[Cyberyeti]

I'm concerned about one of the changes in the new set of regs that you alert suit bids above 3N on the first round of the auction.

a real example.

1♠-P-4♥-P-P-P and this is how they played in a 1-0 fit with a 7-5 fit available.

What will happen now (in clubs all over Norfolk and beyond):

1♠-P-4♥(no alert)-P- (during the stop period and pass responder looks uncomfortable) "oh sorry I should have alerted that" and onwards to 6♠.

The only other minor nitpick about the changes is why you have to announce "may be 2" for short minors but not "may be 3" or (as some people play for 1♦) "at least 5", it would be simpler to just always announce the minimum length for 1m.

More tongue in cheek, what is the first round of bidding ?

W opens 1♥
E bids 1♠ out of turn
S doesn't notice N hadn't bid and bids 2♦
W passes
N bids 4♣ is this the first round of bidding ?

[paulg]

I approve of the changes.

For the example you give, if people are going to use UI and cheat then it doesn't matter what the regulations say. I'm more interested in hearing an alert in the auction 3♠ - (4♦) when it is Leaping Michaels rather than natural.

As for the minor suit length question, the announcement of a short club (or diamond) replaces an alert with a short, precise statement that pretty much tells everyone what you are playing. I think it is a very effective method of disclosure. This is not the case with a 3+ minor, which is considered natural for alerting purposes. Also few pairs change their defensive methods based on the length of a minor that is at least three cards long.

I'm not a fan of announcements but the short minor is one of the more effective ones.

And, on the first round of the auction question, at least they have defined what it is for everyday auctions, something that the SBU failed to do.

[Cyberyeti]

 paulg, on 2013-July-28, 05:51, said:

As for the minor suit length question, the announcement of a short club (or diamond) replaces an alert with a short, precise statement that pretty much tells everyone what you are playing. I think it is a very effective method of disclosure. This is not the case with a 3+ minor, which is considered natural for alerting purposes. Also few pairs change their defensive methods based on the length of a minor that is at least three cards long.

I'm not a fan of announcements but the short minor is one of the more effective ones.

Yeah, but it's a missed opportunity to avoid the "how many does that show ?" "not as many as you've got" scenario. It may not change system, but there are situations where I'm looking at a 16 count with a club suit where it may well change my strategy if I think opener on my right might have 3 rather than 4.

My concern with the splinter scenario is that the old regs were fine (in this specific case), there was no extraneous info so body language was useless. Simply making splinters and fit jumps (any bid that shows a fit for partner's suit) above 3N non alertable on the first round but keeping the rest of the change would fix this.

Quote

For the example you give, if people are going to use UI and cheat then it doesn't matter what the regulations say.

The problem is that the LOLs that do this would be tremendously affronted if you even suggested they were doing anything wrong, it's just normal behaviour for them.

[iviehoff]

 paulg, on 2013-July-28, 05:51, said:

I approve of the changes.

For the example you give, if people are going to use UI and cheat then it doesn't matter what the regulations say. I'm more interested in hearing an alert in the auction 3♠ - (4♦) when it is Leaping Michaels rather than natural.

On those grounds, you may as well abandon the "no alerting above 3N" rule altogether. It seems to me that the auction 1S - pass - 4C, interestingly precisely the auction they mention as an example, is the epitome of why you don't have alerting above 3N. I think a better rule would have been that a call above 3N is only (potentially) alertable if it is the first call by that side.

[campboy]

I think this example is chosen because it is relevant to a lot of people (most people play 4♣ as artificial here). But inevitably an example chosen in that way will not also be a good example of why the rule is useful, because an artificial meaning is not unexpected.

A sequence where alerting is needed, but would not be covered by your suggested alternative, is 1NT - 4♥. Opponents will often need to know whether this is to play or a Texas transfer, but could disadvantage themselves by asking.

[TylerE]

 campboy, on 2013-July-29, 06:51, said:

Opponents will often need to know whether this is to play or a Texas transfer, but could disadvantage themselves by asking.

Isn't this why they have the opponents CC in front of them?

[gnasher]

 iviehoff, on 2013-July-29, 04:08, said:

On those grounds, you may as well abandon the "no alerting above 3N" rule altogether.

That would work for me.

These days there are lots of natural-sounding sequences that are actually Keycard or something similar. In these cases he opponents need to know what's going on, and without alerts it's hard for them to do this without creating UI for their own side, or helping the opponents. For example, if your opponents bid 1♦-1♥;3♦-4♥ and you have ♥KJ10x, what are you supposed to do in the current regime? If 4♥ is Kickback, you want to double. If it's a proposed trump suit, you don't want to help the opponents by showing interest in the heart suit.

Quote

It seems to me that the auction 1S - pass - 4C, interestingly precisely the auction they mention as an example, is the epitome of why you don't have alerting above 3N.

Not really: all meanings of 4♣ would be alertable anyway, uness there is a pair somewhere that plays it as showing length in clubs.

[barmar]

Isn't the reason for the "no alert above 3NT" that it's unlikely that the opponents will be getting into the auction when it has reached that level after a long auction. Or if it's a competitive auction, the opponents might just keep sacrificing. But either way, alerts are not likely to help them much.

