[sceptic]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 1♠    Pass  2♣    Pass
 2♦    Pass  4♠    Pass
 Pass  Pass  

Playing in BIL I bid 2Diamond sayc pick up p no agreements.

My opps were not happy I never alerted this 2Diamond bid.

are they correct]

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: 2NT would not be my first choice of bids with the hand in question. I prefer either 2NT or 2♠

Comment 2: The Laws of Bridge require that players provide complete disclosure regarding partnership agreement. Associated with this, players should alert bids whose defined meaning would surprise the opponents.

Playing "standard", your 2♦ rebid should show 4+ Diamonds and a weak hand. With this said and done, the simple fact that you made this bid does not require an alert. However, hypothetically, if you and your partner have an explicit agreement that a first step rebid could show a minimum balanced hand then 2♦ would require an alert.

[Flame]

I dont understand why you bid 2d. (i probebly dont know sayc) but if this is sayc then you shouldnt alert it, also if never discussed with partner you shouldnt alert it.
PPl on BBO seem to want to know exactly what you have rather then knowing your agrements, i have this problem all the time.

[EricK]

If you didn't have an agreement that 2♦ could be a three card suit then there is definitely no need to alert.

I am not sure there is a need to alert anyway. If a 1♦ opening without an alert can be a 3 card suit, then I don't see why this 2♦ rebid needs to be 4.

I don't really see what they are complaing about anyway. 4♠ always makes, and I don't see how your exact ♦ count would aid them in cashing the ♥ before you get a discard on the ♣.

Eric

[inquiry]

No agreement with partner, no need to alert. Simple as that.

[luke warm]

eric raised a question i'd like to see addressed... if a 1d opening can be 3 cards, and doesn't need an alert, why would a 1d response/rebid need an alert, if 3+ cards?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 30 2004, 11:03 PM, said:

eric raised a question i'd like to see addressed... if a 1d opening can be 3 cards, and doesn't need an alert, why would a 1d response/rebid need an alert, if 3+ cards?

Here's an ACBL specific answer: The ruling might change along with the sponsoring organization.

The ACBL bases Alerts on on deviations from a hypothetical "standard" practice. For formally, here is the relvant veribiage from the ACBL's web site.

The new Alert procedure includes a number of definitions whose purpose is to clarify important concepts and create standard terminology. This procedure uses the admittedly "fuzzy" terminology of "highly unusual and unexpected" as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. The "highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

Most people use a 2♦ rebid to show 4+ Diamonds. Therefore, a 2♦ rebid that could be made on 3+ Diamonds requires a alert.

Other sponsoring organizations base their alert structure on whether or not a bid is artificial. For example, in Great Britain players need to alert Stayman. An alert structure based on this set of criteria would probably not require an alert of a 2♦ rebid showing a 3+ card suit.

[Fluffy]

ACBL has nothing to do with BIL, has it?

you made the best and most natural call avaible for you (in your opinion at least)on your natural system, alerting it is simply against any concept I´d ever had of what alert is.

[Flame]

luke warm, on Nov 30 2004, 03:03 PM, said:

eric raised a question i'd like to see addressed... if a 1d opening can be 3 cards, and doesn't need an alert, why would a 1d response/rebid need an alert, if 3+ cards?

This is very simple, alerts has nothing to do with how many cards in the suit you have, alert is your duty to tell your opponents that the bid is not what they think it is. So if for example you play 2c to be natural you should alert, if you play 1nT-2H as natural you should alert, if you play 1d to show 3 cards you shouldnt alert because this is what they think it show but 1h-1s-2d they think its 4 cards and if you play it as 3 cards or even if you play it as 5 cards you must alert.
Another good example is the polish 1d which we must alert although it show 4+ usally 5+ diamonds more natural then sayc, but we still alert.

[pbleighton]

Bidding 3 card minor suits is common in 5 card major systems,
opening, responding, and rebidding. This was a rebid of convenience,
what the bidder thought was the least damaging lie.

If the bidder had rebid 2S (my choice) on a 5 card suit, would this
have been alertable, as the expected length is 6?

This bid is definitely not alertable, and people who make complaints
like this are time-wasting poor sports.

Peter

[EricK]

Flame, on Nov 30 2004, 09:47 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 30 2004, 03:03 PM, said:

eric raised a question i'd like to see addressed... if a 1d opening can be 3 cards, and doesn't need an alert, why would a 1d response/rebid need an alert, if 3+ cards?

This is very simple, alerts has nothing to do with how many cards in the suit you have, alert is your duty to tell your opponents that the bid is not what they think it is. So if for example you play 2c to be natural you should alert, if you play 1nT-2H as natural you should alert, if you play 1d to show 3 cards you shouldnt alert because this is what they think it show but 1h-1s-2d they think its 4 cards and if you play it as 3 cards or even if you play it as 5 cards you must alert.
Another good example is the polish 1d which we must alert although it show 4+ usally 5+ diamonds more natural then sayc, but we still alert.

When you are playing under the auspices of eg the ACBL or EBU or whatever you should know what opponents expect and alert accordingly. But at somewhere like BBO, I think it is important that leeway is given by all sides. Bids which are intended as natural needn't be alerted even if their definition of natural is slightly different to yours.

