[jillybean]

1N 3♣* alerted as puppet
3♦

3♦ was not alerted and carries a meaning of "neither show or deny a 4cM"

Obviously (IMO) 3♦ should be alerted whether it shows the standard meaning of 1 or both 4cM or not.
If it does carry an unusual meaning, and the opponents don't ask, should this be disclosed before the opening lead?

[ddrankin]

I am assuming you are in the ACBL jurisdiction. From the ACBL alert chart, revised January 1, 2012:

After the use of Stayman, continuations by opener where:
• the lowest level of diamonds does not deny a four
card major
• the lowest level of either major guarantees something
other than four cards in the major suit named

Since a 4cM is not denied, I would rule it requires an alert. If it was not alerted, then the bidder must (call the director and) inform the opps before the opening lead, assuming they bidder is on the declaring side.

[blackshoe]

I read the OP as asking whether the meaning should be disclosed before the opening lead when the bid was alerted but the opponents didn't ask the meaning. In such a case, the TD need not be called (there has been no failure to alert).

Neither the alert regulation nor the general laws on disclosure would require such an explanation. However, the alert regulation does say "In all Alert situations, Tournament Directors should rule with the spirit of the Alert procedure in mind and not simply by the letter of the law." Whether there are TDs who would give you an adverse ruling if you did not do this I don't know. I've certainly seen players get pissy if you give them an explanation for which they did not ask. Given that, I'm inclined to say if they don't ask, it appears they don't want to know, and I wouldn't explain it, at least until some TD rules that I should. Or, I suppose, you could ask the TD before the session, but that could get old fast.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-08, 14:03, said:

I read the OP as asking whether the meaning should be disclosed before the opening lead when the bid was alerted but the opponents didn't ask the meaning. In such a case, the TD need not be called (there has been no failure to alert).

Sure there has. This meaning of 3♦ is alertable (as per the alert chart quoted above), and they didn't alert it.

So the TD should be called before the opening lead, and he should instruct responder to provide the correct information. And there may be additional rectifications (the last pass can be retracted, the score could be adjusted, etc.).

[blackshoe]

Okay, I misread it.

[ArtK78]

Allow me to clarify what happened at the table.

My partner opened 2NT.

I alerted my 3♣ bid as Puppet Stayman. This was an online game, so self-alerting was in play.

Apparently, the 3♦ bid was neither alerted nor explained by my partner, and I can only assume that no one asked about it. The partnership agreement is that 3♦ denies a 5 card major but says nothing about 4 card majors [This line edited April 10, 2012 at 14:30].

My next call was 3♠, which was alerted as showing 4 hearts and denying 4 spades.

My partner's next call was 3NT, which ended the auction.

My partner's shape was 3-2-2-6.

3NT was normal, there were 9 top tricks, and both sides made 10 tricks. There could have been a 1 IMP swing, but I do not believe that the meaning of the 3♦ call was relevant.

[jillybean]

It made no difference at all to the hand,nor the match, you guys won by a landslide.
I am interested in the disclosure requirements, had the call in fact been alerted and the opponents did not ask, as your
agreement of 3♦ is afaik , non standard.

blackshoe interpreted my post, which wasn't clear, correctly.

[Vampyr]

The ACBL alert regulation quoted above is not relevant. Five-card Stayman was bid, and 3♦ denied a 5-card major. I wouldn't think it was alertable.

Of course, "Puppet" is no type of disclosure at all, but I am sure that this is not how the 3♣ bid was explained.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-09, 15:03, said:

The ACBL alert regulation quoted above is not relevant. Five-card Stayman was bid, and 3♦ denied a 5-card major. I wouldn't think it was alertable.

The regulation doesn't distinguish 4-card and 5-card Stayman. It just says that if the ♦ response doesn't deny a 4-card major, it's alertable. This is especially necessary now that ACBL no longer requires the 3♣ bid to be alerted, since the opponents won't even know that it's 5-card Stayman.

Quote

Of course, "Puppet" is no type of disclosure at all, but I am sure that this is not how the 3♣ bid was explained.

In online bridge, terse explanations are normal unless the opponents ask for more details. So I'll bet that is precisely how it was explained.

If this was under ACBL regulations, why was 3♣ alerted? As of January, it's no longer required to alert a cheapest club response to NT that's a variant of Stayman. Although in online bridge with self-alerts, there's no harm in over-alerting.

[blackshoe]

This occurred online. That doesn't mean ACBL alerting regulations were not in effect. That has not been made clear either way. As for the alerting regulations in effect generally on BBO, it's hard to say what they require. They seem to say that even if you consider something "standard" and thus not requiring an alert, others may not agree, so you should alert pretty much everything. In practice, of course, people don't. There's also the possibility of specific alerting requirements made by the TO. So the fact that someone thinks a particular bid should not need an alert does not mean that it doesn't.

In any case, the question at hand is not whether some particular bid should have been alerted. It is whether, when a bid is alerted, but no questions are asked, the alerting side should offer an explanation during the clarification period. I'm inclined to think that an explanation should be offered, particularly if the meaning may be somewhat unusual, in the spirit of full disclosure, although I am aware that this may draw rude remarks, or worse, from some players. And this opinion is independent of the alerting rules in effect.

