[blackshoe]

Free, on Aug 4 2007, 08:27 AM, said:

If this is the case, alerting the cuebid would mean your opponents (if they know the alerting regulations) will think it's natural and won't ask about the meaning of this bid! This is even more misleading than not alerting, so I wouldn't alert...

Alerting may even be considered as giving a wrong explanation imo.

No way is alerting "giving a wrong explanation", even if some TDs think so. Not in the ACBL, at any rate, where the alert regulation specifically says

Quote

When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME.

[hrothgar]

pbleighton, on Aug 2 2007, 02:30 AM, said:

I would alert. The ACBL states in their alerting regs that when in doubt alert, and that you can never be penalized for over-alerting.

This makes life SO much easier

I'm simply going to alert every single bid that partner and I make. I can't ever get punished for a failure to alert. I can't ever get punished for over alerting.

Best of both worlds

[jdonn]

Free, on Aug 4 2007, 08:27 AM, said:

Alerting may even be considered as giving a wrong explanation imo.

You are clearly wrong about that.

The more I think about this the more I become convinced this bid should be alerted. Players should follow the spirit of the law first and foremost. If you simply ask yourself what is the literal purpose of even having an alert procedure, you will reach the obvious answer.

"The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically required in volunteering information to the opponents."

[sceptic]

surely if playing live bridge and cue bids like this are non alertable, the only reason an op would complain is if they never bothered to read your cc ?

also maybe the continuations may be alerteable

why alert something you have already given to the opps, the opps have to take some responsibility for reading your cc, if they chose not to surely this is a FAIR advantage

[jillybean]

TimG, on Aug 2 2007, 09:24 AM, said:

Trinidad, on Aug 2 2007, 10:53 AM, said:

TimG, on Aug 1 2007, 08:09 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 1 2007, 07:07 PM, said:

I would not alert it. I would not pre-alert it. I might ask opponents, at the end of the auction, if I am declaring, if they would like an explanation of our auction.

At the end of the auction is likely too late. After 1♣-2♣, I would assume majors and think that both 2♥ and 2♠ were cue-bids. If the actual agreement is spades and diamonds, then my bidding may well be confused.

If cuebids are considered to be self alerting, then the opponents should be allowed to ask for the meaning of any cuebid without getting in trouble.

Therefore, after 1♣-(2♣), you simply ask for the meaning of 2♣. You do that always, whether you are interested in bidding or not. If you only do that when you are considering bidding then you are giving your partner UI.

Rik

If cue-bids are self-alerting, we wouldn't need to alert when they are natural.

Whoa! Are you saying you alert (1♣) 2♣ if natural?

[cherdano]

jillybean2, on Aug 4 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

TimG, on Aug 2 2007, 09:24 AM, said:

If cue-bids are self-alerting, we wouldn't need to alert when they are natural.

Whoa! Are you saying you alert (1♣) 2♣ if natural?

I don't know what TimG does, but the ACBL is pretty clear that this is alertable.

[TimG]

sceptic, on Aug 4 2007, 11:22 AM, said:

surely if playing live bridge and cue bids like this are non alertable, the only reason an op would complain is if they never bothered to read your cc ?

also maybe the continuations may be alerteable

why alert something you have already given to the opps, the opps have to take some responsibility for reading your cc, if they chose not to surely this is a FAIR advantage

When is it that you're supposed to check this section of the CC? If you say it should be done at the beginning of a round, then you're suggesting that there ought to be a rather thorough examination prior to each round. In a pairs event where you might face a dozen pairs in a single session, it is easy to imagine mixing up which pair it was where you saw the unusual cue-bid and which pair you saw the unusual NT range and which pair you saw the NF advances of overcalls, etc.

If the CC should be checked after the cue-bid is made, that is no different than asking for an explanation and carries with it all the same problems.

If I give the opponents my convention card, which has top and bottom cue-bids marked, and I don't alert my top and bottom cue-bid, the opponents won't think to look, they'll just assume it is what is common. (In my experience in ACBL-land, this top and bottom agreement is very uncommon -- if I faced 50 pairs over the course of a tournament, I would expect it much more likely that none of them were playing top and bottom than even as many as one pair were playing top and bottom.)

An alert at least wakes the opponents up to the notion that checking the CC in an especially good idea in this case.

