[Knurdler]

At a routine club game in South Africa:
1. My partner opens 1NT and I announce “15 to 17” (we do not bid with singletons)
2. Second hand bids 2C. No announcement or alert
3. I bid 2NT and, before my partner can announce “transfer to diamonds”, third hand places their 3C bid on the table
4. My partner does not make any announcement (or alert) and bids 3 diamonds.

Second hand complains that my partner did not alert my bid of 2NT.
My partner argued that if third hand wanted to know what my 3D bid was he could ask and, by not asking at the time, he had waived his right and further that the second hand has no right to ask.

I have read the South African Bridge Federation Regulations For The Control Of Conventions.

My thoughts on which I seek guidance are:
1. I was correct to announce my partner’s 1NT range
2. Second hand players bid of 2C was DONT convention and should have been alerted by their partner
If I wanted to, I could have asked the fourth seat what the 2C bid meant
If my partner at his turn wanted to know the meaning of the 2C bid, he is entitled to ask
3. My bid of 3D was a transfer and should have been announced (not alerted) by my partner
4. If the fourth hand bids too quickly for my partner to announce before they bid, he should still announce my bid as soon as he can and before he bids.
If my bid had required an alert (and not an announcement) the same principle would apply ie my partner should promptly alert but if third hand bids too
quickly, then the alert simply comes as soon as possible after their bid and before my partner bids.
5. Because my bid should be announced as a transfer it is not alertable. At their turn to bid, second hand is entitled to ask what my bid means. Fourth hand
bidding too quickly or choosing not to ask about my bid does not cancel second hand’s rights.

There were no hard feeling and we sorted it out at the table.
I just want to know the correct procedure next time.
Thanks

[Cyberyeti]

2: if this screws you over, you can potentially get redress from the TD at the end.
3: your 2N is a transfer. This would normally be announced, but over intervention, not sure what the regs are in SA
4: partner still announces/alerts, and his RHO gets his bid back if he wants it so partner should wait

announcements and alerts are usually treated as different forms of alert, and should be done late if somebody bids too fast

[mike777]

This is an going issue...slow alerts or fast opponents bidding..or both

Unfortunately this at times can really upset the opponents

They pass or double you then alert or announce..at that point opponents start talking and a whole bunch of UI passes between opponents...

[mycroft]

Knurdler, on 2025-December-14, 08:31, said:

I have read the South African Bridge Federation Regulations For The Control Of Conventions.

And now have I. Reminds me a lot of the old ACBL rules (especially with the "we all know what we actually mean" and "what is Artificial" bits).

Responses to questions with ">" (which I know is backwards to 30 years of usage. Sorry).

My thoughts on which I seek guidance are:
1. I was correct to announce my partner’s 1NT range
> Yes - Announcing, 1.

2. Second hand players bid of 2C was DONT convention and should have been alerted by their partner
> Assume so - "contains information of which the opponents may not be aware".

If I wanted to, I could have asked the fourth seat what the 2C bid meant
> You can always do that, Alerted or no, but notice the many places in the document where it says "X need not be alerted but opponents have the right to ask what X means without any concern that unauthorized information may be passed by the query" (my emphasis). I assume that asking about Alerted bids can be done without much concern about UI. But bids that are not Alerted - well, they "should be" natural, with no "information of which the opponents may not be aware". So asking about such a call can very much pass information, which is unauthorized to your partner and can put them in a bind.

> Now, if it does turn out that it *should have been* Alerted and wasn't, you're probably off the hook for UI :-)! But it's a very risky thing to assume (*).

If my partner at his turn wanted to know the meaning of the 2C bid, he is entitled to ask
> Yes. Same caveat, though.

3. My bid of [ed: 2NT] was a transfer and should have been announced (not alerted) by my partner
> Yes - Announcements, 7. Interestingly enough, the style of the announcement is not specified for this case only. I assume players know what they're supposed to do via repetition.

