[NemoJames]

I was playing in a tournament when opponents opened 2 clubs. Their partner alerted and said they had at least 4 spades with 12 or more points. My opponent overcalled, which I was very tempted to respond to, but with opponents having at least 12 points I decided to pass.

It turned out that the opening bidder had only 10 points and we could have comfortably made 3NT. There was no question I would have bid differently if I had known the opener had fewer points than was alerted.
I called the TD who supported the opponent's claim that the opener was entitled to evaluate their hand as having 12 points. Surely specifying a number of points refers to HCP, otherwise, what is the point of alerting or announcing misinformation? Why announce misinformation when you can always claim that was how your partner evaluated their hand?

I couldn't find anything in the rules that clarifies this, and I came away more confused than ever. It says if you are the declarers, you must inform opponents before play starts of any misinformation given, which is logical. Then it says if you are the defenders, you don't have to inform opponents until the hand has finished and the result has been agreed on. Isn't it a bit late by then?

[PrecisionL]

Don't base your bidding on the opponent's schemes. Believe your eyes and partner.

[mycroft]

Except in rare cases, if someone means "High Card Points", especially online where "points" takes longer to type than "HCP", that's what they say. Many of those rare cases involve "balanced hands that won't have significant length/shortness points" so the implication is clear.

Even in those rare cases, it is expected that upgrades will happen with exceptional honour congregation or concentration in longer suits/majors. "This looks like 15 to me".

If they say "points", they mean "points counting shape". Almost always. Especially in a suit, especially when raising partner (or in an auction where it can be assumed there is a fit). If the bid really did mean 4+spades and 12+points, and the bidder had ♠AKQJT84 and out, well, I can think of *many* 12 HCP hands that will take fewer tricks in spades than that 10-count!

I will admit, I haven't really heard of a system where 2♣ shows 4+ spades and 12+ points; and you have a few too many opponents in your description. An auction using the hand tool (the Canadian flag-like thing above the typing), or a link to the hand record would really help.

In addition to what PrecisionL says (which I agree with), "a queen" isn't going to make it significantly more dangerous to overcall. That "plus" might, but that's always there.

Now, depending on under what RA the game was being held, there's another issue that might come to light, and it *is* one where HCP is critical; "is the agreement legal?" And if the agreement is legal the way it is described, but not the way it is "upgraded into", that can be a problem. But it's not a misinformation problem, it's a "not following the rules properly" problem. Having said that, even the ACBL with its "it is illegal to use judgement to upgrade a hand into a legal agreement, if that 'acceptable upgrade' would not be legal" policy, frequently uses terms like "Average", which is "10 HCP or Rule of 19" (so AK7432 T85432 - 4 is "average")(*). I assume the director checked that as well, however.

(*) And sometimes it doesn't. Deal with it.

[pescetom]

I was going to say some things.
But the preceding post said them all and more.

[jillybean]

NemoJames, on 2025-August-01, 01:57, said:

I was playing in a tournament when opponents opened 2 clubs.

Was this a sanctioned ACBL/BBO tournament, a fun tournament, somewhere else?

[NemoJames]

It was not a fun competition and the rules were governed by World Bridge Federation, although I would have thought the question could be asked of any system

I deliberately didn't include any information about the hands because that would defeat the point of my question. For rules to have any value, they have to be clear and with a penalty for breaking them. If laws can be interpreted in different ways, they are not rules; they are guidelines governed by a player's or referee's opinion.

I simply asked that if someone opens the bidding and their partners makes the alert, "12 or more points and 4 spades" does that refer to HCPs? which requires a yes or no answer. If the answer is yes then the alert gives me valuable information; if it is no, then the alert it is worthless. "12 or more points" is a very specific point range which doesn't rely on opinion. If it is not specific, then the alerter should be clear and say "our partnership agreement is X but I don't know what my partner has.

The trouble with that is that no alert can ever be challenged because it can always be claimed that the information you give is based on opinion and not fact.


From what I have read, "pescetom" is correct in saying that alerts have to be ignored, which seems to make a farce of the rules.

[DavidKok]

Welcome to the game! Your black-or-white stance will likely create many difficulties for you down the line. I understand that you got a bad score and now seek redress. It is going too far though to claim that an alert is worthless because you misunderstand how 'points' are commonly used, or that your best course of action is to ignore them.

To me, alerts contain valuable information. There are common, informal, understandings of 'strength' and 'points' that are not HCP and are not contained in a written formula. These two statements are not in contradiction.

