[mycroft]

Yeah, it was something like that.

The director call was of the "surely we're owed an alert here?" variety, to which the answer was "absolutely yes." Of course, neither would have done anything different, and the lead didn't matter, so there was no damage, but there was a little bit of surprise from the Director (who already knew that "everyone knows ace-asking bids aren't Alertable" and also "everyone knows 4♣ is Gerber" - which, even before the new regulations wasn't true(*), but still, this one was a step up) when they explained it as if "doesn't everybody play that?" - and I'm sure it came out in my "no, not everybody does. I can't think of anyone else in this room (65-ish tables) who would think that in this auction. In fact, it's so unusual that if..."

(*)Yet again, I gripe about the C&CC, who in their (laudable. Frankly, pretty incredible) overhaul of the Alert Procedure, thought that "it's IOTTMCO that we believe that now, Ace-showing responses (even of non-Alertable asks) are Alertable, because we explicitly removed the 'and responses' bit in the 'do not Alert' line on Ace-askers, and added a couple of examples into the "Delayed Alerts" section buried at the end of 15 pages of legal. We don't need to note this *explicit, intended, and drastic change* anywhere, including in our article in the Bulletin of 'things every ACBL player needs to know'." The goal is amazing guys (no sarcasm nere, it is!); execution needs a little work.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-January-15, 12:50, said:

Yeah, it was something like that.

The director call was of the "surely we're owed an alert here?" variety, to which the answer was "absolutely yes." Of course, neither would have done anything different, and the lead didn't matter, so there was no damage, but there was a little bit of surprise from the Director (who already knew that "everyone knows ace-asking bids aren't Alertable" and also "everyone knows 4♣ is Gerber" - which, even before the new regulations wasn't true(*), but still, this one was a step up) when they explained it as if "doesn't everybody play that?" - and I'm sure it came out in my "no, not everybody does. I can't think of anyone else in this room (65-ish tables) who would think that in this auction. In fact, it's so unusual that if..."

(*)Yet again, I gripe about the C&CC, who in their (laudable. Frankly, pretty incredible) overhaul of the Alert Procedure, thought that "it's IOTTMCO that we believe that now, Ace-showing responses (even of non-Alertable asks) are Alertable, because we explicitly removed the 'and responses' bit in the 'do not Alert' line on Ace-askers, and added a couple of examples into the "Delayed Alerts" section buried at the end of 15 pages of legal. We don't need to note this *explicit, intended, and drastic change* anywhere, including in our article in the Bulletin of 'things every ACBL player needs to know'." The goal is amazing guys (no sarcasm nere, it is!); execution needs a little work.

I sympathize with the Director and try not to feel smug to be on the side of the moon where one alerts things not natural
Which of course has its limitations too.

As for "doesn't everybody play that?", IME one of the few alerted openings guaranteed to lead to a Director call is 4NT asking for Specific Aces (closely followed by 3NT showing a good 4M opening, but at least that is weird).

[mycroft]

An example from recent history ACBL virtual club game, names elided to protect the innocent(?). Yes, it's easy to find it, please don't, except to laugh at me, of course.

So, what's going on in this auction? Especially given my holding, I really don't want to "ask what 4♦ is" (or 4♣, for that matter). If you find the hand, you'll see it was alerted - that's because I asked after the opening lead, when I couldn't influence my partner. But seriously, Ace-asking responses in the ACBL are (usually delayed) Alerts, for exactly this reason; Delayed alerts online are alerted at the time (because they aren't shown to partner); do you *want* me to request a diamond lead?

And yes, I know, can't hit it with a stick. But if partner had Kxx, dummy Jx, and declarer Ax...?

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-January-15, 15:12, said:

An example from recent history ACBL virtual club game, names elided to protect the innocent(?). Yes, it's easy to find it, please don't, except to laugh at me, of course.

So, what's going on in this auction? Especially given my holding, I really don't want to "ask what 4♦ is" (or 4♣, for that matter). If you find the hand, you'll see it was alerted - that's because I asked after the opening lead, when I couldn't influence my partner. But seriously, Ace-asking responses in the ACBL are (usually delayed) Alerts, for exactly this reason; Delayed alerts online are alerted at the time (because they aren't shown to partner); do you *want* me to request a diamond lead?

And yes, I know, can't hit it with a stick. But if partner had Kxx, dummy Jx, and declarer Ax...?

If partner had Kxx he could have doubled 4D even without alert, no?
But yes there are ways an ethical player could have been damaged in a similar auction.
Although if they bid this way it is almost certainly an advantage to keep quiet (why not 2N after 2♦, at which point 6N is written on the wall?).

WRT "names elided", I note to my surprise that clicking on pseudonym here reveals the true profile
Not sure if that happens in my similar posts too (in which case my apologies to opponents) or if you did something different here, or BBO changed something.

[mycroft]

Oh, interesting. Let me change that. Esp apologies to users "LHO, CHO, and RHO" who I have never met and definitely weren't playing on that hand.

