[mgoetze]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-08, 03:19, said:

This is quite a good idea. This could be extended above 3NT too, so that Texas transfers are alerted. We pay these, and recognise that the opponents have a similar problem when it goes 1NT-4♥, not even alerted.

Incidentally in Germany there is a specific exemption to the "don't alert above 3NT" rule for the first round of bidding, so 1NT-4♥(TRF) is alertable, while p-1NT-4♥(TRF) is not.

[dcrc2]

With one partner I'm currently playing methods which I think deserve a pre-alert (our 2-level pre-empts are rather unusual). I started off announcing this at the start of each round, but I found that this elicited two to three snide comments per session about playing unusual conventions. This gets a bit wearying after a while. So I've gone back to the bare minimum of plonking my CC in front of RHO. I would say it works pretty well. The front of the EBU card is reasonably good for this purpose (apart from the fact that it contains both 1NT responses and 2-level openings, and people frequently mistake one section for the other). Perhaps we could do with slightly better guidance on what to put in the section for "other aspects which opponents should note". The OB suggests putting two-suited overcalls in there, which is not an aspect of my opponents system I care about in the slightest; whereas artificial responses to suit openings are definitely worth mentioning.

[barmar]

AlexJonson, on 2012-April-08, 03:39, said:

I don't see that Law 16 is an issue in this case.

I may ask because I am thinking of bidding or because I may need to know to understand any bids partner may make.

I may not ask because I already know.

I can't see that I create UI.

Well, all of those are UI. However, I think your point is that the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest anything in particular. And I agree. If you ask frequently (but not always), and there are different reasons for some of them, then partner can't really take any inferences.

The only problem would be if you hardly ever ask, and on the few occasions when you do it's for the same reason (you were thinking of overcalling in ♠). This could establish a pattern that partner recognizes, and then he has to be careful to avoid using the UI.

[Trinidad]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-08, 05:54, said:

Incidentally in Germany there is a specific exemption to the "don't alert above 3NT" rule for the first round of bidding, so 1NT-4♥(TRF) is alertable, while p-1NT-4♥(TRF) is not.

This is why the rule in the Netherlands is: "Don't alert above 3NT, except in the first round of bidding, starting with the opening bid." Here both are alertable, which I think is sensible.

Rik

[aguahombre]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-08, 05:54, said:

Incidentally in Germany there is a specific exemption to the "don't alert above 3NT" rule for the first round of bidding, so 1NT-4♥(TRF) is alertable, while p-1NT-4♥(TRF) is not.

Trinidad, on 2012-April-08, 09:58, said:

Here both are alertable, which I think is sensible.

Quite sensible. The first round of bidding, IMO, doesn't end until all four people have had a turn to call. If I were the person making the rules, the first round "of bidding" would include:

P (P) 1H (P)
4-something. I am not sure it doesn't.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-April-08, 10:23, said:

Quite sensible. The first round of bidding, IMO, doesn't end until all four people have had a turn to call. If I were the person making the rules, the first round "of bidding" would include:

P (P) 1H (P)
4-something. I am not sure it doesn't.

It does in the ACBL where the regulation is that alerts above 3NT are delayed until the end of the auction "starting with the opener's second turn to call". Note that if the meaning of the bid is such that it requires an alert, then it will be alerted at some point (assuming people are following the rules). There are no such bids for which the requirement to alert is cancelled.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, that's where I am (ACBL). Was trying to comment from afar on the sensibility of the German and Dutch regs alluded to by Mike and Rik. Here, we have different criteria.

Whatever the jurisdiction, I would think first responses and the first rebid by opener should be expected to be understood by the bidding side thoroughly enough that banning alerts of those bids is not necessary. I even think it has been codified in some general conditions to that effect (requiring a partnership to know what their early bids mean).

[blackshoe]

There are regs to that effect (the ACBL has one) but the ones I've seen don't account for the "class of player" problem. Some beginners/novices are just not going to know what their bids mean, even on the first round (especially if there's interference). Telling them they must know, or adjusting scores in their opponents' favor, or whatever, because they don't is simply telling them they're not permitted to play bridge. Not a good idea, IMO.

[AlexJonson]

barmar, on 2012-April-08, 08:55, said:

Well, all of those are UI. However, I think your point is that the UI doesn't demonstrably suggest anything in particular. And I agree. If you ask frequently (but not always), and there are different reasons for some of them, then partner can't really take any inferences.

The only problem would be if you hardly ever ask, and on the few occasions when you do it's for the same reason (you were thinking of overcalling in ♠). This could establish a pattern that partner recognizes, and then he has to be careful to avoid using the UI.

Thanks for your clarification.

I know that in a bridge 'philosophical' sense alerts and questions are not often AI, although the rules and regulations of the game require them.

On a forum it would be a bit tedious to say ' non AI that doesn't normally create a law 16 problem for partner' .

If I can read my partner in the auction (or they me) in the way you indicate, it is time to extend the use of screens IMO.

[IanPayn]

[quote name='gnasher' timestamp='1333815553' post='628342']
You're under no obligation. You have a free choice: ask (or look at the card) every time and avoid giving UI; or save your breath and tell your partner to live with the UI problems.