Every now and again a player insists that all alerts should be accompanied by a disclaimer along the lines of "Warning: when we desribe a bid to have a certain strength, it is understood to be our own evaluation criteria which strongly correlate with, but in individual cases deviate from, HCP." I insist that adding this disclaimer to all descriptions would not improve the game and not improve disclosure.

This is, in my opinion, strongly related to the different types of hand strength, and the different ways to evaluate it. To me this is the core mistake that holds people back from improving their hand evaluation, but that is a separate topic and beyond the scope of this post.

[jillybean]

 NemoJames, on 2025-August-02, 03:54, said:

For rules to have any value, they have to be clear and with a penalty for breaking them. If laws can be interpreted in different ways, they are not rules; they are guidelines governed by a player's or referee's opinion.

Welcome to the game! IME, the Laws of Duplicate Bridge are so complex that indeed they are interpreted and applied differently, and often poorly. Where I play, penalties are extremely rare.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-August-02, 08:39, said:

Welcome to the game! IME, the laws of Duplicate Bridge ate so complex that indeed they are interpreted and applied differently, and often poorly.

Standard bridge terminology does not always help either (in this case 'points' similar to and shorter than 'high card points') although the Laws are only partly responsible for that.

[jillybean]

Yes, I believe in serious competition we used to have something called full disclosure. Most players don't care and are somewhat annoyed when presented with it.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2025-August-02, 09:00, said:

Yes, I believe in serious competition we used to have something called full disclosure. Most players don't care and are somewhat annoyed when presented with it.

Well that is not a problem of the Laws but of regulations (or at least was not until "just" twenty years ago when automatic disclosure became technically possible and first generation robots who had near perfect memory of agreements but could not notice deviations for toffee came along).
And if the respect for disclosure is as dismal as it is, a lot has to do with organizers who are all to willing to turn a blind eye to retain reticent players, RAs who go along with them (for instance by not enforcing System Cards) and Directors who drop their tail and do the same.

[mike777]

Alerts or full disclosure?
What?

Simply asking an opponent what their carding is too much for most to answer in full.

[mycroft]

'Does the word "points" mean "Milton Work Points"? I need a Yes or No answer.'

No.

As I said last time, if they meant HCP, they would have said that.

Does that mean it is not specific, and that 'the explanation is worthless'?

No.

As I implied last time (and as many many have said before), "points" don't take tricks, and "points" are worth nothing. Only tricks matter. Therefore, a hand that will take the same number of tricks as a "12 HCP hand" is a "12 point hand". Surely my suggested hand of 7-solid and out is "a 12 count" (as would, say, ♠AQJTxxx ♥Kxx ...) Aces are worth more than 4 (usually; sometimes significantly more; sometimes less), and a collection of quacks don't pull their full weight on offence or defence, especially in a suit contract. So even HCP isn't a "specific point range".

There are other issues, of course - "implied defence", "implied (lack of) shape", and all the rest; and the explanation you were given could well be, in fact, inadequate. That's for the director to decide.

But as far as "if I had known there could be 15 points between the other two hands instead of 13, I would have overcalled" is concerned, you do know that with either explanation, opener could have had 18, right? And it's almost as likely as it would be if 12 Miltons were a hard minimum?

In fact, if they're more likely to upgrade than most, it's actually harder for responder with a decent hand to double you, because opener might have half-a-defensive trick (or more) less?

The WBF is well known for having System and Alerting regulations that suffer from lack of specificity, and rely very strongly on "we all know what we mean by this". And it has tripped them up repeatedly in the past. It works, mostly, because almost all of the events run under the auspices of the WBF specifically are at "Solid A or better" level, and they do all know what is meant. But it traps people who don't.

If it was online, then it's tough, but again, if they meant HCP it's faster to type that. If it was FtF, one of the things the WBF gets *very right* (at least for "solid A or better" players) is their convention card. If they have taken the time to fill it out properly (and if this is one of their openings, I'm reasonably certain they have), then if you want detail, look at it.

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2025-August-02, 15:46, said:

Alerts or full disclosure?
What?

Simply asking an opponent what their carding is too much for most to answer in full.

"standard"

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2025-August-02, 09:00, said:

Yes, I believe in serious competition we used to have something called full disclosure. Most players don't care and are somewhat annoyed when presented with it.

Well that is not a problem of the Laws but of regulations (or at least was not until "just" twenty years ago when automatic disclosure became technically possible and players who had near perfect memory of agreements but could not notice deviations for toffee came along).
And if the respect for disclosure is as dismal as it is, a lot has to do with organizers who are all to willing to turn a blind eye to retain reticent players, RAs who go along with them (for instance by not enforcing System Cards) and Directors who drop their tail and do the same.