[Zelandakh]

They are also entitled to know that you will not hold this hand when you do not double. This can potentially be even more revealing but very few players seem to see the need to disclose such negative inferences.

[ArtK78]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-24, 08:24, said:

They are also entitled to know that you will not hold this hand when you do not double. This can potentially be even more revealing but very few players seem to see the need to disclose such negative inferences.

You may think this is true, but the fact is that negative inferences are much more difficult to deal with than positive inferences.

To take a ridiculous example, suppose the auction starts Pass - "ALERT! Partner's pass implies that he does not have 12+ HCP or a distributional hand which he considers to be worth an opening bid or a preemptive hand (either weak 2 bid or higher preempt). Furthermore, in our partnership's history partner has been known to psyche on one or more particular types of hands, so the odds are that he does not have that hand. Furthermore...."

You can see where I am going with this.

This is not as over the top as you might think. Take a straight-forward situation of a pair that plays support doubles. If the auction goes 1♣ - (P) - 1♥ - (1♠), opener's double here (a support double) is alertable in ACBL land. However, his direct raise to 2♠ (promising 4 spades) is not alertable, AND HIS PASS OR ANY OTHER NATURAL CALL IS NOT ALERTABLE, despite the fact that for most partnerships this would deny holding 3 spades. Furthermore, the partnership is under no affirmative obligation to bring to light the fact that the failure to double or raise implies holding less than 3 spades.

So I wouldn't go too far with the idea that a partnership that makes ultra light takeout doubles has an obligation to disclose the negative inferences from the failure to make a takeout double.

[mikeh]

ArtK78, on 2012-October-24, 08:53, said:

You may think this is true, but the fact is that negative inferences are much more difficult to deal with than positive inferences.

<snipped>
This is not as over the top as you might think. Take a straight-forward situation of a pair that plays support doubles. If the auction goes 1♣- (P) - 1♥ - (1♠), opener's double here (a support double) is alertable in ACBL land. However, his direct raise to 2♠ (promising 4 spades) is not alertable, AND HIS PASS OR ANY OTHER NATURAL CALL IS NOT ALERTABLE, despite the fact that for most partnerships this would deny holding 3 spades. Furthermore, the partnership is under no affirmative obligation to bring to light the fact that the pass or other action implies less than 3 spades.

So I wouldn't go too far with the idea that a partnership that makes ultra light takeout doubles has an obligation to disclose the negative inferences from the failure to make a takeout double.

I'm surprised at this, tho admit that I don't play much and haven't played a Nationals or gone to a Regional in years. I always alert when partner passes or makes a non-raise/support call when playing support doubles, since in my opinion the opps are entitled to know that my partner 'usually denies 3 card support' by his non-double. Am I wrong to do so?

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2012-October-24, 08:56, said:

I'm surprised at this, tho admit that I don't play much and haven't played a Nationals or gone to a Regional in years. I always alert when partner passes or makes a non-raise/support call when playing support doubles, since in my opinion the opps are entitled to know that my partner 'usually denies 3 card support' by his non-double. Am I wrong to do so?

Yes, the are entitled to know. Hence they should ask.

Well, that's really just my opinion, maybe the laws agree and maybe not. Personally though I agree with Art, things would really get out of hand if negative inferences must be altered. Absolutely every time my partner calls, there are calls he did not make. It would be silly to alert all this. Also I feel that bridge players have at least some responsibility to protect themselves, by asking, looking at a CC, etc.

[Zelandakh]

Meckwell always alert this pass too when I have seen them on vugraph, although the regulations are naturally different playing with screens. I would say that the easy answer is to make sure that such unusual treatments are displayed prominently on the front of the CC but comments from several ACBL members suggest this is a silly suggestion.

[ArtK78]

mikeh, on 2012-October-24, 08:56, said:

I'm surprised at this, tho admit that I don't play much and haven't played a Nationals or gone to a Regional in years. I always alert when partner passes or makes a non-raise/support call when playing support doubles, since in my opinion the opps are entitled to know that my partner 'usually denies 3 card support' by his non-double. Am I wrong to do so?

I have been advised by National TDs that the raise is natural and need not be alerted, but also the failure to raise or make the support double are not alertable as those are natural calls. Only the support double is conventional and requires an alert.

On the other hand, if your comment is limited to "am I wrong to do so?" the answer is no, you are not wrong. You are just not required to do so.

I used to alert the failure to make a support double until my regular partner, who plays far more tournaments than I do, told me that there is no need to do so. And his opinion was supported by the National TDs who I consulted on this question later.

[aguahombre]

Art: you might be surprised to know that those inferences from having support doubles available are alerted by good players who understand that others might not have the same knowledge of their methods as they, themselves do.

I will leave whether it is required, should be required, or is just plain active disclosure to others to debate.

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-24, 09:06, said:

Art: you might be surprised to know that those inferences from having support doubles available are alerted by good players who understand that others might not have the same knowledge of their methods as they, themselves do.

I will leave whether it is required, should be required, or is just plain active disclosure to others to debate.

No, I am not surprised. My contention is that it is not required. And at some point you have to draw the line as to what negative inferences you need to disclose to the opps. Some negative inferences are related to your use (or non-use) of conventional agreements, and others are just bridge knowledge. And, sometimes, it is a mixture of the two. There can be a very fine line between what negative inferences result from the use (or non-use) of conventional calls and bridge knowledge. How much you need to disclose can be a tricky problem. And, as I alluded to above, it may just be a practical problem, as full disclosure of negative inferences can be very time consuming while providing the opps with little or no practical benefit.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2012-October-24, 09:04, said:

On the other hand, if your comment is limited to "am I wrong to do so?" the answer is no, you are not wrong. You are just not required to do so.

