[mike777]

Copied from an email discussion, comments welcomed.

"Who thinks they’ve got a handle on what’s right in the following situation? Or do any of you have a higher authority that can settle this.



You and your partner have a discussion about how you are going to defend the nebulous diamond, which is how most big club players describe their 1 diamond opener. It’s frequently bid on holdings of less than 4. You discuss and agree how some bids might change in meaning, such as 2D (perhaps natural instead of two-suited) or 2NT (perhaps showing minors instead of lower unbids). And you also agree that your take-out double will be geared towards the majors – that unless you have some sort of monster, you’ll have good support for both majors, without much emphasis on support for either minor suit.



We’ve had discussions in the past on exactly what these changes ought to be, and if somebody wants to re-open that can, go ahead. But the real question I want you to think about and respond with strong knowledge/opinion is that if you’ve had the discussion as I presented it, do you have to now alert your take-out doubles of 1 diamond against the big clubbers??



A more general question that one interested party has asked me to ask the panel is:



“If you and your partner have a discussion about any call that in any way deviates or further refines your partnership from what you think “normal” or “standard” might be, do you have to always alert that?” For example, if you NEVER pre-empt with an Ace (inside or out) and never raise pre-emptively with an ace (inside or out), should you alert all your pre-empts and pre-emptive raises? Or if you like to overcall on Qxxx or Kxxx whenever you have it NV, do you have to alert all your 1 level NV overcalls and by negative inference should you alert all passes over 1C, 1D, and 1H? Should all NT opening bids be alerted if they could show a 6 card major, or 5-4-2-2 distro with a 5 card major?



But I really should ask folks to focus on the main first question. Should a take-out double of a nebulous 1D opener be alerted if you’ve disussed it as being take-out with emphasis on hearts and spades?""

[mike777]

Copied from an email discussion.



"As I believe we have discussed before, I find this entire area extremely troubling. What it really implies is that the alert system is totally broken.

I think you might have to alert the double of the nebulous diamond which does not promise support for clubs. It is a close call, especially since many pairs play this way over any minor-suit opening. One could also argue that the nebulous diamond pair are the ones that started the artificiality party on this hand and they should have the obligation to ask. I repeat that I think it is a close call and I would not be at all surprised to be told the opposite by the authorities.

As for your other examples:

No preempt with an outside ace? No, that is style, not even a "treatment". You might mention it before the opening lead if the preempter is declarer. I do this in some other cases. For example, I play that 1C-1S-3S (partnership bidding) denies shortness. I do not alert this but tell them before the opening lead.

Overcall on Qxxx? No alert, because the CC has a box for "very light style", which should cover you. Same with the negative inference when you pass.

1NT opener on 6-card major? I'd say yes to that one. 5-4-2-2? No.

If you start alerting all treatments and negative inferences, there is no end to it even if you play "standard":

I open 1C: alert! I open 1C/1D with 4-4. I do/don't sometimes open 1D with 3-3. I do/don't sometimes canape with 4-5 in minors or 1-4-3-5.

Pard responds 1S: alert! He does/doesn't frequently bypass longer diamonds (this is on the CC, I know). He can't have 5S and 4H because he'd have responded 2D with that. He does/doesn't suppress very weak 4-card suits.

I rebid 1NT: alert! I do/don't raise with 3 trumps. I do/don't rebid 1NT with a singleton.

Pard passes: alert! He had no way to sign off in 2C. He always/sometimes/never bids 2S on a 5-bagger.

It would be pretty silly and time-consuming to alert or announce all these agreements every time. It's also impossible to know what to do in many situations because it is not set in stone what is "normal". 1S-P-2S - alert, 3 trumps b/c Bergen not used? or 1S-P-2S alert, could be 4 trumps because "everyone" except you plays Bergen? 1C on my right, I pass, alert, because I normally bid Michaels with no HCP so I deny 5-5 in the majors by my pass (similar to the Qxxx overcall question)? 1C-1S-x-2S-P alert, because we play good-bad 2NT so I deny 6 clubs by passing? It gets ridiculous in a big hurry.

The rule I go by is that if a call is natural, I do not alert unless I have been specifically advised by the convention card or a director that it is alertable. As noted above, sometimes I will announce (including negative inferences) "style/treatment" agreements after the auction is over, but not negative inferences drawn from a pass. I just don't see any rational alternative. There is no doubt that by following this rule sometimes I conceal information that the opps are technically entitled to, but the game would become ridiculous otherwise. If the league wants to re-do the alert system and tell me what needs to be disclosed, along with how and when, I pledge to cooperate."

