[thebiker]

Suppose partner and I have the following arrangements
after s sequence such as
3Mi (X)

(a)
3Mi (X) 3NT means (1)I may have the values for a punt at 3NT or (2) I am interested in saving in 5Mi if the oppenents bid game but only if partner has a genuine prempt with 7+ trumps

Presumably if we had discussed this then the 3NT bid should be alerted?

(b)
3Mi (X) 4Mi means I am lying in wait for the oppo to bid on, and may be looking to take a penalty and partner is not permitted to bid on

Under the current alerting rules ie alert bids below the 4 level, our side is a a total disadvantage if we employ method (a)
We have to alert and if the oppo are interested we have to tell them we are probably on the game, without them having to employ any skill in working that ou for themselves

If we use method (b) where we are setting a trap for the opponents - no alert is needed, and even when the opponents ask the meaning of our bid, we only have to answer something like "competitive"

Now look at things the other way
Suppose we reverse the meanings of the two sequences

© 3Mi (X) 3NT being either to make or the trap
Do we have to alert? After all both options would require values. So if we were questioned about things we wont have to give a complete explanation "values" would be adeguate, the oppo would have to take their chances if they bid on

(d) 3Mi (X) 4Mi) Looking for the save. No requirement to alert (above 3NT) and if the opponents do ask the meaning - an answer of "competitive" or "preemptive"
would probably be adeguate (but full disclosure would be unlikely)

The point I am trying to make in a roundabout way is when Alerting is necessary below an arbitary level - in this case the 4 level ?
If alerting is necessary why not any any level or perhaps below 3NT only or maybe not at all?

In the case where alerting was played as only operational below 3NT
there would be absolutely no way the opponents would be given a headstart warning about what ones methods were about.

Now that might not be fair and not full disclosure but it would make the game more interesting and would probably bring more into line with the way it is played at many levels of the game

If any one does reply to this query - I would be interested to know if they play method (a) and whether or not they have ever alerted the sequence
3Mi (X) 3NT and whether they have ever met opponents who alerted that situation?

thank you in advance for any replies

regards

thebiker

[FrancesHinden]

I play something similar to method (a): 3m x 3NT is either strong, or interested in a save; after 3m x 3NT 4M double by opener shows suitability for saving.
Yes, I alert the 3NT bid.

Many of your points are entirely valid, I was in favour of retaining alerts above 3NT.
The counter-argument is that high-level alerts help the alerting side more than their opponents, in general.

Your point (d) however is wrong: if you have the agreement described in (b) you have to explain it fully if asked. This is nothing to do with the alerting rules.

[paulg]

Just to say I prefer the SBU/WBF rule of alerting conventional calls at the four-level on the first round of the auction.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2011-March-17, 18:39, said:

Just to say I prefer the SBU/WBF rule of alerting conventional calls at the four-level on the first round of the auction.

Yes, this is much better.

[barmar]

ACBL also has that rule. So they got something right.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL rule is to alert that which requires an alert, but alerts of calls above 3NT at and after opener's second call are delayed until (1) for the declaring side, after the final pass of the auction but before the open lead is chosen or (2) for the defending side after the opening lead is made face down, and before the dummy is tabled. There is an exception for alertable doubles, redoubles, or passes, which are always made immediately.

It occurs to me that this regulation would be a good reason for requiring the bidding cards to remain on the table until the dummy is faced.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-19, 08:08, said:

It occurs to me that this regulation would be a good reason for requiring the bidding cards to remain on the table until the dummy is faced.

Usually the cards are left only until the opening lead is faced, since before that time third hand has the chance to ask questions while the auction is still available (and declarer has not seen the dummy).

In the ACBL, though, they will refuse to lead unless the bidding cards have been put away. But Stop Card and Convention card experiences suggest that if there were a regulation requiring the cards to be left out until the appropriate time, few players would comply and the ACBL would just change the regulation.

[gnasher]

I play (a) and I know other people who play it, and yes of course we all alert 3NT. Why wouldn't we?

If it went 3m (dbl) 4m and someone asked me what it meant, I would say, "To play; he could have bid 3NT to invite me to save."

If, instead, we played 3m (dbl) 3NT as either natural or a 4m bid that doesn't invite a save, I would alert it and describe it as "Either natural or a 4m bid that doesn't invite a save".

If we played 3m (dbl) 4m as inviting me to save, I would describe it as "Inviting me to save."

As for this:

Quote

In the case where alerting was played as only operational below 3NT
there would be absolutely no way the opponents would be given a headstart warning about what ones methods were about.

Now that might not be fair and not full disclosure but it would make the game more interesting and would probably bring more into line with the way it is played at many levels of the game

You may be right about how the game is played at some levels of the game, but I can't see why you think the rest of us should be dragged down to those levels, or why anybody would regard a game played under such circumstances as more interesting.

I do agree that the rule about not alerting above 3NT is generally a bad thing.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2011-March-19, 18:17, said:

Usually the cards are left only until the opening lead is faced, since before that time third hand has the chance to ask questions while the auction is still available (and declarer has not seen the dummy).

In the ACBL, though, they will refuse to lead unless the bidding cards have been put away. But Stop Card and Convention card experiences suggest that if there were a regulation requiring the cards to be left out until the appropriate time, few players would comply and the ACBL would just change the regulation.

I agree 100% that trying to change anything in the ACBL is an exercise in futility, although I understand there are a very few clubs here where leaving the bidding cards out happens routinely.

[barmar]

I can't count the number of times opening leader has had to ask for a review because we almost always put our bidding cards away as soon as the final pass (sometimes earlier, since it's quite common to indicate the final pass by simply picking up the cards, or maybe pulling out a Pass card and using it as a "scoop" to pick up the rest of the pile). Although if I'm defending and know I'm going to want a review with detailed explanations, I'll ask everyone to leave them out.

[blackshoe]

Under Icelandic regulations, are system cards
1. required
2. optional
3. not mentioned
4. other

?

[blackshoe]

I suppose "usually" depends on where you are. Here in Rochester, New York, the cards are usually picked up about 3 milliseconds after the final pass - or the bid people think will lead to three passes.