|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
AlanW Reply |
A previous thread has highlighted some of the difficulties of interpreting the alerting requirements even when the law-makers have tried to be as precise as possible. In England one category of alertable bids is one which
'is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect'. (The other categories of 'not natural', and natural but agreed to be F or NF in a way the opponents are unlikely to expect seem much less likely to cause confusion.) So, does this mean an ELC double is alertable in England? My interpretation of the above quotation would be that it should be alerted, but I have never come across anyone who has alerted one against me (I don't play them myself). On the other hand, my interpretation of the above would be that the example James quoted earlier of 1x 1y; 1N (12-16) 2C (enquiry); 2N showing 15-16 should not be alerted. The bid is certainly natural, and it's difficult to see why there are any surprises for oppo arising from other agreements. But clearly others have interpreted the rules differently in this respect. James gives some other good examples of bids which might or might not require alerts. To take just one more of them, should 1x - 1H; 1N be alerted if you have a specific agreement about whether it can or cannot conceal a 4-card spade suit? |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
I am surprised at your logic re the reply to Crowhurst. When you use an artificial enquiry, and have a response showing point-count it seems very strange that you consider that response "natural". I believe the 2NT response is alertable because it is not natural. It is not an attempt to play there: it shows partner what he has asked in the same way as a response to Blackwood.
As to your other points, it is true that the third reason for alerting is difficult to interpret. The two cases you cite are borderline ones in my view: do you really think that ELC doubles are likely to come as a shock ot the opponents? The same for rebids bypassing a four-card major? If so, and only if so, you should alert them. To answer one point from a different thread, few players, except the least ethical, approach alerting with any view of gaining from it. For the majority of players, especially ones like me who played before alerting, it adds considerable fairness to bridge, and that is what we want. Players who like to gain by their opponents ignorance of their methods are not those we wish ot encourage.
|
RMB  19 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
I don't have a definitive answer by any means. (I am sure someone thinks they have.
 )It is true that no one alerts ELC doubles, but no one alerts doubles that show (close to) opening values and no shape suitability and no idea what to do if partner bids their short suit; and those doubles are far more of menace [end rant]. We should look closely at the wording of the EBU regulation: 'is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements which your opponents are unlikely to expect'. There must be other agreements. So in the check-back sequence: 1X-1Y, 1NT-2  , 2NT = maximum. The meaning of 2NT is affected by the meaing of 2 = minimum, no major to show. But opponents might expect 2 to be natural, and 2NT to be the same values as 1NT with nothing to show.However, in the sequence 1m-1  , 1NT. The fact that 1NT may or may not deny four spades is not affected by the meaning of 1 , if 1 simply shows spades. But if 1 shows spades and five cards in the minor (or spades and an unbalanced hand) and 1NT is compulsory on balanced hands with spades, then perhaps 1NT and 1 require an alert. |
|
James Vickers 10 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Country: UK
First of all, thank you Alan for asking the original question.
It perhaps doesn't conform to the EBU Orange Book definition of "natural for alerting purposes" (5.3.1(b), a dubious definition of "natural" per se) but only because it is forcing. It is still showing a balanced hand and a willingness to play in that denomination, and you can't get much more natural than that.
I thought it was a matter of what the regulations say are alertable, rather than what I think should be alerted, which is "extremely unhelpful". James |
|
AlanW Reply |
Perhaps I did not define the system of responses I had in mind precisely enough. I believe it is normal to play 2N as 15-16 with a more balanced hand than shown so far, while 3-level bids show 15-16 with extra distribution. I described 2N as natural because I thought it fitted the definition of a natural 2N bid in 5.3.1(b), but I take James' point that it could be regarded as forcing and therefore violate the definition. (I don't actually think it has to be F, though. It's difficult to see how partner can have a hand that justifies bidding 2C and then want to pass when you bid 2N, but that's up to him.) I'm not sure the analogy with Blackwood, helps me understand this, either - if I open 1N and partner bids 2C Stayman, my rebid of 2H simply tells him what he asked, but I don't think that makes it alertable in the same way that a 2D response in answer to the same question would be. I hope my argumentativeness here is not misunderstood. I'm not really trying to argue that it's wrong to say 2N should be alerted here, and I'm happy to do so if that's the received wisdom, if I ever play this system. I'm more interested in where the limits to alerting might lie, because the meaning of almost every bid I make with my regular partners will be affected by our agreements over what other bids in the same situation would show. I'm more than happy to explain all these inferences to the opponents, and it's easy to do so after the auction if we are declaring, but somehow I've got to judge during the auction which inferences are likely to be unexpected, and I think it would be equally unhelpful to alert everything as to alert nothing. (Although I realise this board is not really the right place for the suggestion (sorry, David), perhaps there should be two types of alert!!! A real alert for artificial bids, and a semi-alert for natural bids affected by other agreements.) |
