[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2014-August-19, 12:42, said:

I'd argue that both are potentially expected ... so no need to alert.

I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise. "Potentially expected" isn't the opposite of "potentially unexpected", because some meanings fall into both categories.

[richlp]

lamford, on 2014-August-19, 11:22, said:

I think the Blue Book indicates that it is not alertable unless it has a potentially unexpected meaning. That does not seem to be the case here.

I could, of course, be wrong, buy my understanding of Standard American bidding is that a new suit by responder is always forcing unless opener's rebid was 1NT (and I've gotten bad results with pickup partners who thought the new suit after the NT rebid WAS forcing). Is that not also true in the UK? If so, wouldn't a non-forcing 2D bid be alertable as having an unexpected meaning? If it were forcing, would that be alertable or is whether or not it is forcing ambiguous enough that neither one should be alerted?

Not explaining myself well, I hope you understand my question.

Edit: Never mind. Just realized that the 1S bid is the equivalent of 1NT and that 2D would be non-forcing for me.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-August-19, 11:36, said:

Is "T-Walsh" similar to transfer responses to a 1♣ opening?

Yes, but discussing T-Walsh and Walsh style at the same time is confusing because Walsh Style rebids by Opener after (natural) 1-level responses are completely different than Opener's systemic rebids following a transfer response.

This also changes the "expected" vs "unexpected" nature of continuations, when talking about disclosure.

[helene_t]

I don't think one should ever alert a natural bid solely because the expected meaning is artificial. Maybe in a country where stayman is not alerted, a natural 2c response to 1nt should be alerted. But in ebu the failure to alert/announce tells opps that the bid is natural.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-August-19, 14:51, said:

I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise. "Potentially expected" isn't the opposite of "potentially unexpected", because some meanings fall into both categories.

Almost all meanings fall into both categories unless one knows what the opponent will expect. It ought to be up to the TD to decide whether it is sufficiently potentially unexpected to merit an alert.

[gnasher]

I think you should interpret the rules in whichever way best serves the purpose of the alerting rules, which is to draw the opponents attention to something that they should be aware of. Everyone will be expecting an alert here, so I think you should not alert. If you can find a way to not-alert in a way that makes it obvious that it's intententional, that would be even better.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on 2014-August-20, 06:39, said:

If you can find a way to not-alert in a way that makes it obvious that it's intententional, that would be even better.

I have a partner who, confused by the ever changing alerting rules and different rules in different countries, frequently pulls the alert card and then say "oh no, this doesn't have to be alerted"

[paulg]

gnasher, on 2014-August-20, 06:39, said:

If you can find a way to not-alert in a way that makes it obvious that it's intentional, that would be even better.

Playing against Sontag and Berkowitz in the Roth Open Swiss last month, they just announced the reason for an alert in the early rounds of the auction. It made for a pleasant environment to play even if not strictly lawful.

In this case it would be nice to announce 'non-forcing'.

I appreciate that this would naturally lead to anarchy.

[aguahombre]

paulg, on 2014-August-20, 09:31, said:

Playing against Sontag and Berkowitz in the Roth Open Swiss last month, they just announced the reason for an alert in the early rounds of the auction. It made for a pleasant environment to play even if not strictly lawful.

In this case it would be nice to announce 'non-forcing'.

I appreciate that this would naturally lead to anarchy.

Against players such as those, whom we expect to know what their early-round bids mean as required by the COC, I welcome this breach/anarchy. It'll have to remain unlawful, obviously -- and i will continue to appreciate the gesture when I receive the gratuitous information from a pair I deem (in my own elitist opinion) worthy to do it.

[mycroft]

I think the fact that it's natural would make it not Alertable, given that the most common meaning is Alertable and artificial. However, the fact that it's non-forcing - is that "unexpected" in England enough to be Alerted? And if so, is it safe to Alert it, given that it will be 100% assumed to be "artificial and forcing" as opposed to "natural and unexpectedly non-forcing"? If not safe, is there an answer?

Difficult; and the previous situations like this lead to Announcements. I dislike people deciding to Announce non-Announceable calls on their own; like all, I'd be fine with Sontag-Berkowitz; less fine with B-playerA and B-playerB at my local club who I already suspect of "hoping we'll ask so they can confirm they're on the same page". But this, should it get to be commonish, may be a place for L&EC to look at making NMF-styles and 4SF Announceable, and save the Alerts for "unexpected" auctions.

[nige1]

A problem with current alert regulations (everywhere, not just in the EBU) recurs whenever a normally artificial call is natural but is forcing or non-forcing in an unexpected way. If you don't alert it opponents may be damaged. If you alert it, opponents may still be damaged because they won't usually ask, assuming the usual artificial meaning.

Such problems are intrinsic to current disclosure protocols, which also generate masses of UI through alerts, questions, failure to ask questions, and answers.