But if the auction reaches the 4 level right away, the opponents may want to get in, and they should know what they're getting themselves into. That seems like why they made this change.

[Cyberyeti]

 gnasher, on 2013-July-29, 07:32, said:

Not really: all meanings of 4♣ would be alertable anyway, uness there is a pair somewhere that plays it as showing length in clubs.

this is fine for 1♠-4♣, but some pairs would play 1♠-4♥ as natural

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-28, 05:21, said:

1♠-P-4♥(no alert)-P- (during the stop period and pass responder looks uncomfortable)

Just as an aside, what is the correct procedure at this point? Should you (A) say nothing and pass; (B) say "I am sorry I should have alerted that" and then pass; or © call the Director because the situation is too complicated? I guess I will get a lot of votes for C, even if A or B is the resulting ruling. The real question is whether we are allowed to use UI in avoiding giving the opponents MI?

[paulg]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-28, 05:21, said:

1♠-P-4♥(no alert)-P- (during the stop period and pass responder looks uncomfortable)

 Zelandakh, on 2013-August-01, 05:07, said:

Just as an aside, what is the correct procedure at this point? Should you (A) say nothing and pass; (B) say "I am sorry I should have alerted that" and then pass; or © call the Director because the situation is too complicated? I guess I will get a lot of votes for C, even if A or B is the resulting ruling. The real question is whether we are allowed to use UI in avoiding giving the opponents MI?

My understanding is that you should call the Director and explain that you have forgotten to alert 4♥. Then, if you have only remembered this because of the UI, I expect that you would normally Pass.

So I believe that you are allowed to use UI to correctly inform your opponents of your partnership methods.

[gordontd]

 paulg, on 2013-August-01, 05:28, said:

My understanding is that you should call the Director and explain that you have forgotten to alert 4♥. Then, if you have only remembered this because of the UI, I expect that you would normally Pass.

So I believe that you are allowed to use UI to correctly inform your opponents of your partnership methods.

Quite so.

[RMB1]

 paulg, on 2013-August-01, 05:28, said:

I believe that you are allowed to use UI to correctly inform your opponents of your partnership methods.

In the EBU, this is covered by Blue Book 2D7

Quote

It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to alert and explain the partnership understanding accurately, but this information must not be used to help in the bidding and play.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law 20F4: If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4.

Failure to do what one "must" do is "a serious matter indeed".

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-August-01, 07:10, said:

Failure to do what one "must" do is "a serious matter indeed".

Maybe so, but I can't recall anyone ever calling the TD in this situation. They just say something like "Oh, I should have alerted that", the player who called after the unalerted bid gives some indication that it makes no difference to him, and the auction continues normally. Only if the opponent feels he was damaged by the failure to alert would the TD be called.

[aguahombre]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-August-01, 05:07, said:

The real question is whether we are allowed to use UI in avoiding giving the opponents MI?

That indeed is a real question....not answered by:

 paulg, on 2013-August-01, 05:28, said:

So I believe that you are allowed to use UI to correctly inform your opponents of your partnership methods.

It is possible that correctly informing the opponents of our actual methods will give them MI on a given hand, and using UI to do this could even be worse.

I probably wouldn't be able to sort out objectively in a particular case what is the lawful or ethical thing to do, and would throw it on the TD to screw things up. I also doubt that any jurisdiction could adequately write something up in advance to help.

[campboy]

 aguahombre, on 2013-August-01, 10:04, said:

It is possible that correctly informing the opponents of our actual methods will give them MI on a given hand, and using UI to do this could even be worse.

No, it isn't, by the definition of MI. It is possible that an incorrect explanation will give them a more accurate picture of your hands than the correct information, but you are not required to tell them what's in your hands.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2013-August-01, 08:39, said:

Maybe so, but I can't recall anyone ever calling the TD in this situation. They just say something like "Oh, I should have alerted that", the player who called after the unalerted bid gives some indication that it makes no difference to him, and the auction continues normally. Only if the opponent feels he was damaged by the failure to alert would the TD be called.

People don't know the rules. Or they do know the rules, and think they're "silly" or whatever and so they ignore them. In the latter case they should be penalized IMO (I would give a warning the first time) but that doesn't happen either.

[aguahombre]

I understand the obvious, that we don't have to tell the opponents what is in our hand. I was commenting from a little deeper standpoint (perhaps too deep), and was careful to use "methods" not "agreements". When we correct an explanation by partner, we should be concerned..particularly in the case where partner's MI actually described our hand.

[blackshoe]

 aguahombre, on 2013-August-01, 10:04, said:

It is possible that correctly informing the opponents of our actual methods will give them MI on a given hand, and using UI to do this could even be worse.

I probably wouldn't be able to sort out objectively in a particular case what is the lawful or ethical thing to do, and would throw it on the TD to screw things up. I also doubt that any jurisdiction could adequately write something up in advance to help.

You are required by law to correct your partner's explanation (or your own for that matter) if you believe it to be wrong. The law places no constraints on how you come to this conclusion. So the right thing to do is to correct the explanation, and not to worry about "using UI". For that matter, the law only makes "using UI" an infraction when you use it in your choice of a call or play. There is no constraint on any other "use of UI".

Do you think the above is inadequate advice? If so, why?