[chastibb]

Simple question
Was watching high level tourney on BBO
Bidding no interference - no alerts
1N - 2C - 2D - 2NT - end
2C stayman bidder had 2S and 3H so non promissory.
Should this be (self)alerted on BBO as it could make a big difference to the opps lead.
Thx Chas

[dcohio]

They were most likely playing 4 way transfers with which a direct 2NT bid is a transfer. Therefore, the 2NT bid after that sequence should be alerted as may not have a 4cM. I know it's alertable in live ACBL play, so it should also be alerted here.

[helene_t]

dcohio, on Jan 20 2010, 01:53 PM, said:

I know it's alertable in live ACBL play, so it should also be alerted here.

Disagree. I think ACBL regulations are irrelevant on BBO except for ACBL tourneys.

The rules for online alerting is that you alert whenever it might be helpful to opps to do so. You can't refrain from alerting just because something is not alertable in ACBL. For example, you must alert non-standard or artificial calls above 3NT online, while you usually don't do that IRL unless playing with screens.

Maybe opps already know that your 2♣ is non-promisory. Maybe it is considered standard in the culture that you and opps belong to. But if in doubt, alert. And explain immediately, do not wait for opps to ask. (I suppose that with very common conventions such as transfers to majors it is ok just to alert).

[ONEferBRID]

ACBL or not, the 2NT rebid should be alerted.

[blackshoe]

I would think the rules for alerting online are whatever the tournament organizer has specified. I seem to remember BBO itself has bowed out of specifying regulations, so there's no "default", except perhaps by custom.

"If in doubt, alert" isn't a bad principle.

[hotShot]

Quote

WBF Alerting Policy

[...]
If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following:
[...]
2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or
semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract.
[...]

Obviously 2NT was suggesting a no-trump contract.

[ArtK78]

Since, on BBO, partner is not notified if I alert a call that I make, it is best to alert any call that may contain some information that the opponents may not be aware of. The only danger in making an alert is that it could convey UI to partner. This is not possible on BBO.

I would alert the 2NT call on BBO whether or not any governing organization requires that I do so.

[helene_t]

hotShot: screens are in use (i.e. partner can't see your alert).

[Codo]

2 ♣ must be alerted, but it will be hard to convince me that the missing alert had influenced your lead and play.

And yes, ACBL rules are for ACBL tourneys. Helenes rules are for the rest....

[ArtK78]

Codo, on Jan 20 2010, 10:07 AM, said:

2 ♣ must be alerted, but it will be hard to convince me that the missing alert had influenced your lead and play.

And yes, ACBL rules are for ACBL tourneys. Helenes rules are for the rest....

While I have no real objection to alerting 2♣ online, it is my understanding that the 2♣ bid is not alertable. It is the 2NT rebid that is alertable.

[hanp]

2C is alertable, whether it promises a 4-card major or not. (Dutch rules)

[aguahombre]

hotShot, on Jan 20 2010, 07:13 AM, said:

Quote

WBF Alerting Policy

[...]
If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following:
[...]
2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or
semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract.
[...]

Obviously 2NT was suggesting a no-trump contract.

You are pulling out of context an excuse for not disclosing information which you have gained from two bids --not just the 2NT bid.

In WBF, ACBL and other places where 2C Stayman is not immediately alerted, a subsequent call by the Stayman bidder which either denies holding a major or indicates that she might not have a major is alertable at that point --not because the second bid is artificial, but because it carries additional information which should be disclosed.

[peachy]

dcohio, on Jan 20 2010, 07:53 AM, said:

They were most likely playing 4 way transfers with which a direct 2NT bid is a transfer.  Therefore, the 2NT bid after that sequence should be alerted as may not have a 4cM.  I know it's alertable in live ACBL play, so it should also be alerted here.

ACBL regulations really have nothing to do with BBO - unless it was an ACBL tournament on BBO.

PS. I see that helene already said that. Sorry

[aguahombre]

i don't think BBO is anti-disclosure. If it is right to disclose an agreement, no secretary bird should be opposed to doing what is right --or look for an excuse to do otherwise. Regardless of the venue, why would anyone think they do not have this obligation or that they should find a law which seemingly permits them to fail their obligation?

[debrose]

Sometimes on BBO I use chat to type an explanation to both opps, and though I'd probably alert anyway, might sometimes neglect to. I find some of my opponents do the same. So if you are kibitzing and don't see an alert, that doesn't necessarily mean the bidder didn't inform his opponents that his 2N bid didn't promise a major.

[Lobowolf]

aguahombre, on Jan 20 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

hotShot, on Jan 20 2010, 07:13 AM, said:

Quote

WBF Alerting Policy

[...]
If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following:
[...]
2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or
semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract.
[...]

Obviously 2NT was suggesting a no-trump contract.

You are pulling out of context an excuse for not disclosing information which you have gained from two bids --not just the 2NT bid.

