[pbleighton]

Quote

Is it true that you have to pre-alert canapé in ACBL events?

From the Alert Procedures:
http://www.acbl.org/...Procedures.html


PART III: PRE-ALERTS

Pre-Alerts are designed to act as an early warning system of any unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare. Pre-Alerts must be given before the auction period begins on the first board of a round or match.

1) "TWO-SYSTEM" METHODS

Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is agreeing to play a forcing-club system not vulnerable and "two over one" vulnerable.

Minor variations such as varying notrump range or jump overcall strength by vulnerability do not require a pre-Alert. These methods still require normal Announcements (notrump ranges; transfers) or Alerts (forcing Stayman over some notrump ranges) when appropriate.

As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time or which member of the partnership is making the call. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents' methods.

2) SYSTEMS BASED ON VERY LIGHT OPENINGS OR OTHER HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE METHODS

If it is your partnership style to routinely open hands with fewer than 11 HCP, preempt with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx) suits, and/or overcalls with fewer than 6 HCP at the one level, the opponents must be pre-Alerted.

3) SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS

Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include either strong or weak notrumps with or without five-card majors. The forcing opening bid will most often be an artificial forcing opening of 1 or 2 .

When you play a system structured along different agreements than these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention card before the round begins. In short, if you play a system that most players would not immediately recognize (such as a canapé system) or one the opponents may wish to discuss before the auction begins (a 10-12 1NT range with distributional requirements for minor-suit openings, for example), you are required to pre-Alert the opponents.

Peter

[jdonn]

I would alert. It seems to me the spirit of the alert procedure is to make your opponents aware of what they would want to be aware of so that the game is fair. Of course you can't be a mind reader, but it's not hard to see they could easily want to know what this bid means during the auction, but are quite unlikely to think to ask.

I'd rather not create a world where I have to ask what a bid means when this is one of four times a decade I come up against it with a different meaning than all the other times.

This talk about pre-alerting is a red herring. That is just a term used by the ACBL, or WBF, or bridge players, or whatever. What people mean is to just let your opponents know before the round. I see nothing wrong with that.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Aug 2 2007, 02:07 AM, said:

Is "active ethics" (whatever that means) not applicable in real life?

I used to think so, lol. Oops that was for the water cooler ......

On-topic: do the ACBL rules forbid alerting cuebids, or do they make it optional? If it's optional, you should default to alerting whenever opps might otherwise misunderstand, which is obviously the case here. This must apply to ACBL online tourneys.

If the rules forbid alerting cuebids, of course you must adhere to the rules.

I don't see how this can be an issue at all, unless the laws are unclear. The ACBL alert definitions say

Quote

(there is no penalty for Alerting unnecessarily but there may be one for failing to Alert when one is required).

As I read this, the ethical thing to do is to alert.

[Stephen Tu]

Since the ACBL published alert procedure explicitly spells out with examples alerting Rubens advance cue bids transferring to the higher suit but *not* alerting top & bottom cues, that's what I do. Though I do think it would be better if both were alertable, falling under the general alert "unusual + unexpected" principle. Another example of the typically random ACBL regs, driving the logically thinking people among us bridge players insane.

[paulg]

I believe it is wrong to say that it is ethical to alert, with the natural implication that it is unethical not to alert.

The alerting laws are quite explicit. Cue bids do not require an alert. That is not the same as saying that an alert would not be helpful, but abiding by the rules is ethical behaviour.

So I alert, but respect others who decide not to.

Paul

[pbleighton]

Quote

On-topic: do the ACBL rules forbid alerting cuebids

They specifically allow any alert you feel is appropriate.

Peter

[helene_t]

cardsharp, on Aug 2 2007, 10:04 AM, said:

I believe it is wrong to say that it is ethical to alert, with the natural implication that it is unethical not to alert.

OK, if someone choses not to alert I shouldn't call him "unethical". I believe people chose not to alert because they believe that non-alerting is the ethical thing to do. I just happen to disagree with that judgement. If the lawmakers had wanted us not to alert certain calls, they would have made it illegal to alert them. In the Netherlands it's illegal to alert doubles. Weak jump raises, on the other hand, are explicity not alert-requiring but it's still recomended to alert them if playing against beginners who may assume jump raises to be constructive.

Theoretically you could ask opps if they want you to alert non-standard treatments that technically don't require an alert. Sometimes you get a firm "no", maybe with a proud undertone of "we're used to dealing with non-standard stuff, you can't surprise us". But as for those opps who might benefit for such extended alerts, it doesn't work. Most people don't know what is alertable and what is standard (I don't know either), many don't know that they don't know. Some will respond "please alert everything that is not Acol" (oh boy!).

[SoTired]

No alert.

Reason: Certain bids are "self-alerting" by their very nature, and I believe that is why the ACBL does not alert them anymore. Q-bids and dbls fall into that category.

