[Phil]

As a player, I hate alerting conventions that wake up partner on how I'm responding to their call, like puppet stayman.

I also think cuebids need to be alerted if they are 'not the expected meaning'.

[aguahombre]

JoAnneM, on Aug 30 2009, 08:54 PM, said:

Totally wrong.

However, one of my worst nightmares - I am the non-playing director at table 1 and table 2 calls me with just that problem and may six tricks left.  Now, I am going to play the board next round, but I have to ask the contract and get my bearings with the situation so I can make a ruling.  Do you think I can then play that hand?

Maybe it's better to just tell them to play it out.

I think I got a headache trying to read this string. In my world non-playing directors would not be playing the board on the next round, but blackshoe later confirms that I am wrong about that. Then it took me forever to figure out what Phil's answer had to do with anything, but finally backed way up to the title and got it.
Anyway, I most surely agree with Phil about having to alert puppet stayman. It is in the same category, as I see it, as alerting slam-going bids above 3NT. The only difference is that the response to puppet should be alerted, while nothing above 3NT should be (except maybe a Jump which first puts the bidding side above 3NT)

[aguahombre]

In ACBL, anyway, they should require those of us who use Walsh Relays to alert 2D rather than announce as a transfer, since it might not have hearts, and this information might be useful early on to the opps.

[Elianna]

aguahombre, on Aug 31 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

In ACBL, anyway, they should require those of us who use Walsh Relays to alert 2D rather than announce as a transfer, since it might not have hearts, and this information might be useful early on to the opps.

Done! (see alert chart: http://www.acbl.org/...lertchart.html)

See Responses to One-Level Opening Bids in a Suit(in first column): third column is "announce" which says to only announce certain 1NT responses. These transfers are therefore not announceable, and so are alertable as listed in the second column in the box that says "All conventional responses not listed under no Alert"

[aguahombre]

Elianna, on Aug 31 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Aug 31 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

In ACBL, anyway, they should require those of us who use Walsh Relays to alert 2D rather than announce as a transfer, since it might not have hearts, and this information might be useful early on to the opps.

Done! (see alert chart: http://www.acbl.org/...lertchart.html)

See Responses to One-Level Opening Bids in a Suit(in first column): third column is "announce" which says to only announce certain 1NT responses. These transfers are therefore not announceable, and so are alertable as listed in the second column in the box that says "All conventional responses not listed under no Alert"

i guess I don't understand how responses to opening 1NT can be found under responses to suit bids, and couldn't open the link.

[Elianna]

aguahombre, on Aug 31 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

Elianna, on Aug 31 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Aug 31 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

In ACBL, anyway, they should require those of us who use Walsh Relays to alert 2D rather than announce as a transfer, since it might not have hearts, and this information might be useful early on to the opps.

Done! (see alert chart: http://www.acbl.org/...lertchart.html)

See Responses to One-Level Opening Bids in a Suit(in first column): third column is "announce" which says to only announce certain 1NT responses. These transfers are therefore not announceable, and so are alertable as listed in the second column in the box that says "All conventional responses not listed under no Alert"

i guess I don't understand how responses to opening 1NT can be found under responses to suit bids, and couldn't open the link.

Sorry, I got as far as "Walsh" and automatically read it as walsh transfers.

Try it again: http://www.acbl.org/...alertchart.html

[awm]

They still have the sort of weird requirement:

If the transferer may occasionally hold a Game Forcing hand without the next higher suit, state "Transfer" and Alert the subsequent bid which cancels the transfer meaning.

The problem is, suppose the auction goes 1NT-P-2♦! and I have 5-6 good hearts. If the 2♦ bid is announced as a transfer, I'd better pass in tempo. Even asking questions about it might clue partner in to my heart stack, and in any case virtually everyone plays transfers so asking questions about it is weird. Now the auction continues with opener bidding 2♥ and 2♠ from responder, alerted as "cancels the message of hearts; he has a game force with clubs." My chance to stick in a lead-directional 2♥ call has now been lost.

[bluejak]

In England/Wales, if 2♦ is usually a transfer but something else on occasion [one of my irregular partners insists on a 2♠ rebid as asking for suits upwards] then 2♦ is alerted not announced and in answer to a question may not be described as a transfer. I do much prefer this: what do you do with ♥KQTxxx when it goes 1NT p 2♦ announced as transfer? By next round it is too late.

But Puppet Stayman needs an alert, otherwise opponents may be misled.

[Phil]

Blackshoe if you are going to bifurcate a thread like this, maybe it makes more sense to delete some of the comments that have nothing to do with the new topic.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Sep 2 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

In England/Wales, if 2♦ is usually a transfer but something else on occasion [one of my irregular partners insists on a 2♠ rebid as asking for suits upwards] then 2♦ is alerted not announced and in answer to a question may not be described as a transfer.  I do much prefer this: what do you do with ♥KQTxxx when it goes 1NT p 2♦ announced as transfer?  By next round it is too late.