In WBF, ACBL and other places where 2C Stayman is not immediately alerted, a subsequent call by the Stayman bidder which either denies holding a major or indicates that she might not have a major is alertable at that point --not because the second bid is artificial, but because it carries additional information which should be disclosed.

Just FWIW, I think the notion of alerting 2NT but not 2♣ on these types of sequences is asinine (not disputing that it's policy; just griping about it). The 2NT bid doesn't let opener know that responder might not have a major - opener knows that from the time the 2♣ bid is made, and so that's when the opponents should know, as well. Alternatively, alerting neither bid makes more sense than alerting 2NT but not 2♣. The second bid does not carry additional information.

[1eyedjack]

Agree with last post. Alerting 2N is asinine.

If information comes to one of your partnership during the course of the auction by reason of your systemic agreements, then the opponents are entitled to that information at the same time as the information becomes available to your own side. That point in this auction is at the point of bidding 2♣, at which point (ie in advance of the 2N rebid) opener is aware that responder may have a balanced raise without a 4 card major. By the time of the 2N rebid it may be too late for the opponents to take some action that they might have considered taking between the 2♣ and 2N bids.

Whether that means that 2♣ should be alerted is a separate issue. Personally I couldn't care. I would be pretty confident that the 2♣ is not natural and I can ask if I need to know.

[barmar]

Lobowolf, on Jan 20 2010, 07:01 PM, said:

Just FWIW, I think the notion of alerting 2NT but not 2♣ on these types of sequences is asinine (not disputing that it's policy; just griping about it). The 2NT bid doesn't let opener know that responder might not have a major - opener knows that from the time the 2♣ bid is made, and so that's when the opponents should know, as well. Alternatively, alerting neither bid makes more sense than alerting 2NT but not 2♣. The second bid does not carry additional information.

But if responder rebids anything OTHER than 2NT, he usually does promise a 4-card major. E.g. 1NT-2C-2D-3NT. (We once had a thread in which someone claimed that they bid this sequence without a 4-card major, but that's an unusual style, and probably should be alerted.)

I don't buy the "too late" argument. "might not" isn't the same as "doesn't". If an opponent is looking at long major, they'll probably assume that responder doesn't have that major, even if he does promise a major. So if you're interested in interfering, an earlier alert probably won't make a difference.

Knowledge of responder's possible major holdings is more likely to influence the opening lead than the auction.

[Lobowolf]

barmar, on Jan 21 2010, 07:18 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 20 2010, 07:01 PM, said:

Just FWIW, I think the notion of alerting 2NT but not 2♣ on these types of sequences is asinine (not disputing that it's policy; just griping about it).  The 2NT bid doesn't let opener know that responder might not have a major - opener knows that from the time the 2♣ bid is made, and so that's when the opponents should know, as well.  Alternatively, alerting neither bid makes more sense than alerting 2NT but not 2♣.  The second bid does not carry additional information.

But if responder rebids anything OTHER than 2NT, he usually does promise a 4-card major. E.g. 1NT-2C-2D-3NT. (We once had a thread in which someone claimed that they bid this sequence without a 4-card major, but that's an unusual style, and probably should be alerted.)

I don't buy the "too late" argument. "might not" isn't the same as "doesn't". If an opponent is looking at long major, they'll probably assume that responder doesn't have that major, even if he does promise a major. So if you're interested in interfering, an earlier alert probably won't make a difference.

Knowledge of responder's possible major holdings is more likely to influence the opening lead than the auction.

That doesn't really change the fact that 2NT doesn't convey any new information (information other than was conveyed by 2♣). It's a pretty good argument for alerting bids other than 2NT after alerting 2♣, though. e.g.:

1NT - 2♣*
2S - 3 NT**


* Partner may or may not have a 4-card major.

** On this auction, partner guarantees 4 hearts.

Or whatever. But anything opener knows after 2NT, he knew after 2♣. I don't know how often it's "too late," but even occasionally is too often. Assuming the sequence is alertable at all, the opponents should find out when the opener finds out.

[barmar]

This relates to an argument I've frequently seen about what kinds of explanations should be given for asking bids. Some people say that you should just say something vague like "Asks for more information about the hand", and that details shouldn't be offered until someone asks for an explanation of the response. E.g. Blackwood wouldn't be described as "asks how many aces I have", but the 5♣ response would be explained as "shows 1 ace". Basically, it treats all asking bids like relays.

The counterargument to this is that there's an implication that someone asks a specific question because they have a hand type that needs to know the answer to that question. These hand types are often too numerous to describe explicitly, but if the opponents know the question, they can infer the types of hands. E.g. a hand that asks about 4-card majors probably has one of its own, because we assume you're using Stayman to look for an 8-card fit.

I suspect the reason the ACBL decided on the current style of Stayman alerting is more pragmatic than logical. Lots of pairs play 4-way transfers, so if they required the Stayman bid to be alerted, we would be alerting 2♣ too often; the cases where Stayman is used without a 4-card major are a small fraction of Stayman auctions, so most of the time the information is not helpful. Perhaps they should come up with an announcement for this particular case.