On a side note, I don't think "does not show or deny a four card major" is an adequate description of a 3♦ response to Puppet Stayman. After all, it denies a five card major, does it not?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-April-09, 15:33, said:

The regulation doesn't distinguish 4-card and 5-card Stayman. It just says that if the ♦ response doesn't deny a 4-card major, it's alertable. This is especially necessary now that ACBL no longer requires the 3♣ bid to be alerted, since the opponents won't even know that it's 5-card Stayman.

In online bridge, terse explanations are normal unless the opponents ask for more details. So I'll bet that is precisely how it was explained.

If this was under ACBL regulations, why was 3♣ alerted? As of January, it's no longer required to alert a cheapest club response to NT that's a variant of Stayman. Although in online bridge with self-alerts, there's no harm in over-alerting.

The ACBL Alert Procedure on the ACBL web site has apparently not been updated to reflect this change.

[jeffford76]

barmar, on 2012-April-09, 15:33, said:

If this was under ACBL regulations, why was 3♣ alerted? As of January, it's no longer required to alert a cheapest club response to NT that's a variant of Stayman. Although in online bridge with self-alerts, there's no harm in over-alerting.

In non-online bridge I would go a little farther and say that it is required to not alert, since the whole point of changing the regulation was to prevent UI issues.

[mrdct]

For online bridge the fact that there is a discussion about the alertability of a bid of itself makes it alertable as the test for alertability for online bridge is "if in any doubt alert". My personal opinion is that is is highly discourteous on BBO to alert bids without an accompanying explanation. It only takes a few milliseconds and makes things move a lot faster in practice as there will be less questions asked by your opponents. It's also useful for kibitzers and post-factum analysis of the LIN files.

[mjj29]

mrdct, on 2012-April-10, 01:46, said:

For online bridge the fact that there is a discussion about the alertability of a bid of itself makes it alertable as the test for alertability for online bridge is "if in any doubt alert". My personal opinion is that is is highly discourteous on BBO to alert bids without an accompanying explanation. It only takes a few milliseconds and makes things move a lot faster in practice as there will be less questions asked by your opponents. It's also useful for kibitzers and post-factum analysis of the LIN files.

Usually I'll include an explanation, but where I think it's obvious or they don't really need to know now I'll alert, bid and then update the explanation during the next round of the auction, which keeps the auction going where they don't need to know but does end up with the explanation if they do

[blackshoe]

It sounds like what you're saying is not so much "alert everything" as "announce everything". For some value of "everything", anyway.

[gnasher]

Playing online, announcements are preferable to alerts because it means that the opponents never have to ask for information, and they never to wait for an answer. Alerts can create UI for the other side, because they may have to pause whilst they ask a question and wait for an answer. Alerts also give the alerting side an advantage, because they find out whether an opponent needed to know the meaning immediately or only later.

The only reasons to prefer alerts over announcements in real-life bridge are to reduce UI for the alerting side, and to make things faster. Playing online, that UI issue doesn't exist. I don't think the speed problem is very significant, either - how long does it take to type "no 5CM, 0/1 4CM"?

Regarding the original question, I don't believe there is a standard meaning for 3♦ - some play it as promising a major and some don't - so I would always ask. Regardless of what it means, though, it seems remarkably unhelpful not to provide the explanation voluntarily.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2012-April-10, 07:53, said:

Playing online, announcements are preferable to alerts because it means that the opponents never have to ask for information, and they never to wait for an answer. Alerts can create UI for the other side, because they may have to pause whilst they ask a question and wait for an answer. Alerts also give the alerting side an advantage, because they find out whether an opponent needed to know the meaning immediately or only later.

Asking takes almost no time. On BBO, you just click on the bid you have a question about, and it pops up "Explain:" on the bidder's screen. But waiting for the answer does take a little time while they fill it in.

Quote

The only reasons to prefer alerts over announcements in real-life bridge are to reduce UI for the alerting side, and to make things faster. Playing online, that UI issue doesn't exist. I don't think the speed problem is very significant, either - how long does it take to type "no 5CM, 0/1 4CM"?

I think the question earlier was about the announcement of 3♣ -- would you type "Puppet" or "Ask 4 or 5 card maj"? Practically everyone will type the former, and only replace it with the details if the opponent asks for more info.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-April-09, 16:15, said:

The ACBL Alert Procedure on the ACBL web site has apparently not been updated to reflect this change.

Wow, you're right. They updated the Alert Chart, but not the Alert Procedure, even though the latter is generally considered more authoritative and the chart is just supposed to be a concise summary of the procedure.

[ddrankin]

barmar, on 2012-April-09, 15:33, said:

If this was under ACBL regulations, why was 3♣ alerted? As of January, it's no longer required to alert a cheapest club response to NT that's a variant of Stayman. Although in online bridge with self-alerts, there's no harm in over-alerting.

The auction given is a jump to the three level, so the Acbl still requires an alert.

[jillybean]

ddrankin, on 2012-April-10, 08:51, said:

The auction given is a jump to the three level, so the Acbl still requires an alert.

Read post #6