That's something with the bridge movie rather than other handviewer thing.

It's not that - partner's on lead (ah yes, if he knows it's "all aces" but looking at two behind declarer, he can just double and play passive. Okay. How about Qxx and Kxxxxx?).

But if this crazy auction happens, and suddenly you see, before you lead, "all or none of the Aces" added to the 4♦ call, you know exactly what happened, right? And if you decide then to lead a diamond, and it happens to catch partner with the cards to set the contract - or even "be the best DD lead" - does it not look suspicious? Do we not expect a director call? And when my response to "why did you ask" is "well, Gerber responses are Alertable, as are control cuebids; so the damage was caused by them not Alerting, not me having to ask, no?" - well, apart from post-graduate levels of Bridge Lawyering (even if legally correct!) it doesn't look good on a guest...

But more, "you know, if you just felt willing to explain your unusual bids (even if you don't think they're technically Alertable) online, opponents wouldn't have the opportunity to 'ask because their hand tells them it's not Natural'."

[smerriman]

pescetom, on 2025-January-15, 16:10, said:

WRT "names elided", I note to my surprise that clicking on pseudonym here reveals the true profile

It reveals the profiles of the BBO users whose usernames are CHO, RHO, and LHO, not the true profiles

[mycroft]

Oh, and to drag this even partially back to the OP's issue: I checked Bridge World Standard for 5♣ ace asking. The *only* reference is the following:

After opener's double jump to three notrump: five clubs is a key-card-ask for opener's suit; four of a new suit shows a control; four notrump is invitational.

On the other hand it DNEs the OP auction (2♣-response; 3NT). So, yeah, that.

[mw64ahw]

mycroft, on 2025-January-15, 15:12, said:

An example from recent history

Didn't fancy 2♦ at these colours?

[blackshoe]

IOTTMCO?

Not everyone can figure out every possible meaning for an acronym consisting of a random number of random letters.

My take on asking questions, particularly in slam auctions, is to wait until after the auction, ask "please explain your auction", wait one minute for them to wake up to the fact they've been asked a question, another two minutes for the inevitable review of the bidding for which you didn't ask, ask again for an explanation of the auction, spend three or four minutes of back and forth because they don't understand the question, wait five minutes for the director to show up, another five for him to sort out the problem, and then get told "you don't have time to finish this board, move for the next round". And this was board one of four.

David Burn is right. Bridge is not a very good game.

[blackshoe]

I deleted the double post caused by the fact that the software kept telling me that "something" had happened and the forums were unavailable.

Tommy, several times: are you sure you're not mad?
Dick, several times: no, I'm not mad.
Dick, finally: well, if it'll make you happy, I am a little peeved.
Tommy: You don't look mad.

[DavidKok]

 blackshoe, on 2025-January-15, 19:42, said:

[W]ait until after the auction, ask "please explain your auction", [receive] the inevitable review of the bidding for which you didn't ask, ask again for an explanation of the auction, spend three or four minutes of back and forth because they don't understand the question [...]

I feel like a fool for asking, but I thought both of these phrases describe an explanation of every bid in the auction, along with possible alternatives and negative inferences. What is the difference?

[mycroft]

I would have thought that a known Heinlein fanatic would be at least acceptably aware of the other SF Golden Age Authors...

"Immediately Obvious to the Most Casual Observer", a favourite of Larry Niven in his Known Space series. Usually, as here, when it wasn't, of course.

[mycroft]

I would agree with you, David. Most players here assume it means "a review of the auction" - the bids and passes. Please *explain* the auction should get what you want. But everybody asks at the time, so when people actually want "what the whole auction told you", as you describe it, they literally do not understand the question.

And then frequently they want to know which bid you want to know about. Not *everybody* who wants this wants to know so they can use that information - frankly, very very few, most just really want to answer the one question you're asking, like they would - but enough do that especially when you work that out and ask about everything, they get very upset.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-January-16, 19:08, said:

I would have thought that a known Heinlein fanatic would be at least acceptably aware of the other SF Golden Age Authors...

"Immediately Obvious to the Most Casual Observer", a favourite of Larry Niven in his Known Space series. Usually, as here, when it wasn't, of course.

I never progressed beyond the like-minded Philip K. Dick, but thanks to total immersion in mycroftese I was only guessing the second O

[johnu]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-January-11, 18:41, said:

I was a newcomer at the club and it was a first time partnership, so we hadn't defined many things. And there was no way for us to show a single minor after a 2NT opening as well (we agreed that 3♠ over a 2NT opening was minor suit Stayman).

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-January-11, 18:37, said:

The opener fast arrived at 3NT because we had 32 points at a maximum, so he didn't think we should try a slam.

You didn't discuss much, but still partner decided to jump to 3NT instead of the book rebid on 2NT? And you correctly interpreted 3NT as showing ~23-24 HCP balanced and passed? I'm still trying to parse the reasoning behind this bidding.