But Puppet Stayman needs an alert, otherwise opponents may be misled.

Your first point is why I think 2D should be an alert in ACBL as well. AWM also explains why he believes so. But on reflection, unless one holds 7 hearts, where the pseudo transfer is a near certainty, It would be much too dangerous to Waltz into what usually is a real transfer.

The second point --about Puppet-- is just wrong, in my opinion. It is very unlikely that the exact form of stayman initiated will be useful to the other side at exactly that moment, and alerting it is basically reminding partner what the answer will mean before the answer is given. Puppet after a 2NT opening is even more wrong to alert(yet required now), since there is about zero chance the information is needed by the opps at that moment. Only the response to Puppet should be alerted, because the response says something about the hand which made the response.

[blackshoe]

Phil, on Sep 2 2009, 12:38 PM, said:

Blackshoe if you are going to bifurcate a thread like this, maybe it makes more sense to delete some of the comments that have nothing to do with the new topic.

Huh? What do you mean?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Sep 2 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

Phil, on Sep 2 2009, 12:38 PM, said:

Blackshoe if you are going to bifurcate a thread like this, maybe it makes more sense to delete some of the comments that have nothing to do with the new topic.

Huh? What do you mean?

wrong color...it was blue..not blackshoe

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on Sep 2 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

Your first point is why I think 2D should be an alert in ACBL as well. AWM also explains why he believes so. But on reflection, unless one holds 7 hearts, where the pseudo transfer is a near certainty, It would be much too dangerous to Waltz into what usually is a real transfer.

But if 2♦ shows hearts, a 2♥ intervention must be artificial, while that is not necessarily true if 2♦ sometimes doesn't show hearts. So if opps don't alert and I have read their CC while p has not (or vice versa), partner may misunderstand my 2♥ bid.

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on Sep 2 2009, 12:33 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 2 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

Your first point is why I think 2D should be an alert in ACBL as well.  AWM also explains why he believes so.  But on reflection, unless one holds 7 hearts, where the pseudo transfer is a  near certainty, It would be much too dangerous to Waltz into what usually is a real transfer.

But if 2♦ shows hearts, a 2♥ intervention must be artificial, while that is not necessarily true if 2♦ sometimes doesn't show hearts. So if opps don't alert and I have read their CC while p has not (or vice versa), partner may misunderstand my 2♥ bid.

Again I agree and propose that 2D should be alerted if it might not, on a rare occasion, show hearts. But as an opponent of the bidding side, I would stay fixed on the hand with seven hearts since it might not occur in this milleneum, and stick with 2H into the transfer being aritificial and showing whatever other than hearts you want it to show, even after (if) the rules are changed to make 2D an alert.

Until that change happens, and even after, your partner should be on the same wavelength if he/she thinks. With a heart void, your partner will also know what has happened

[Coelacanth]

In my most regular partnership (of well over 15 years standing) we have always played Baron. I'm not sure if this is the technically correct name for the convention, but it's a sequence of the form 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠, where the 2♠ bid cancels the transfer meaning and initiates a slam investigation.

In the myriad deals we have played using this agreement, this sequence has come up a grand total of zero times. My point being that for most people who play 2♦ as "transfer or infrequent other meaning", the "other meaning" is so infrequent as to have no practical impact on the defense.

I'm fine with this regulation as is.

[bluejak]

Coelacanth, on Sep 2 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

In my most regular partnership (of well over 15 years standing) we have always played Baron. I'm not sure if this is the technically correct name for the convention, but it's a sequence of the form 1NT-2♦-2♥-2♠, where the 2♠ bid cancels the transfer meaning and initiates a slam investigation.

In the myriad deals we have played using this agreement, this sequence has come up a grand total of zero times. My point being that for most people who play 2♦ as "transfer or infrequent other meaning", the "other meaning" is so infrequent as to have no practical impact on the defense.

I'm fine with this regulation as is.

Don't you feel that other defenders should have the right to decide this for themselves?

aguahombre, on Sep 2 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 2 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

But Puppet Stayman needs an alert, otherwise opponents may be misled.

The second point --about Puppet-- is just wrong, in my opinion. It is very unlikely that the exact form of stayman initiated will be useful to the other side at exactly that moment, and alerting it is basically reminding partner what the answer will mean before the answer is given. Puppet after a 2NT opening is even more wrong to alert(yet required now), since there is about zero chance the information is needed by the opps at that moment. Only the response to Puppet should be alerted, because the response says something about the hand which made the response.

Again, whether opponents need to know at that time should be their decision. Furthermore, if not alerted, the opponents will probably not ask at the end of the auction when it is useful.