> Actually, maybe No, depending on what "normal bridge terminology and definition" of "transfer" means. If it *only applies* to "the bid directly under the suit shown", then your 2NT "transfer to diamonds" is an Alert, it would only be an announcement if it showed clubs. This is why I find it interesting that the style of the Announcement isn't defined in the regulations - if you do what we do now and the Announcement is the name of the suit, then it's clear this is an announcement; if you do what we used to do and say "transfer", you probably shouldn't for this call.(**)

4. If the fourth hand bids too quickly for my partner to announce before they bid, he should still announce my bid as soon as he can and before he bids
> Yes - Law 20F. "Failure to Alert" is deemed misinformation (F5a) and a player who misinformed and realizes it must...correct the misexplanation (F4a). It is likely that the Director will get involved here (whether because the player making the late Announcement "summon[s] the Director" per the Law or the opponents freak out). This is a good thing for your side, as there will be an opportunity to explain that the 3♣ bid hit before he had a chance to make the Announcement. It's still late, but it can change the director's ruling.

If my bid had required an alert (and not an announcement) the same principle would apply ie my partner should promptly alert but if third hand bids too quickly, then the alert simply comes as soon as possible after their bid and before my partner bids.
> Yes - same reason.

5. Because my bid should be announced as a transfer it is not alertable.
> Arguable, but you should assume no for regulatory purposes. In the ACBL, it is explicit now that an Announcement is a *type of* Alert (it was implied before, but there was disagreement). The SABF policy explains the reasons for Announcements as: "The goal is to avoid delays in the auction caused by alerting and having opponents asking what a bid means for some common situations." - which I read as "it's an Alert, but we just skip the 'Alert' 'yes?' dance and go straight to the explanation, because 'no' pair will ever forget and 'no' pair will not want to know."

At their turn to bid, second hand is entitled to ask what my bid means.
> Of course. But when it's announced, it should be obvious. When it isn't Announced or Alerted, second hand should be protected if she assumes it's natural invitational with something in clubs.

Fourth hand bidding too quickly or choosing not to ask about my bid does not cancel second hand’s rights.
> Of course not. In fact, a request to explain the auction (or specific calls, at the risk of passing UI) is available to each opponent at their turn throughout the auction and play (a review of the auction is only allowed before they play their first card). It need not (and frequently is more advisable not to) be the player's first turn to act after the call.

Well handled by all, it looks like, but they do have to remember to Alert their Alertable bids, and maybe give a second for the opponents to Alert/Announce when it's likely to have one. Also, your pair needs to be ready to Alert/Announce in common situations like this one to minimize the chance of a "fast call".

(*) This specific one, however, tends not to be. At least in my area, the count of people who "late Alert" their defence to NT (especially since they're remembering whether they play the same system against our NT as everybody else's) rivals those that actually play a natural 2♣ overcall. As long as you *consistently ask* what 2♣ means (Alerted or not), and not just ask when you're suspicious, the amount of UI it passes to partner is minimal (and consists of "we always ask, because we frequently aren't told".)

Don't take that as license to ask about non-Alerted calls in general, though - you will end up on the wrong end of a high-emotion Director call eventually!

(**) I actually play 2NT here as "transfer to clubs", for instance. You can't assume they know which suit you're transferring to (especially if you play gap or non-gap superaccepts, when you bid 3♣ just like I do, but still mean diamonds).

[blackshoe]

You can always ask about opponents' auction at your turn to call or play.

Alerts or announcements should always be made when required, even if the opponents bid quickly. BTW, bidding more quickly than you normally do is just as much breaking tempo as is hesitating for longer than you normally do.

[Knurdler]

Thanks for the detailed replies.
Seems we are on the right track with the basics but the issues of tempo and UI are not ones I have ever thought about!

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2025-December-14, 22:31, said:

You can always ask about opponents' auction at your turn to call or play.

This is not the answer to the problem. If this is what is being suggested, we should all stop making alerts or announcements.

[blackshoe]

Should I suggest instead that people ignore the law?