A q-bid is an obvious "self-alert". An interested opp should immediately assertain the meaning of the q-bid because so many people play them differently, it would be foolish to assume some common meaning.

[blackshoe]

There are a lot of foolish bridge players.

"Ethical" means different things to different people. In particular, some people define it to include "what's fair" (in their opinion) or according to their own personal ethics. This goes beyond the bridge meaning of the term, which is "in accordance with the laws and regulations in force". The ACBL alert regulation explicitly states that top and bottom cue bids do not require an alert, so not alerting is completely ethical. It also explicitly states that there is no penalty for alerting unnecessarily, so there is no harm in alerting, if the player wants to do that.

I don't see the term "self-alert" in the ACBL regulation, but then the ACBL doesn't seem to be in the habit of explaining to players why they make the regulations they do. Clarification of what is deemed to be "self-alerting" would at least allow TDs to suggest to players that they should ask about such calls even if not alerted, with perhaps a bit more justification than currently exists.

[Trinidad]

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

[TimG]

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.

[cherdano]

The ACBL doesn't say that cuebids are self-alerting, it just says that most cuebids are not alertable. Only cuebids with a highly unexpected meaning are alertable.
(To me this would sound like top+bottom cuebids of a minor should be alertable, but the examples don't follow that logic...)

[blackshoe]

"Highly unexpected" is an extremely nebulous concept.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would alert.

In Germany, we dont alert doubles, we play
several non mainstream meanings for the double
and we try to inform the oppoennets.

We leave it to them, if we should alert or not.

For whats it worth, if they cue bid, I always ask.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[barmar]

blackshoe, on Aug 2 2007, 03:34 PM, said:

"Highly unexpected" is an extremely nebulous concept.

But it's necessary, because it would be infeasible for the alert regulation to cover every case explicitly. Most players who play very unusual methods know it, so they don't have a problem. The problem with this vague definition mainly comes up for travelers -- foreigners often assume that their local methods are familiar, and don't realize that they're considered weird when they visit remote areas.

I personally think ACBL's "cue bids are self-alerting" rule is too simplistic. When it was first written, the thinking was presumably, "they're obviously not natural, so there's no need to alert". But those were the days when things like negative/responsive doubles and transfers were still alertable; the general idea was to alert most artificial bids. They've since shifted to a theme of alerting unexpected meanings, and in this spirit they should have made unusual cue bids alertable. Or perhaps this is another place where announcements would be appropriate: Michaels and natural could be alertable, everything else would not be; they would be self-alerting, and opponents could ask.

[cherdano]

barmar, on Aug 3 2007, 10:00 PM, said:

I personally think ACBL's "cue bids are self-alerting" rule is too simplistic. When it was first written, the thinking was presumably, "they're obviously not natural, so there's no need to alert". But those were the days when things like negative/responsive doubles and transfers were still alertable; the general idea was to alert most artificial bids. They've since shifted to a theme of alerting unexpected meanings, and in this spirit they should have made unusual cue bids alertable.

I said it above, but I will repeat it: cue bids are not self-alerting in the ACBL, it is just that only cuebids with highly unexpected (instead of your "unexpected") meanings are alertable. E.g. (1S) 2D (P) 2S=clubs is alertable; I suppose this means every Rubens transfer cuebid is alertable.

[barmar]

But it's not obvious whether Top-and-Bottom cue bids are considered "highly unexpected" -- hence this thread. They're very similar to Michaels in that they show two suits, they just show a different pair of suits, and in fact one of the known suits is always the same for both conventions (when used over a major they both show the other major, and when used over a minor they both show Spades).

So does that similarity make them only unexpected, but not highly unexpected? These days, the only direct cue bids that are really expected in ACBL territory are Michaels; maybe if they're LOLs you might also expect old-fashioned strong takeout. But many books on competitive bidding talk about Top-and-Bottom. Is that enough to make them merely unexpected?

Many (perhaps most) people play that (1m)-3m is a natural preempt, usually hoping that opener's minor is short. I can't recall anyone ever alerting this, although natural cue bids are supposed to be alerted.

[markleon]

From the ACBL web page, on the alert chart, it states:

Cuebids

No Alert - Most Cue-bids *See Alertable Cue-bids*

Alert - Direct cue-bid of natural opening bid played as natural

To my reading, that says that Top-and-Bottom cue bids are not alertable.

[blackshoe]

The alert regulation (which is more definitive than the chart) says specifically that top and bottom cuebids are not alertable. Therefore, top and bottom cue bids are not alertable.

[Free]

markleon, on Aug 4 2007, 01:36 PM, said:

From the ACBL web page, on the alert chart, it states:

Cuebids

No Alert - Most Cue-bids *See Alertable Cue-bids*

Alert - Direct cue-bid of natural opening bid played as natural

To my reading, that says that Top-and-Bottom cue bids are not alertable.

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.