A possible solution is to drop alerts completely. Change the rules to stipulate that you announce the meaning of all partner's calls, without prompting. Opponents would have the power to turn off such announcements.

A card with common explanations could be provided, to minimise disturbance to neighbouring tables. Alternatively and even more controversially, with a further rule-change, you could point to the explanation of partner's call on your system-card. This would be UI to you and would encourage players to have complete system-cards.

Such rules (or something like them) would be simple, universal, and save rain-forests of idiosyncratic local regulations.

[akwoo]

This is a completely impossible proposal.

A pair of sisters in their 80s regularly play at the club in my town. They don't take the game too seriously. Most of their bids they aren't sure themselves what exactly they mean. They're playing some version of Standard American. If you asked them whether 1S-2D-2S was forcing, they wouldn't be able to give you a definitive answer. If you asked them how many hcp 1S-2D promises, they'd guess 10, but in reality it's about 8. The sequence 1C-1S-1N, if you asked them, would be 'a minimum opener', but in practice could be on anything from 11 to 16; like most players at that level they are always scared of opening 1N. If you asked whether 1C-2N denies a 4 card major, the answer would be 'I'm not sure'.

What the hell are they supposed to announce for their partner's bids?

The point is that beginners (and lifetime novices) do NOT have precise agreements for their bids. This is one of the factors that makes them beginners. (Even newer tournament players have a good deal of fuzziness in their bidding system.)

You're basically proposing to make it illegal to be a beginner or a casual player.

The point of local regulations is to make it possible for local beginners and casual players to play a fuzzy version of the local standard system without having to know anything about alerts and the like. This possibility needs to be preserved.

That being said, I agree many of the most common artificial bids should be converted to announcements. But 'most common' is less common than you think; less than a third of the same club plays 4th suit forcing or any form of checkback.

nige1, on 2014-August-20, 12:17, said:

A problem with current alert regulations (everywhere, not just in the EBU) recurs whenever a normally artificial call is natural but is forcing or non-forcing in an unexpected way. If you don't alert it opponents may be damaged. If you alert it, opponents may still be damaged because they won't usually ask, assuming the usual artificial meaning.

Such problems are intrinsic to current disclosure protocols, which also generate masses of UI through alerts, questions, failure to ask questions, and answers.

A possible solution is to drop alerts completely. Change the rules to stipulate that you announce the meaning of all partner's calls, without prompting. Opponents would have the power to turn off such announcements.

A card with common explanations could be provided, to minimise disturbance to neighbouring tables. Alternatively and even more controversially, with a further rule-change, you could point to the explanation of partner's call on your system-card. This would be UI to you and would encourage players to have complete system-cards.

Such rules (or something like them) would be simple, universal, and save rain-forests of idiosyncratic local regulations.

[nige1]

akwoo, on 2014-August-20, 14:02, said:

This is a completely impossible proposal. A pair of sisters in their 80s regularly play at the club in my town. They don't take the game too seriously. Most of their bids they aren't sure themselves what exactly they mean. They're playing some version of Standard American. If you asked them whether 1S-2D-2S was forcing, they wouldn't be able to give you a definitive answer. If you asked them how many hcp 1S-2D promises, they'd guess 10, but in reality it's about 8. The sequence 1C-1S-1N, if you asked them, would be 'a minimum opener', but in practice could be on anything from 11 to 16; like most players at that level they are always scared of opening 1N. If you asked whether 1C-2N denies a 4 card major, the answer would be 'I'm not sure'. What the hell are they supposed to announce for their partner's bids?

"Not sure" or "Standard" or whatever they imagine the call means. Anyway, under the suggested new rules, you could save embarrassment by asking them not to announce.

akwoo, on 2014-August-20, 14:02, said:

The point is that beginners (and lifetime novices) do NOT have precise agreements for their bids. This is one of the factors that makes them beginners. (Even newer tournament players have a good deal of fuzziness in their bidding system.)

Under current regulations, they'd have the same (non?)problem, when asked the meaning of a call.

akwoo, on 2014-August-20, 14:02, said:

You're basically proposing to make it illegal to be a beginner or a casual player. The point of local regulations is to make it possible for local beginners and casual players to play a fuzzy version of the local standard system without having to know anything about alerts and the like. This possibility needs to be preserved.

These rules make life easier for casual players, who no longer need to study local alert regulations. Peripatetic players would not have to learn a new set for each country they visit!

akwoo, on 2014-August-20, 14:02, said:

That being said, I agree many of the most common artificial bids should be converted to announcements. But 'most common' is less common than you think; less than a third of the same club plays 4th suit forcing or any form of checkback.

Thank you, akwoo, for your information and comments.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Akwoo, Nigel's proposal is impractical.