|
HenryS Reply |
Country: USA
This is, and I expect will continue to be, a fascinating thread. I wish to add a point about "other agreements." When asked to play ELC (against my better judgment), I always clarify with my partner how I should handle competitive hands with clubs and short diamonds. My standard hand for this question is, eg, Kxx; xxxx; x; QTxxx. After the auction (1h) dbl (2h), is this hand good enough for a 3c advance in competition? It certainly should be if partner's hand is going to be something like Axxx; x; KJxx; Kxxx, even with wasted diamonds. It certainly isn't if partner is liable to be Axxx; x; AQxxxx; xx and will be forced to convert to 3d without showing extra values. And if partner does have a big hand with diamonds, eg AQx; x; AQJxxx; Axx and is forced to rebid 4d because 3d would be ELC, then my aggressive 3c advance will certainly create major problems for us. My point is that players using ELC are virtually forced to have other agreements in order to know when, when not, and how to advance a potentially ELC double. From that point of view, other agreements DO exist, and hence that would satisfy the criterion quoted above for requiring an alert. |
|
RichM 285 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
AlanW wrote
<< I'm not sure the analogy with Blackwood, helps me understand this, either - if I open 1N and partner bids 2C Stayman, my rebid of 2H simply tells him what he asked, but I don't think that makes it alertable in the same way that a 2D response in answer to the same question would be. >> OK, try this analogy. You are playing original Blue Team Club. Your opening 1NT bid shows 15-17 HCP balanced or 12-14 HCP and 3=3=2=5 distribution. Your partner responds 2 Clubs. This is non-forcing Stayman. You rebid 2 Diamonds. This shows 12-14 HCP and 3=3=2=5. That's alertable. You rebid 2 Hearts. This shows 4 Hearts and 15-17 HCP. That's alertable too even though it is "natural" showing Hearts. Any rebid, natural or not, that shows a subset of the original range of an opening bid should be alerted. Second analogy. You are playing 2/1 game force in the style of Max Hardy. You open 1 Club and your partner responds 1 Spade. You rebid 1 NT showing 12-14(15-) HCP and balanced shape. Your partner rebids 2 Diamonds which is "new minor forcing". You rebid 2 Hearts. In the Hardy style your rebid of 2 Hearts is artificial, showing a minimum within 12-14 and saying nothing about Hearts. That is alertable. If you instead rebid 2NT, that shows a maximum within 12-14 and does not specify any additional distributional information. That's alertable too even though it is more-or-less natural. RichM |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Why is it a "dubious" definition? Anyway, let us see. If you respond 5 to Blackwood does it become a natural bid because you are known to have diamonds, and partner might want to play there? Of course not. The fact that partner might want to play there is irrelevant: it is not a natural bid for alerting purposes because it shows one ace, not that you want to play in 5.Now if partner bids Crowhurst, he is in control. 2NT does not say "I have a suitable hand for playing in no-trumps" which is the natural meaning: it says "I have 15 or 16 points". The way some people play it it also tells something about the distribution. But it is not a question of whether no-trumps is a suitable spot to play: that is for partner. Opener is not saying "Let's play no-trumps": he is saying "This is my hand: now you decide". Thus a 2NT response to Crowhurst is not natural for alerting pruposes.
2 is natural: it shows hearts.
|
|
HenryS Reply |
Country: USA
Perhaps a different scenario can raise a different question. In the US, it is VERY common to play that the sequence 1nt-2c; 2s DENIES 4 hearts because, if opener is 4-4 majors, he rebids 2h first. I think it is entirely appropriate to alert 2s as denying 4 hearts and probably appropriate to alert 2h as 'could be 4-4 majors' even though both are natural calls showing the suit bid. But if the partnership is playing some form of Precision in which a 1nt opener DENIES 4-4 majors, should not the 1nt opening bid be alerted (responder might not use Stayman, after all)? If the 1nt opening bid is deemed to require an alert, then would it not be redundant to re-alert 1nt-2c-2M as denying 4 in the other major? Oh for the days when everyone played Goren and we didn't need alerts (rofl...) |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
The problem with analiogies from different countries is that the basis for alerting is very different. In England/Wales, you alert:
Now a response of 2 to Stayman, that says something about the other major {denying it, perhaps} is not alertable since it is natural, and opponents would not find it 'very strange' that the partnership has a particular rule as to which major to bid with boh majors.So in the scenario you give neither 2 nor 2 is alertable in England/Wales.If an opening 1NT shows some sort of limitation, eg denies 4-4 majors, then that is not alertable. not only because it is not strange enough, but also because some situations have been discussed and interpretaions published: this is one of them. Such limitation needs to be on the convention card but does not require an alert.
|
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
8 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 7 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:33:52 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status