[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2012-November-03, 08:05, said:

Does everyone bid hearts first? I bet they don't.

There may be the odd isolated example, but I must say that in twenty years I have never knowingly encountered a pair who have agreed to bid spades first.

[bluejak]

Excuse me, nor have I in the last few years, and I have not suggested that.

I believe that a very large number of players in England either bid one at random or bid their stronger one. I do not believe a large number bid spades first nor did I say so.

When I was younger, of course, several did bid spades first because authorities recommended it.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2012-November-03, 14:54, said:

Excuse me, nor have I in the last few years, and I have not suggested that.

Actually you have, in your post #12 in reply to my post #4.

[bluejak]

I see what you mean. I failed to write something in excruciating detail that I consdiered completely irrelevant.

Ok, it is true that in England most people do not agree to respond 2♠ with both. But since they do not agree which to respond that does not make it alertable.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-November-03, 15:50, said:

Ok, it is true that in England most people do not agree to respond 2♠ with both. But since they do not agree which to respond that does not make it alertable.

Are these two sentences meant to refer to the same people?

Those who agree to respond 2♠ should alert when they bid 2♥ and when they bid 2♠. Those who have other criteria (including randomness or strength) than hearts first or spades first should alert when they bid 2♠. OK?

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-04, 07:08, said:

Are these two sentences meant to refer to the same people?

Those who agree to respond 2♠ should alert when they bid 2♥ and when they bid 2♠. Those who have other criteria (including randomness or strength) than hearts first or spades first should alert when they bid 2♠. OK?

That seems entirely reasonable to me. However, I could think that after a 2♥ bid the second category should at some point mention that some of the hands with hearts and spades will rebid 2♠ and what the criteria are for the choice between 2♥ and 2♠.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2012-November-04, 09:31, said:

However, I could think that after a 2♥ bid the second category should at some point mention that some of the hands with hearts and spades will rebid 2♠ and what the criteria are for the choice between 2♥ and 2♠.

I think probably not, because if the person happens to have both majors she is making the "normal", expected rebid. The probability that she does have spades as well, and they are weaker, or stronger, or whatever the criterion does not seem high enough to require disclosure. I could be convinced otherwise, though, since the opponents will expect that 2♥ is the "default" and would not ask (if opener does, at some later point, show 4 spades).

If the choice is somehow random, I would like to know more; because "random" bids are not normally actually random.

[c_corgi]

I agree with Bluejack here: it seems a lot simpler and more reasonable to accept that the opponents choice of which 4-card major to respond on may not - for whatever reason - be the same as yours and that you should enquire if you want to know. There is nothing stopping an active statement (at least with screens), but in the absence of one we may have to judge whether it was misinformation or the players own misunderstanding and the latter seems preferable.

[Vampyr]

c_corgi, on 2012-November-04, 11:17, said:

it seems a lot simpler and more reasonable to accept that the opponents choice of which 4-card major to respond on may not - for whatever reason - be the same as yours and that you should enquire if you want to know.

The problem with this is that for most people who don't read these forums, it would not occur to them to ask. I suggested in an earlier post that the fact that it would not occur to the opponents to ask is a good reason to alert, and I maintain that position.

[c_corgi]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-04, 11:34, said:

The problem with this is that for most people who don't read these forums, it would not occur to them to ask. I suggested in an earlier post that the fact that it would not occur to the opponents to ask is a good reason to alert, and I maintain that position.

There must be a default position to cater for two pairs who play different methods when it would not occur to either that there was an alternative. It is unreasonable to expect the alert system to be designed specifically around the proclivities of ones own system and those who do just have to learn better.

[Vampyr]

c_corgi, on 2012-November-04, 11:56, said:

There must be a default position to cater for two pairs who play different methods when it would not occur to either that there was an alternative. It is unreasonable to expect the alert system to be designed specifically around the proclivities of ones own system and those who do just have to learn better.

This is not at all relevant to the matter at hand, but thanks for sharing.

[paua]

c_corgi, on 2012-November-04, 11:56, said:

There must be a default position to cater for two pairs who play different methods when it would not occur to either that there was an alternative. It is unreasonable to expect the alert system to be designed specifically around the proclivities of ones own system and those who do just have to learn better.

The mistake in the alert system, IMHO, is in allowing Stayman, an artificial bid, to remain unalerted. I know this is the historical default, but for a new player trying to understand the alert rules, the obvious and simplest default is : if it's artificial it should be alerted.