In my opinion, the alert procedure is in place to make disclosure more efficient. It is not in place to exonerate a pair who discloses incompletely and then hides behind regulations. There should never be a "FAIR" advantage for sneaking something past the opponents.

[TimG]

cherdano, on Aug 4 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

I don't know what TimG does

Very few do!

[ralph23]

Not that it is a propos of anything here (it may be) but there is some ambiguity in the meaning of the term "non-alertable". It might mean:

1. Alert Forbidden. Don't alert this call -- if you do alert it, you did wrong and you may get punished.
2. Alert Not Required. You don't need to alert this call. I.e., there's no penalty if you fail to alert this call.

Some calls (like responses to keycard asks etc. and other calls after the auction has gone past 3nt in 2nd and later rounds, at least in acbl land) are in class 1.

And some are in class 2 -- e.g. in the old days (10 years ago?), you were supposed to alert if you opened 1♣ and partner bid 1M, if partner by agreement could skip over a diamond suit to bid his major suit. Nowadays, such a possible skip-over of ♦ is non-alertable (class 2), because it is pretty common after all, but there's no sanction imposed if you should (maybe you're relapsing to the olden tymes or maybe you just got confused or maybe you are too scrupulous) alert it.

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Aug 4 2007, 11:26 AM, said:

Whoa! Are you saying you alert (1♣) 2♣ if natural?

The alert chart says you alert 2♣ in the auction (1♣)-2♣ if both club bids are natural. One implication of this is that if 1♣ is not natural, but 2♣ is, it need not be alerted.

The alert regulation doesn't seem to address this specific question.

Hrothgar: If, in a game I am directing, I find out that you are alerting every call your partner makes, even though most of them are not alertable, I will issue you a five yard penalty for delay of game.

[Codo]

I won´t alert. Following the rules must be ethical.

As Marlowe wrote, we have the silly rule in Germany that pass, X and XX are not alertable. We must stick to this rule. Silly, but easy.

Reasons:

1. If you alert non-alertable bids, you may use this "tool" of alerting to show pd something about your hand, f.e. "alert" shows a double fit, no alert denies it.
Of course you are ethical and don´t do this. But some may. So I would stick to the given rules. There are so many unclear rules, so I would stick at least close to the clear ones.

2. If the opponents fail to ask the question about a "self-alerting" bid and get a bad score, it is their fault. Like Revoking, failing to count or forgetting the system. It is not my duty to make life easier for them in these areas.
Of course I will still give them any information they are entitled to know. But not in a case where the law book so clearly says: No alert.

3. If I had been in doubt about the laws, I had alerted the bid. But the laws are quite clear in this case.

[Free]

blackshoe, on Aug 4 2007, 03:32 PM, said:

Free, on Aug 4 2007, 08:27 AM, said:

If this is the case, alerting the cuebid would mean your opponents (if they know the alerting regulations) will think it's natural and won't ask about the meaning of this bid!  This is even more misleading than not alerting, so I wouldn't alert...

Alerting may even be considered as giving a wrong explanation imo.

No way is alerting "giving a wrong explanation", even if some TDs think so. Not in the ACBL, at any rate, where the alert regulation specifically says

Quote

When an Alert is given, ASK, do not ASSUME.

If this is the case (note that I don't live in the USA, and I'm not an ACBL law expert - never gonna be anyway) then it's harmless to alert. From an ethical point of view I'd suggest to alert...

[blackshoe]

Free, on Aug 13 2007, 08:36 AM, said:

If this is the case (note that I don't live in the USA, and I'm not an ACBL law expert - never gonna be anyway) then it's harmless to alert. From an ethical point of view I'd suggest to alert...

The ACBL regulation also says

Quote

When in doubt, alert

.

[cherdano]

Codo, on Aug 13 2007, 06:36 AM, said:

I won´t alert. Following the rules must be ethical.

As Marlowe wrote, we have the silly rule in Germany that pass, X and XX are not alertable. We must stick to this rule. Silly, but easy.

The ACBL rule isn't really comparable to the German rule about pass/X/XX. The ACBL rule can be paraphrased as saying "You only need to alert cuebids if they have a very unexpected meaning" and then an explanatory document saying "e.g. top+bottom cues are not alertable". This is very different from the German "You shall never alert a double" rule.