as liebenshol
Should 2♥-X-P- 3 of a suit be alerted as 8-10 points, and 4 of a suit as 11+ points. etc, etc.....

Example #3 1♥-1NT . Should that be alerted as denying 4 spades and less than 12 pts?



Thank you

[Cyberyeti]

I think there's a normal caveat that stuff if natural only needs to be alerted if it's unexpected, for example nobody alerts 1♥-P-1♠ as "possible canape, may have a longer minor if weak", it's just assumed, the trick is knowing where this is the case, which varies by country.

[Zelandakh]

I am not in the ACBL but I seem to remember reading that negative inferences are alertable. Certainy I have seen your first example (transfer completion denying 4) reported as an alert on vugraph. The last is equally obviously not an alert but rather an announcement. The middle example is the most interesting. Does this qualify as "an unusual strength"? That might depend on where you are playing and who the opponents are but honestly, why not?

[jnichols]

The general rule in the ACBL is that negative inferences are NOT alertable. Used to be they were, but not any more.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2013-November-12, 10:12, said:

I am not in the ACBL but I seem to remember reading that negative inferences are alertable. Certainy I have seen your first example (transfer completion denying 4) reported as an alert on vugraph. The last is equally obviously not an alert but rather an announcement.

Since most games that are on vugraph are played with screens, they often don't distinguish between alerts and announcements. For instance, when playing strong club they may alert the bid by holding up a fist or pointing up (and they point down for the negative 1♦ response), rather than just showing the alert strip.

Players also err towards more over-alerting when playing with screens, since there's no UI concern. You can't really extrapolate from Vugraph to what is appropriate in more typical bridge settings.

In regular games, I've hardly ever seen anyone alert a normal transfer response as denying all of the possible superaccepts, and never heard of anyone being instructed that they should. If this were required, I think at least 75% of players would be failing to alert, since most play some type of super-accept.

[campboy]

barmar, on 2013-November-12, 14:22, said:

In regular games, I've hardly ever seen anyone alert a normal transfer response as denying all of the possible superaccepts, and never heard of anyone being instructed that they should. If this were required, I think at least 75% of players would be failing to alert, since most play some type of super-accept.

The OP isn't just playing superaccepts though, he's playing them in what seems to me to be a very unusual way by making them mandatory on any hand with 4-card support.

FWIW (not much, I know, since OP is in the ACBL, but perhaps more than the VuGraph example) the EBU requires an alert here if 4-card support is denied.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2013-November-12, 14:22, said:

In regular games, I've hardly ever seen anyone alert a normal transfer response as denying all of the possible superaccepts, and never heard of anyone being instructed that they should. If this were required, I think at least 75% of players would be failing to alert, since most play some type of super-accept.

I am fairly sure that the expected (default) for a transfer auper-accept over there is a maximum with 4 card support. So that certainly would not require an alert. The question is whether super-accepting on 4 card support and a minimum, including (43)33 shape, is unusual enough to warrant an alert. I agree with you about screens but the last time I saw this it was the major event that is run without them. It was a couple years back though so regulations may have changed, or the pair in question might have been practising a form of active ethics.

[Cyberyeti]

campboy, on 2013-November-12, 17:22, said:

The OP isn't just playing superaccepts though, he's playing them in what seems to me to be a very unusual way by making them mandatory on any hand with 4-card support.

FWIW (not much, I know, since OP is in the ACBL, but perhaps more than the VuGraph example) the EBU requires an alert here if 4-card support is denied.

Didn't know that about EBU, and not sure whether "denies 4 unless 4333 minimum" which is what we play demands an alert.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-November-13, 05:27, said:

Didn't know that about EBU, and not sure whether "denies 4 unless 4333 minimum" which is what we play demands an alert.

I'm not sure either, but I would guess not. The regulation (BB 4H2f) says "Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert [...] The completion of a transfer that specifically denies four card support or shows three card support."