Exceptions to general rules cause no end of trouble, and this would be a specific exception, and there would be more people getting alerting wrong.

Finally, it makes no difference to honest players anyway. It is unfortunate to make rules on the basis that players will refuse to follow other rules if you do not make it difficult for them.

[barmar]

helene_t, on Sep 2 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Sep 2 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

Your first point is why I think 2D should be an alert in ACBL as well.  AWM also explains why he believes so.  But on reflection, unless one holds 7 hearts, where the pseudo transfer is a  near certainty, It would be much too dangerous to Waltz into what usually is a real transfer.

But if 2♦ shows hearts, a 2♥ intervention must be artificial, while that is not necessarily true if 2♦ sometimes doesn't show hearts. So if opps don't alert and I have read their CC while p has not (or vice versa), partner may misunderstand my 2♥ bid.

If a bid usually shows X, but may rarely show Y instead, I think most players will base their defense on the X meaning. So if the opponents alert and explain the 2♦ bid as "usually a transfer to ♥, but might occasionally be other hands that will be shown later", I still wouldn't be confident that partner would understand your 2♥, unless you've specifically discussed this auction.

As a more common example, I expect that most players who play Michaels cue bids use it after a "could be short" or Polish 1♣. The low frequency of the non-natural holding doesn't warrant changing your defense.

[bluejak]

Exactly: "most players". I am not most players: I change my defence over short clubs. Why should I not be allowed to rely on alerts?

I still think the fact that most players would play the same way whether alerted or not is a very poor reason not practise Full Disclosure, and I think the ACBL regulation makes Full Disclosure impractical, and am pleased the EBU regulation does not follow it. I believe that people who wish to bid differently should have a right to know what the situation is.

[nige1]

Suggested disclosure protocols:

• As well as alert rules, the EBU orange book insists that you pre-alert by drawing opponents' attention to a special section on your system card, specifying unusual conventions and conventions, to which your opponents may need to discuss a defence. This is a useful idea.
  
• When the EBU introduced announcing, I predicted disaster but I'm glad to say I was wrong. It is popular and works fine. When partner makes certain kinds of calls, you immediately supply an appropriate explanation e.g Partner opens a natural 1N ("12-14, may have singleton"), or over your 1N enquires with 2♣ ("Stayman") or transfers with 2♦ ("Hearts"), or opens a 2♥ ("Strong and forcing").
  
• A useful ancillary to announcements would be a standard matrix - a card with a table of common explanations. The laws would not count this as an aide-memoire (it would be the same for everybody). If the explanation of a call was on the matrix, you could point to it, saving time and reducing the opportunties for flapping ears at neighbouring tables.
  
  
• IMO, it would be a further improvement to extend the announcement principle to all calls that would otherwise be alertable. eg 3♣ ("Puppet Stayman", "Splinter" or whatever). This would save the time currently taken to alert and ask.
  
• It would be even better to extend the announcement principle to all calls. eg 1♠ ("Natural 9-19, 5+ cards") Then you wouldn't need to remember tables of alertable bids -- a different table for each level of competition -- and different rules and tables for each jurisdiction and country in which you play. Also, many jurisdictions forbid you to announce or alert calls that should require timely disclosure (For example partner's double of a cue-bid that asks you to lead a different suit).
  
• Finally, the biggest improvement would be the facility to switch-off opponents' alerts and announcements before starting a board. Any subsequent alert or explanation would be and infraction and be penalized. At the end of the auction, you could still ask for an explanation. This might take the form of a Sven question "What do partner's calls reveal about his hand?".

Summary of advantages claimed...

• IMO, each of these protocols, progessively reduce the opportunity for unauthorised information.
  
• These protocols save time because unless you always ask or never ask, you inevitably give unauthorised information. Protocol 4 is equivalent to asking about every alerted bid. Protocol 5 is equivalent to asking about every bid. Both save the time taken by the question. Protocol 6 saves the most time and minimises unauthorised information.
  
• Before alerting was mandatory, We displayed a card saying "Please do not alert". Deprived of the information from their own alerts and explanations, opponents regularly suffered horrendous bidding misunderstandings. Auctions would spiral out of control, until mercifully brought to an end by our doubles. "Experts" with sophisticated methods were the juiciest prey. protocol 6 would bring back such innocent amusement
  
• Protocol 5/6 is culture-free. The law-book could mandate it globally. It would allow a more level playing field.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on Sep 25 2009, 01:36 AM, said:

[*]It would be even better to extend the announcement principle to all calls. eg 1♠ ("Natural 9-19, 5+ cards") ...
[*] IMO, each of these protocols, progessively reduce the opportunity for unauthorised information.

Announcing all calls reduces the opportunity for unauthorised information? How so?