If something is "not wrong" is it right? I think that it is a difficult issue -- should one alert when one knows it is the right thing to do, even if the NBO does not require it? Is doing only what is required good enough?

In this country a change of suit after partner's weak 2 that is not forcing does not require an alert. I think that this is wrong and alert it anyway. My regular partner goes even further and alerts Texas transfers (not alertable because above 3NT). We would rather tell the opponents what we believe they need to know than get a good result because telling them was not "required".

Does the NBO always know best? I think this question has been answered many times on these forums.

[aguahombre]

Is someone going to come into this thread with the "anarchy" card? I hope not.

I believe there are different situations involving alerts: those where an alert is simply not required, and those where they don't want us to alert.

Stef's Texas alert situation is interesting. For bids above 3NT, the NBO's really don't want us to alert because those bids are usually made in situations where there is one bidding side which likely is involved in a complex auction prone to misunderstandings ---and where an immediate (rather than delayed) disclosure could reassure the bidding side about its agreements, or set them back on track.

However, 1NT-Texas is not one of those auctions which prompted the "no alert above 3NT" thing, and the immediate disclosure might well be of use to the opponents (lead-directing doubles?). So, we do announce 4-level xfers as does Stefanie; and for the same reasons. Immediate splinters above 3NT would be another "Stefanie" issue.

[ArtK78]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-25, 07:04, said:

If something is "not wrong" is it right? I think that it is a difficult issue -- should one alert when one knows it is the right thing to do, even if the NBO does not require it? Is doing only what is required good enough?

In this country a change of suit after partner's weak 2 that is not forcing does not require an alert. I think that this is wrong and alert it anyway. My regular partner goes even further and alerts Texas transfers (not alertable because above 3NT). We would rather tell the opponents what we believe they need to know than get a good result because telling them was not "required".

Does the NBO always know best? I think this question has been answered many times on these forums.

The alert procedure is a tool for making sure that players are aware of their opponents' conventional understandings. In most instances, the partner of the one required to make alerts and, if requested, provide information about the conventional understandings is aware of the alerts and hears the explanations. This is UI to the partner of the alerter/explainer, but it is usually not a problem, as the NBO has mandated the alert procedure and the consequences of following the alert procedure correctly are usually not the grounds for any penalties.

However, if you go beyond what the NBO requires you to do and alert (and, when asked, explain) calls that are not required to be alerted, you may subject yourself to issues of UI. Unlike the alerts of properly alertable calls (and the explanations following such alerts), whatever protections that may exist for properly following the alert procedure will not apply. Since you say that there are times when your partnership alerts calls that your NBO classifies as nonalertable, you may be creating problems (however well intentioned).

[mycroft]

I think that this does come under the heading of "other highly aggressive methods" in the ACBL, which was *supposed to be* removed ASAP from pre-alerts in favour of alert-at-the-time (at least for the preempts) but hasn't been, and should be Pre-Alerted.

At least if it is something like the 4144 4-count that was mentioned to me. 8-and-perfect-shape has always been as sound as 13 4333...

Yeah, like that will ever happen :-)

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-25, 09:10, said:

Immediate splinters above 3NT would be another "Stefanie" issue.

Less so, though, because Swiss and the like are not played much, so splinter is the overwhelming meaning for double jumps. Also a double jump is pretty much assumed not to be a natural attempt to play there, so it would occur to the opponents to ask, unlike 1NT-(P)-4♥.

Additionally, pretty much any double-jump-shift response is going to have an alertable meaning, so alerting is equivalent to not alerting. There is, of course, announcing, but I think that would be taking the annoucement thing too far.

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on 2012-October-24, 06:13, said:

the opps are entitled to disclosure during the auction. It is highly unethical to employ non-standard agreements known only to you and partner during the auction. It is absurd...and wrong..to suggest that they only need to be told if they declare.

we disclose those agreements, I am a bit annoyed, that I have to state this explicit,
because this goes without saying.

[Mbodell]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-October-25, 14:06, said:

we disclose those agreements, I am a bit annoyed, that I have to state this explicit,
because this goes without saying.

Yeah I think this got off the rails a bit due to honest misreading of what was meant. I think what was meant is the disclosure of information about your hand and its shape (by your bid) is likely to be most costly when the other side has the power and will be declaring because you can't compete nor even successfully sac against them, so X to show your shape is more likely to help them. It wasn't the disclosure of agreements that was a concern when the other side declares, it was about unnecessarily tipping of your shape by your possibly foolishly aggressive action that has a low upside.

[mikeh]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-October-24, 05:59, said:

Of course you disclose information, if they declarer, but than they may not win the
bidding, With kind regards
Marlowe

I'm pleased to read that you didn't mean this statement:)

[Zelandakh]

The point Stef raises can also help to avoid awkward situations. For example, my local NBO forbids alerts of doubles and redoubles. At a tournament my partner and I had the auction 1NT - (X) - XX - (2♣). I asked about the 2♣ bid at the end of the auction and was told it was natural. So I asked further about the strength range and was told that it had to be weak since there were not enough points in the deck after a 1NT opening, a penalty double and a redouble for anything else. The problem was that XX showed a weak one-suited hand. It simply had not occurred to declarer that the redouble might be something different; somewhat surprising since this pair played Precision and were amongst the best in the field!

There are many situations like this and it can lead to comical results. The problem with Vampyr's approach is that some players (and some officials) occasionally get pretty upset about this sort of thing. I have been told not to alert any doubles or redoubles here, ever. Therefore, while I initially did alert this redouble, now I do not. I personally think this sort of thing is a failure of alerting regulations but coming up with perfect regulations that are also simple enough to be understood and followed by the average player is probably an impossible task.