Do these bids have to be alerted?
I can't find the answers to these queries in the Blue Book. I may not be looking properly.
- 1NT (pass) 3C. The 3C bid is weak and to play. Is this sufficiently unusual to be alerted? It is shown on the system card.
- 2C (Precision showing intermediate with clubs) (pass) 2H/S where the bid is non forcing?
- 1C (Precision) (pass) 1NT where the NT is wide ranging (8-13) and forcing?
Comments
The second bid is alertable because it's a non-forcing new suit response to a non-forcing suit opening bid (Blue Book 4H2d); those are always alertable unless they're game or a double jump.
The third bid is alertable by Blue Book 4C1b: a forcing notrump bid is never natural unless a force was set up earlier in the auction (and thus the force exists due to the earlier bid and not the notrump bid), and thus it has to be alerted as not natural (even if it shows a balanced hand). (Precision 1C is defined as "strong" rather than "forcing to 2N" or similar, which implies that it doesn't have any long-lived forcing properties of its own; it's the follow-up bids that do that.)
The only rule I can see under which the first bid might be alertable is 4B1b, "is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning". This rather depends on what the people playing would expect the bid to mean; according to my sources on Acol (which is what most players would be expecting from an unknown source), the two most common meanings for 3-of-a-suit over 1NT are "slam try on 6 cards", and "semi-preemptive signoff with a weak-two-like hand" (plus the occasional constructive natural bid from Traditional Acol, which hardly anyone plays nowadays but beginners). Yours is the latter, and I'd therefore expect it to be non-alertable unless you're in an environment where almost everyone considers a particular other meaning to be the correct one. (For what it's worth, 3-of-a-suit over 1NT is pretty much in "always ask" territory for me as there are so many plausible natural meanings. I always ask about jump overcalls too, for similar reasons.)
I agree with ais523 about 2 and 3.
I would definitely alert 1. Whilst I would expect some people to be playing a 3 !c response as artificial and therefore alertable for that reason, I do think that most people would assume that an unalerted 3 !c response would be a traditional strong hand. However, if I were sitting over the responder with the sort of hand which might want to contemplate action over a non-forcing 3 !c , that would perhaps cast doubt in my mind as to whether RHO actually did have a strong hand, so I might ask to protect myself.
I would alert 1. Would your opponents be surprised to discover that 3C was natural non-forcing? I certainly would be, and so I think would many other people. Therefore, it has a potentially unexpected meaning and is alertable.
When I was taught basic Acol, I learnt that all 3-level jumps were natural and game forcing. That is what I would expect without an alert.
That's pretty interesting in terms of how "highly unexpected" should be defined. Traditional Acol is a system that's rarely used except among beginners, and very few other systems use 1NT, 3x with the Traditional Acol meaning. So seeing it in anything other than a beginner class would be highly unexpected for me, and thus I'd expect it to be alerted. (That said, I wouldn't expect much damage; "slam try in clubs" and "game force or better in clubs" are clearly different meanings, as the latter contains the possibility of being weak enough that slam is clearly impossible, but the opponents' behaviour is likely to be much the same in both cases.)
In general I'd be much happier with a fairly simple set of objective rules as to what should and shouldn't be alerted, rather than requiring people to know (and agree on!) what the expected meaning should be, as the expected meaning is so dependent on context.
Another issue with the "expected meaning" rule is that it's unclear as to whether the meaning is expected among the natural possibilities or whether unexpected natural bids should be alerted. Here's a simple example: (1H), Pass, (1S), 2NT. Suppose the 2NT here is natural, should it be alerted? I think most bridge players would consider a natural meaning here to be highly unexpected, which implies (based on the way the laws are written) that it should be alerted. However, non-natural meanings obviously also have to be alerted (even if expected), and thus the end result of the alerting regulations in this case is that 2NT should be alerted regardless of the circumstance. Perhaps that's reasonable (to remind newer players that they should ask in this case), but I think a more reasonable result would be for a natural 2NT in this situation to be non-alertable despite being unexpected (with a change in the alerting regulations to allow for this).
"Here's a simple example: (1H), Pass, (1S), 2NT. Suppose the 2NT here is natural, should it be alerted?"
No. Given that the 2NT is natural, it doesn't now have a potentially unexpected meaning unless it is not showing a fairly good hand. Perhaps BB 4B1b needs to say "is natural but has a potentially unexpected natural meaning"? That had never occurred to me before!
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Hmm, I guess this can be interpreted in two ways:
The latter seems to fit closer to the wording of the rule to me, and is important for many alerts in practice. As an example, suppose the bidding goes 1S, (2C), 3C!, (Pass); 3S, where the alerted 3C shows a constructive hand with a spade fit but is not game forcing. I think almost everyone would consider 3S here to be showing a minimum. Suppose it's forcing instead (and some other bid is used to show a minimum); that's a purely natural meaning (assuming it doesn't show anything other than a maximum), but it's so unexpected that it should clearly be alertable.
Well it can't be natural and have a potentially unexpected meaning that is not natural!
The 'unexpectedness' in natural bids can only relate to their strength/forcing nature.