IMO the problem with alerts, or one problem anyway, is the idea that if there's an alert players should assume a meaning, and if there's no alert players should again assume a (presumably different) meaning. No. The purpose of an alert is to inform the opponents that they might want to ask what's going on. It says nothing about the meaning of the alerted call. Equally, if there is no alert, that fact says nothing about the call, other than that it does not require an alert. As the ACBL alert regulation loadly proclaims, WHEN IN DOUBT, ASK!

IMO, you will almost always be in doubt, unless you know your opponents' methods well.

[akwoo]

Nige1 - your definition of casual player is a helluva lot more advanced than mine. I can't imagine any casual player going out to play in a club away from their hometown, much less in another country.

The ACBL regulations are designed so that casual players don't need to know about alert regulations, because nothing they play is alertable.

(Actually, if you polled an average sectional tournament, probably at most a third of the players have actually read the alert regulations. Everyone else has just heard through the grapevine, and not always correctly, about what they should alert or not. No one cares as long as everyone behaves in the spirit of full disclosure and mistakes are honest ones.)

Kitchen bridge players don't need to learn anything when they come to the club, other than how to use a bidding box, which I think just about everyone finds self-explanatory.

[helene_t]

Usually I don't need to know what opps bid means beyond whether it is natural or artificial. Forcing them to announce the meaning of natural calls would create enormous amounts of ui for almost no gain.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-20, 18:59, said:

I agree with Akwoo, Nigel's proposal is impractical.

Yes, of course it's impractical.

nige1, on 2014-August-20, 18:05, said:

Under current regulations, they'd have the same (non?)problem, when asked the meaning of a call.

I don't know about you, but I already know at the local club which pairs it is pointless (and perhaps unfriendly) to ask to explain their agreements since they won't have any.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-20, 18:59, said:

IMO, you will almost always be in doubt, unless you know your opponents' methods well.

If the opponents are playing a similar system to you, I expect you'll know what 90% of their bids mean, at least to the level of detail that they're able to explain.

[barmar]

akwoo, on 2014-August-20, 19:27, said:

Nige1 - your definition of casual player is a helluva lot more advanced than mine. I can't imagine any casual player going out to play in a club away from their hometown, much less in another country.

Are you suggesting that most players in a particular club play very similar systems?

The club I regularly play in gets 8-9 tables each week (we had a huge 11-table game this week). There's usually 1-2 pairs playing Precision (different versions), 1 playing a Polish Club, and the rest are split between SA and 2/1. This is one of the smallest games in the Boston area. The games that have 15-20 tables presumably have more diversity.

[nige1]

akwoo, on 2014-August-20, 19:27, said:

Nige1 - your definition of casual player is a helluva lot more advanced than mine. I can't imagine any casual player going out to play in a club away from their hometown, much less in another country. The ACBL regulations are designed so that casual players don't need to know about alert regulations, because nothing they play is alertable. (Actually, if you polled an average sectional tournament, probably at most a third of the players have actually read the alert regulations. Everyone else has just heard through the grapevine, and not always correctly, about what they should alert or not. No one cares as long as everyone behaves in the spirit of full disclosure and mistakes are honest ones.) Kitchen bridge players don't need to learn anything when they come to the club, other than how to use a bidding box, which I think just about everyone finds self-explanatory.

I think Akwoo is right that few players read local regulations, especially alert regulations.

If the ACBL player can use the local standard system (say 2/1) without any alerts, that is a feather in the ACBL cap. I have learnt from this forum that he doesn't need to alert UNT. I would be amazed and delighted, however, if he doesn't need to alert any standard treatments like Forcing-notrump, Fourth-suit-forcing, Jacoby, Bergen, Splinters, Fit-jumps, 2-way Drury, Four-suit transfers, 2-way checkback, Lebensohl, Lightner, Michaels, and so on.

In the UK, few read or understand the regulations. At Brighton, even top players got many of them wrong. Pity the ordinary player, trying to cope: I forgot to alert several penalty doubles because they seem so natural to me. And I still can't remember which of the following doubles are alertable in the EBU

A.Transfer
(1N) _P (2♦) _X
(2♥) _X
- 1N = Weak
- 2♦ = Artificial - a variety of meanings, often with four or more ♥.
- 2♥ = Conventionally denying more than 2 ♥
- First double shows ♦.
- Second double is T/O of ♥ (it assumes that the 2♦ bidder has 5+ ♥)

B. Pass/correct
(2♦) _P (2♥) _X
- 2♦ = Multi - A variety of meanings, often a weak two in either major.
- 2♥ = Pass or correct (i.e. an artificial but passable relay enquiring about hand type).
- Double = T/O of ♥ (it assumes that opener has the weak variety with ♥)

If instead of alerting, you could simply explain partner's calls, I feel that life would be so much simpler.
Especially if your opponents could switch off your explanations whenever they felt like it.