[SriNT]

Any bid over 3nt need not be alerted? True?

[gordontd]

Depends where you are.

[ArtK78]

In the ACBL, this is true after the first round of the auction is complete.

There may be a delayed alert (an alert after the auction is completed).

[aguahombre]

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but it seems to say that ACE ASKING calls above 3NT beginning with opener's 2nd bid are delay alerts.

If this is true, then opener's second call above 3NT is alertable if not natural and not ace asking (ACBL).

[peachy]

What gordon said. Alert regulations are different in different countries/locations. If you are in ACBL, you find the regulations here

http://www.acbl.org/...alertchart.html

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on Oct 15 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

Maybe I am reading it wrong, but it seems to say that ACE ASKING calls above 3NT beginning with opener's 2nd bid are delay alerts. 

If this is true, then opener's second call above 3NT is alertable if not natural and not ace asking (ACBL).

You're reading it wrong.

Any alertable bid which occurs on or after opener's second call, and which is above 3NT, requires a delayed alert. Alertable doubles, redoubles and passes (which are calls, but not bids) always require an immediate alert.

Example: 1♠-4♣ (the latter being a splinter). An immediate alert is required.
1♦-1♠-4♣ (last bid a splinter). An alert is required, but shall be delayed.

[aguahombre]

ok, then peachy's reference link is not what you are using, blackshoe. Could you direct me to the one you are using?

[blackshoe]

The links to "alert definitions" and the "alert procedure" at the top of the alert chart page which Peachy linked. The definition of "delayed alert" is at the bottom of the definitions page, and more info (including the example I gave of a delayed alert) is in section X of the procedure page.

The chart is a summary. The other two pages contain the actual regulations.

[peachy]

aguahombre, on Oct 15 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

ok, then peachy's reference link is not what you are using, blackshoe. Could you direct me to the one you are using?

The link I provided shows the table/chart. Above this chart, there are links to the text of the regulation and to some definitions used in the text and in the chart. It is all there, such as it is...

[blackshoe]

I think Peachy must work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

[aguahombre]

ok, I read the actual texts now.
Ok, I read the actual texts now.

I guess putting the whole thing on the charts would have been too space consuming, but it is strange that they only put the ace-asking part on the chart.

[kenberg]

peachy, on Oct 16 2009, 02:47 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Oct 15 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

ok, then peachy's reference link is not what you are using, blackshoe.  Could you direct me to the one you are using?

The link I provided shows the table/chart. Above this chart, there are links to the text of the regulation and to some definitions used in the text and in the chart. It is all there, such as it is...

Maybe I am blind but I am not finding what I was looking for. Going down the Category column to doubles and redoubles and then looking one to the right (so I am in the Not Alertable column) I see

Most Doubles and Redoubles *See Alertable Doubles*

I take it this means the box to the right in the Alertable column.

It says:
Doubles and redoubles with highly unusual or unexpected meanings


I'm sorry but to me these two boxes, taken together, tell me roughly that doubles are not alertable except when they are.

Yesterday, with me fourth hand, it went (1♠)- 2♦-(2♠)-X. Intended as responsive, taken as responsive. I thought partner should have alerted, he said no. It's not highly unusual but it says "OR unexpected". I have no idea what the opponents expected.

Let's say we agree about responsive doubles not being alertable, the opponents should expect it to be responsive. How about Snapdragon doubles?

Saying that the double is alertable if it has an unexpected meaning does not clarify things for me all that much. I don't mean to be difficult but sometimes directors get extremely huffy about how we are all supposed to know the regulations. I try, but with alerts I have largely given up.

[barmar]

Did you read the introduction to the Alert Procedures document?

Quote

This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

It's like pornography: you can't define it, but you know it when you see it.

[kenberg]

barmar, on Oct 16 2009, 02:27 PM, said:

Did you read the introduction to the Alert Procedures document?

Quote

This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

It's like pornography: you can't define it, but you know it when you see it.

So they say. But I would be uncomfortable as a sculptor in front of a judge who felt he was entitled to invoke that standard.

I don't really care about all this, I shouldn't have posted. I figure if I do wrong, someone will rap my knuckles, I'll do seventeen Hail Gorens and we can all go out for a beer. It's probably not a solvable problem. I do get itchy when someone says that the alert procedure is clear to anyone who reads it. It's not.

[blackshoe]

Many people think that when a checkbox or convention name is in red (or not in red) on the standard ACBL system card, that's definitive. It's not, but it is a guide. On the card, responsive doubles are in black, support doubles are in red. This suggests that the latter should be alerted, and the former need not be. Unfortunately, that doesn't guarantee you won't find a TD who feels (and will rule) otherwise.

It's an unhappy situation, but it's the one we've got.

[kenberg]

I agree, it's the one we've got, and with the implied advioce to live with it. The advice, on the acbl card, of when in doubt alert is ot to my liking but it is probably practical. It is subject to the obvious possibilities for abuse such as alerting a jump to 5C to make it clear to partner that you understands the bid is exclusion keycard. It does not require a high level or an exotic convention. IN the auction I gave with the responsive double, the non-alert left me in the dark as to whether we were on the same page. I assumed that we were and we were, but an alert would pin it down. A notorious example is the a lert of 3C over 2an opening 2NT that wakes partner up to the fact that the 3D bid you are about to make shows rather than denies a four card major.

It's a mess but perhaps it builds character. Mostly I accept the mess because I think a number of dedicated people have tried to straighten it out and basically have found that they can't.

[shevek]

gordontd, on Oct 15 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

Depends where you are.

Indeed.
Not in Australia. Not sure about countries that are in recession.

[fromageGB]

shevek, on Oct 17 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

gordontd, on Oct 15 2009, 12:09 PM, said:

Depends where you are.

Indeed.
Not in Australia. Not sure about countries that are in recession.

Yes, over here the depression keeps sinking lower, and I blame it all on the EBU alerting policy. If only we had a regulation that said "do alert if it's not penalty", or better still have announcements like "lead directing", "shows 3 of my suit", "takeout", etc, then I think the national mood of despondency would lift and the economy would pick up pretty rapidly.

[mrdct]

Depends on whether or not screens are in use. Even in jurisdictions where doubles, redoubles, cues and bids over 3NT are self-alerting without screens, when screens are in use any conventional call is alertable which is also how people should approach alerting on BBO.

[mrdct]

<oops - double posted>

This post has been edited by mrdct: 2009-October-20, 01:31