Natural weak (or non-forcing, at least) jump shifts as responder are alertable
The Blue Book used to say that 1NT (2M) 3m was alertable if it was forcing, because historically the 'expected' meaning was non-forcing. We removed that given that probably the majority of players think it's forcing.
It is pretty much impossible ex hypothesi to devise a perfect set of alerting rules. Ideally the rules need to be simple and easy to understand. Ideally also, things that might surprise opponents should be alertable, and things that are commonplace should not. That is a massive simplification, of course, but live with it, please.
The problem is that these two desirable things are always in conflict. The more you have specific rules that seek to cover particular things, the more complicated the rules become.
The EBU L&E Committee has done a lot of hard work over the years on alerting and related matters, and I for one think that we have what is probably the best set of alerting and announcing rules that we have ever had in my 40+ years playing bridge. It ain't perfect because it can't be, but it's fit for purpose and not too difficult to implement. And the L&EC's apparent mindset not to make too many changes is sensible, too.
Yes, defining by unexpectedness is not perfect, because different people will find different things unexpected, but with the aid of the examples in the Blue Book (which will doubtless be added to over the years if something comes to the L&EC's attention which seems sensible to add), it's workable.
If you're seeking a natural and unexpected meaning, you need look no further than 1NT - (pass) - 2C.
What about 3rd in hand potentially light openers, that of course meet the legal minimum of 8+ HCP?
If partnership agrees to play light in 3rd, I would expect that to be on their convention card, but would it need an alert also - "potentially light"?
With one partner, it's on the system card and I alert them due to the potentially unexpected meaning. I'm never sure, though, whether I'm drawing the opponents into overcalling without cause, since they can be full strength. I've recently suggested to said partner that we switch to playing Phantom Club in third seat, so everyone knows that they are not a full-power opener.
On the contrary, this treatment (1NT 3x nat GF slam try) is not at all unusual when used in conjunction with 4 suit transfers, as I do. Both in an aggressive 4CM weak NT lots of weak 2 bids system and as part of a 2 over 1 system.
Obviously Frances can speak for herself, but it wouldn't surprise me if she came up with this example precisely because she sees it at the bridge table. In fact out of idle curiosity I've just had a quick look at the system cards for the mixed team trials and the 2nd card I looked at (Penfold Senior) uses this natural traditional method.
I don't see why in general one should be surprised if a non-alerted jump response to partner turns out to be natural and forcing! By contrast oppo are far more likely to need to be warned if such a bid is NON forcing, as it is then that they may well want to compete, and the next hand to call might need to take action.
An experienced player would expect any 1NT-(P)-3m to be alerted, and would probably ask regardless.
An inexperienced player probably has no expectation as to whether 1NT-(P)-3m is (natural) forcing or non-forcing.
The consensus of the Laws & Ethics committee was that 1NT-(P)-3m was traditionally natural, forcing or game-forcing, and if it is non-forcing it should be alerted.
do inverted minors have to be alerted?
1m (P) 3m is a preemptive raise, so alerable according to Blue Book 4Hsomething
I have a system with 1 partner where 1suit - jump in a higher ranking suit (such as 1D - 2H) is essentially a weak 2 in hearts with the same continuation after that. So we alert.
However, 1suit - jump in a lower ranking suit (such as 1H - 3C) is 0-5 points and 6+ card suit and no tolerance for the openers suit. So we alert.
I am not convinced that the alert here is strong enough, particularly with the 0-5 point version. Would it be a breach to get the alert out and state as well, I would strongly recommend you asking or checking the card?
Alerting tells people they should ask. 1H-3C alerted might be a heart raise of various strengths, a weak jump-shift, a mini-splinter or a fit jump. Of course they should check!
I have just never come across anyone else that plays this kind of bid (though I dont generally play in congresses). So everyone assumes that it is some sort of forcing bid of some kind and are visibly shocked when partner passes.
With one partner I play that a 2C opener is either big or weak with both majors. Personally I don't think an alert is sufficient for this! Pre-alerts anyone?
Not in the EBU - an alert is adequate. The laws state that the RA is responsible for deciding which and how calls that may have a specific meaning can be drawn to the attention of the opponents.
In EBU events (other than no-fear/ beginners) I think it is assumed that everyone knows the Blue Book and should have methods to combat them. Of course one assumes you have pre-filled in CCs that you exchange at the start of each round. On the front page of EBU20b is the list for 2 Club. if you want to be super-ethical then adding in "2 Clubs could be weak or strong" would be a suggestion.
I am sure that many players try and work out unusual legal meanings for bids in the hope that opponents will be lazy and not ask what they mean. I see nothing wrong with that at all in congresses. It is up to the EBU to decide what arrangement(s) are allowed. In clubs, of course, such unusual conventions can be disallowed.
Oh, 3x over 1NT as a natural slam try is indeed a common meaning, but the Traditional Acol meaning, as a natural game force, is a bit different. For the game force, the likely replies are 3NT or a raise to game, whereas a slam try is more likely to see things like cue bids or key-card asks in response.
A Traditional Acol player would be quite surprised if after 1NT, 3H, they got a response of 4NT.