[G_R__E_G]

In regards to the main question; doubles are only alertable if they have "highly unusual" meanings*. A double of an opening of one of a minor being take-out with emphasis on the majors is certainly not highly unusual. If partner is forbidden to answer in the other minor then maybe I could see it being alertable.

People complaing about things like this and similar things being alertable really annoy me. I've even heard people say that if you "ever" open 1NT with a singleton that your 1NT openings should be alerted. These things are all a matter of style, if opponents want all of the gory details then they need to ask. If each and every nuance of every bid was alerted and explained at the table we'd need 15 minutes per board.

*Source

[Cascade]

I don't think that an offshape double needs an alert. There are many styles for takeout doubles of natural bids. For example there are players that will double without good support for the unbid Major(s) just because they have an opening hand.

Perhaps something as rigid as "promises support for both majors and could have extreme shortage in either minor" would need a note on your convention card or a pre-alert.

Similarly I think something as rigid as "no side ace" in a pre-empt needs a note on your convention card. The post-alert idea is helpful as far as it goes but often after you pre-empt the opponents will declare then I think it is inappropriate to make a statement before the play (at least it is in New Zealand) this means that the opponents only get this information when you declare.

I have a relatively detailed description on my convention card for my opening style:

"Around 11-20 unBAL,(14 NV)15-17 BAL (1st/2nd) or (11)12-14 BAL (3rd/4th)
4441 1♦/1♥/1NT, 4414 1♣/1NT, 4144 1♣/1♦/1NT, 1444 1♦/1NT
1st/2nd lower two 4-card suits
3rd/4th M with two 4-card suits (1♥ with 44(32) )
1♣ very rarely only three cards - 4333 (more common in 3rd/4th seat)
Almost all 11 HCP hands, occasional 10 HCP; Most 10 HCP with 6+ card-suit or two five-card suits; Some distributional hands with 8-9 HCP; Can be light 3rd seat; can be lighter at favourable VUL"

If there is not room then perhaps you need a reference and supplementary note.

Most of your examples are things that I think would be best disclosed in advance on a convention card.

[mike777]

Copied from an email discussion.


" edit...... the usual guideline is that treatments (of the sort described below) are not alertable unless very unusual (the sort of thing that an opponent wouldn't consider as a possible option).


So for the DBL of 1D, definitely no alert.


The 6 card major 1N, yes (if normal to open such, it is pretty odd).


Frequent overcalls on a weak 4 card suit: this should be pre-alerted. Very odd and something people should know about in advance.


Preempts with no aces, I would say yes. If it is really a strict rule it is information the opponents may want and won't expect."

[awm]

The ACBL policy that covers a lot of these sorts of things is that negative inferences cannot make a call alertable when it would not otherwise be.

So things like "preempt denies a side ace" are not alertable. Of course, they must still be disclosed when opponents ask.

The general rule seems to be that if there is a possible hand that you could have for your bid that is quite far from what the opponents would expect, then you need to alert.

As to the specific examples, I'd think that:

(1) Overcall that could be a bad four-card suit requires a pre-alert (very light style) and an alert during the auction.
(2) Notrump opening that could contain a six-card major would require an alert (highly unexpected).
(3) Takeout double that does not promise necessarily support for unbid minor would not be alertable (there are consistent rulings that "opening hand" double is within the "expected" range and not alertable).
(4) Passes which generally show bad hands are not alertable (negative inference), regardless of your opening or overcalling style. However, some very aggressive styles require pre-alerts for much this reason.
(5) Preempts which deny various outside cards are not alertable (negative inference).

[Cascade]

awm, on Jan 6 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

The ACBL policy that covers a lot of these sorts of things is that negative inferences cannot make a call alertable when it would not otherwise be.

So things like "preempt denies a side ace" are not alertable. Of course, they must still be disclosed when opponents ask.

That is not what I would understand from "negative inference".

I would have thought something like 1♣ 1♥; 1♠ - cannot be balanced since we rebid 1NT is a "negative inference".

Not that I think that pre-empts without an ace need an alert. However I do think if this tendancy is strict then it needs to be disclosed in advance.