[barmar]

paua, on 2012-November-04, 13:21, said:

The mistake in the alert system, IMHO, is in allowing Stayman, an artificial bid, to remain unalerted. I know this is the historical default, but for a new player trying to understand the alert rules, the obvious and simplest default is : if it's artificial it should be alerted.

That used to be EBU's policy, IIUC. The result was that lots of normal auctions were alerted, and the alerts didn't help the opponents. The point of alerting is to warn the opponents when there's something they're likely to need an explanation of. Conventions that practically everyone plays, like Stayman, don't fit that criteria.

And if someone used 1NT-2♣ for something other than Stayman, the opponents wouldn't be warned that they should ask -- it would get the same alert that normal Stayman got. Since everyone knows that "everyone" plays Stayman, it would never occur to someone to ask about that alert.

In EBU territory Stayman is announced rather than alerted. In ACBL we don't say anything; as you say, this is the historical default.

But I think new players understand the basic idea of the current rules: If it's unusual, it should be alerted. This is clearly more useful than "If it's artificial it should be alerted".

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-November-04, 16:04, said:

But I think new players understand the basic idea of the current rules: If it's unusual, it should be alerted. This is clearly more useful than "If it's artificial it should be alerted".

They don't understand what is unusual and what is not; if they did, they would probably have adopted the "usual" for the same reasons most people have.

[bluejak]

In my view sufficient players do not play what a certain group here seem to think is standard to make any agreement as to which major you respond not alertable.

As for requiring Stayman to be alerted, we tried that, and the current method is far superior.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2012-November-04, 16:48, said:

In my view sufficient players do not play what a certain group here seem to think is standard to make any agreement as to which major you respond not alertable.

The evidence of the replies in this thread is that the meaning is unexpected in the South East of England, but not in the North East. To me that makes the answer obvious: it's alertable in my local club, but not in yours.

Edit: Sorry, I meant North West. I do really know where Merseyside is, or at least I know that it's on the left hand side of Not-London.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-November-05, 02:42

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-November-04, 18:02, said:

The evidence of the replies in this thread is that the meaning is unexpected in the South East of England, but not in the North East. To me that makes the answer obvious: it's alertable in my local club, but not in yours.

This is very sensible, but leaves open the question of what to do at national events.

[paua]

barmar, on 2012-November-04, 16:04, said:

That used to be EBU's policy, IIUC. The result was that lots of normal auctions were alerted, and the alerts didn't help the opponents. The point of alerting is to warn the opponents when there's something they're likely to need an explanation of. Conventions that practically everyone plays, like Stayman, don't fit that criteria.

And if someone used 1NT-2♣ for something other than Stayman, the opponents wouldn't be warned that they should ask -- it would get the same alert that normal Stayman got. Since everyone knows that "everyone" plays Stayman, it would never occur to someone to ask about that alert.

In EBU territory Stayman is announced rather than alerted. In ACBL we don't say anything; as you say, this is the historical default.

But I think new players understand the basic idea of the current rules: If it's unusual, it should be alerted. This is clearly more useful than "If it's artificial it should be alerted".

Well, I disagree. If we redefine the purpose of an alert, = to show an artificial bid, then most of your argument falls flat There would be no alerts of a natural 1NT-2C, announcements I guess of "normal" Stayman, and alerts of anything else.
Is there the same problem in alerting / announcing Stayman over a 2NT opening ? I don't think so.

I have the same issue in my country about jump overcalls (and jump shifts). An intermediate jump overcall is defined as "normal", and other jump overcalls, weak or strong, have to be alerted. I have striven to understand the logic of this, especially compared to no alerting requirements for a 2-level opening, whether weak or strong.
How a new player (or foreigner) is meant to know what is "unexpected" is beyond me.

This is the 21st century, people play all sorts of things, people play beyond their club much more, beyond their county/region much more, online etc.
What is "expected" ? 50% of the field ? 75% ? 90% ? How can one tell ?

Mind you, it took 100 years for the bridge community to realise that the word "conventional bid" doesn't mean unconventional.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-04, 19:09, said:

This is very sensible, but leaves open the question of what to do at national events.

A national event is likely to be attended by people from all over the country. On that basis, I should think it would require an alert. I had thought to add "unless you know for certain that your opponents come from an area where it is not alerted," but that has the problem that they may not know where you're from, and so expect an alert. Better to alert, I think, and avoid that problem.

[StevenG]

I don't think it's where you come from, it's when you learnt. Every (British) text I read during the 80s and 90s said to bid hearts with both majors, and every person I've played with who learnt during that period bids hearts. Bluejak says that some authorities from earlier times said to bid spades, but I've never seen that advice.