++++Quite so. Just get on with it. You can tie yourself up in knots worrying about fatuous or irrelevant UI issues. Bid your hand, and leave the rest to providence. Try to do the right thing and you usually will. Sometimes you won't, sometimes a problem will arise, but you will never be able to avoid this, and wasting your life trying to second guess this sort of thing is not being a paragon of virtue. It's wasting your mental energy, which could be probably be better directed. Lord knows, mine could.

[barmar]

Thank you, Ian.

The only time I spend much mental energy trying to work out what I can and can't do because of UI is when my partner goes into the tank for a very long time, or when there's an issue related to an alert/non-alert or explanation that partner has given (e.g. what must I do after partner's explanation wakes me up to a misbid?). It's too hard to worry about whether I can safely ask a question when I think I need to know, and I'm not going to waste everyone's time asking always. If the director thinks that it caused a UI problem, I may grumble annoyance, but that's the way it goes.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-08, 02:28, said:

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but the law says that the RA gets to define the proper way to disclose, and the EBU has done that.

Not quite. The Law says that the RA gets to specify the manner in which partnership understandings are to be disclosed. That doesn't necessarily mean that the manner specified by the RA is "proper" or adequate.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-08, 03:19, said:

This is quite a good idea. This could be extended above 3NT too, so that Texas transfers are alerted. We pay these, and recognise that the opponents have a similar problem when it goes 1NT-4♥, not even alerted.

Don't worry, I suggested that to the L&EC at the same time, but that idea was rejected as well. It's good to read that this is alertable in Germany, The Netherlands, USA and Canada.

[barmar]

In ACBL, Texas is announced.

[jallerton]

barmar, on 2012-April-08, 16:27, said:

In ACBL, Texas is announced.

Even better!

[paulg]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-08, 03:19, said:

This is quite a good idea. This could be extended above 3NT too, so that Texas transfers are alerted. We pay these, and recognise that the opponents have a similar problem when it goes 1NT-4♥, not even alerted.

jallerton, on 2012-April-08, 16:24, said:

Don't worry, I suggested that to the L&EC at the same time, but that idea was rejected as well. It's good to read that this is alertable in Germany, The Netherlands, USA and Canada.

And Scotland

[bluejak]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-07, 14:34, said:

In Germany, we have a format which does not require any unfolding, and I prefer to use that.

Actually, I am surprised by Steffie's remarks, because we do in England as well. The SC has things people need to know on the front, no unfolding required. Glancing at it is quicker and more effective than the useless exchange of system we had at one time because opponents tell you things you do not need to know and not what you do.

jallerton, on 2012-April-08, 02:13, said:

Before August 2006, there was a requirement in England for the pairs to tell each other their basic systems at the start of each round. This normally took about five seconds.

Since August 2006, this requirement has been abolished. Yes, the only requirement now is to exchange convention cards but I do not consider this to be a "proper way to disclose".

As explained above the previous method did not get you the required information so you needed to look at the SC as well.

jallerton, on 2012-April-08, 16:24, said:

Don't worry, I suggested that to the L&EC at the same time, but that idea was rejected as well. It's good to read that this is alertable in Germany, The Netherlands, USA and Canada.

You make it sound as thought the EBU thought it a bad idea. The reason given at the time was that it was probably correct, but unfortunately had been suggested too late, and the L&EC did not want to fiddle with a new alerting system that had recently been put in place. In general it takes twelve years after any change for people to stop bleating "Why do they change the alerting every year?" so changing it a year later seemed a very poor idea even if the change was a good one.

[mycroft]

Heh, just got the opportunity last weekend to Alert my 1NT-4♦ call (Spades, South African Texas). Unfortunately, the opponents weren't the type to freak out about it and tell us that we just Announce Texas Transfers. Oh well, it will come up.

We had one again this weekend where it went 1NT-(2♣) Alerted and explained as "forces 2♦, could be long diamonds, or a major-minor two-suiter". I was hoping for double from partner, so I could Alert (and, hopefully, explain) as "forces 2♦, either a hand that wants to play 2♦ or various INV+ hands" (usually I skip the "forces 2♦" bit, because I feel it's incorrect explanation, but after that explanation of the overcall, I wouldn't have been able to resist). Unfortunately, partner decided to transfer instead.

On the original, unless I know the opponents are the type to use their explanations to keep on track, I always ask about weird stuff - and a 1-non-club Alert is "weird". I just can't imagine any hand other than "balanced crap" that wouldn't be considering some action if I knew what this Alert was, for any reasonable meaning of the call.

Transfer responses to 1♣ - well, I'm lucky, it's a pre-Alert here; I can usually remember :-)

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-April-09, 09:02, said:

Actually, I am surprised by Steffie's remarks, because we do in England as well. The SC has things people need to know on the front, no unfolding required.

But it's always folded and kept under the bidding box, to save room on the table. So if you are looking at the "front", you can either unfold it or look at each half separately.

mycroft, on 2012-April-09, 11:13, said:

Transfer responses to 1♣ - well, I'm lucky, it's a pre-Alert here.

Yes, you are.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-April-09, 09:02, said:

The SC has things people need to know on the front, no unfolding required.

Well, I have never seen four-level transfers on the front; perhaps they should be, as more than once an opponent would have assumed 1NT-(pass)-4H (unalerted) is natural. Fortunately, my partner and I regard the Law as an Ass, as Lord Denning would have said, and alert this, contrary to EBU advice. I am quite happy to accept the potential PP for doing so, as I regard it as active ethics.