Eric

[Flame]

EricK, on Dec 1 2004, 04:41 AM, said:

Flame, on Nov 30 2004, 09:47 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 30 2004, 03:03 PM, said:

eric raised a question i'd like to see addressed... if a 1d opening can be 3 cards, and doesn't need an alert, why would a 1d response/rebid need an alert, if 3+ cards?

This is very simple, alerts has nothing to do with how many cards in the suit you have, alert is your duty to tell your opponents that the bid is not what they think it is. So if for example you play 2c to be natural you should alert, if you play 1nT-2H as natural you should alert, if you play 1d to show 3 cards you shouldnt alert because this is what they think it show but 1h-1s-2d they think its 4 cards and if you play it as 3 cards or even if you play it as 5 cards you must alert.
Another good example is the polish 1d which we must alert although it show 4+ usally 5+ diamonds more natural then sayc, but we still alert.

When you are playing under the auspices of eg the ACBL or EBU or whatever you should know what opponents expect and alert accordingly. But at somewhere like BBO, I think it is important that leeway is given by all sides. Bids which are intended as natural needn't be alerted even if their definition of natural is slightly different to yours.

Eric

I dont think so
When im playing on BBO i assume sayc and anything else including opening of 1d that show 4-5 cards, or 2/1 which is GF i alert.
There is a smart statment about alerting: when in doubt there is no doubt, meaning you should alert whenever in doubt.

[mpefritz]

Here there was no agreement that 2♦ could show 3. I do not think that is part of SAYC which was your agreement. So no alert.

However, I do beleive that many bids that are partnership agreements should be alerted even if "standard" (I self-alert and explain my 15-17 NT range). I agree that if you are wondering about whether to alert or not, click the alert box and fill in the partnership meaning of the bid without them asking (or use hot keys to message the opps if too large to fit in alert box)

This may differ from what you hold, but the alert procedure is to make sure your opponents know what your partner knows about your hand when you make a call -- not what you know about your hand.

On a side note, I played in a (US) sectional event over the weekend. I forgot that live alerting is brutal -- and so is my ability to sort cards ;>)

fritz

[EricK]

Flame, on Dec 1 2004, 10:17 AM, said:

EricK, on Dec 1 2004, 04:41 AM, said:

Flame, on Nov 30 2004, 09:47 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 30 2004, 03:03 PM, said:

eric raised a question i'd like to see addressed... if a 1d opening can be 3 cards, and doesn't need an alert, why would a 1d response/rebid need an alert, if 3+ cards?

This is very simple, alerts has nothing to do with how many cards in the suit you have, alert is your duty to tell your opponents that the bid is not what they think it is. So if for example you play 2c to be natural you should alert, if you play 1nT-2H as natural you should alert, if you play 1d to show 3 cards you shouldnt alert because this is what they think it show but 1h-1s-2d they think its 4 cards and if you play it as 3 cards or even if you play it as 5 cards you must alert.
Another good example is the polish 1d which we must alert although it show 4+ usally 5+ diamonds more natural then sayc, but we still alert.

When you are playing under the auspices of eg the ACBL or EBU or whatever you should know what opponents expect and alert accordingly. But at somewhere like BBO, I think it is important that leeway is given by all sides. Bids which are intended as natural needn't be alerted even if their definition of natural is slightly different to yours.

Eric

I dont think so
When im playing on BBO i assume sayc and anything else including opening of 1d that show 4-5 cards, or 2/1 which is GF i alert.
There is a smart statment about alerting: when in doubt there is no doubt, meaning you should alert whenever in doubt.

I am thinking more from the point of view of the opponents of players who don't alert.

If my opponents fail to alert a bid which to them is probably "natural" I am not going to claim they have done anything wrong. If they do alert a bid because they realise that, although natural, it might be natural in an unexpected way, then that is, of course, very decent of them.

That seems to be the issue which started the thread: Were NS right to complain about the lack of alert?

Eric

[inquiry]

pbleighton, on Nov 30 2004, 06:10 PM, said:

This bid is definitely not alertable, and people who make complaints
like this are time-wasting poor sports.

Agree... we don't need attorneys at the table on simple auctions like this. 2♦ was bid as naturalish and forcing... just as it should be, placing emphaisis on the need for a heart stopper for notrump. Seems ok to me.

BTW, why did you parnter bid 2♣? 4♦ splinter seems just about right

[hrothgar]

EricK, on Dec 1 2004, 04:02 PM, said:

That seems to be the issue which started the thread: Were NS right to complain about the lack of alert?

North South were looking for an excuse to bitch... Furthermore, they fail to understand a very simple relationship.

Too many alerts are every bit as bad as too few alerts.

Consider the following extreme examples:

1. 0% percent of all bids are alerted
2. 100% percent of all bids are alerted

Regardless of which case you look at, the presence/absence of an alert convey's zero information.

[Free]

luke warm, on Nov 30 2004, 09:03 PM, said:

eric raised a question i'd like to see addressed... if a 1d opening can be 3 cards, and doesn't need an alert, why would a 1d response/rebid need an alert, if 3+ cards?

This depends on your country. Here in Belgium, you have to alert a 1♦ opening if it can contain less than 4 ♦s. Reason is that our nation's basic systems are ACOL and Majors-5 with 4 card ♦ (so 1♣ can be from a doubleton), so Majors-5 with longest/best minor are not standard...

[sceptic]

he probably thought I did not know what one was after the hand before that HAHAHAHA