[FrancesHinden]

jallerton, on 2011-December-17, 11:25, said:

I disagree. OB 5G3h says one should not alert "An ostensibly natural new suit rebid that may on occasion only contain three cards". As I understand it, this covers situations like bidding (uncontested) 1♦-1♠-2♥ on say Axx AQx AK10xxx x ,which many players would bid playing with any partner, discussed or not.

On the other hand, if a pair agrees to play a forcing 1NT response, Opener is forced by the system to bid 2♣ on a 5323 or a 5233 shape. These represent a singificant proportion of 2♣ rebids in this sequence. I play this system with one partner. My opponents might reasonably expect an unalerted 2♣ bid to show 4+ clubs in this sequence, and I therefore alert 2♣ when it comes up.

I think this sequence depends a bit on the opponents. If I don't know them, or I know that they aren't used to forcing 1NT, I would always alert 2C because the 3-card suit would come as a surprise. Against people who are used to the forcing 1NT, I wouldn't alert it because they know that fits completely in with "ostensibly natural that may on occasion only contain three cards". I would alert, of course, if I always rebid 2C without a side 4-card suit so it can be 5332.

[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-December-17, 12:21, said:

I think this sequence depends a bit on the opponents. If I don't know them, or I know that they aren't used to forcing 1NT, I would always alert 2C because the 3-card suit would come as a surprise. Against people who are used to the forcing 1NT, I wouldn't alert it because they know that fits completely in with "ostensibly natural that may on occasion only contain three cards". I would alert, of course, if I always rebid 2C without a side 4-card suit so it can be 5332.

I think that this approach is wrong. An opponent may be familiar with the forcing 1NT, but may think that 1NT was alerted because, for example, it shows 4 or 5 spades. If Forcing 1NT were announceable, this would be different; but because it is alerted, I think that it is too much to ask that an opponent be aware that you happen to be playing Forcing 1NT on this occasion.

[aguahombre]

jallerton, on 2011-December-17, 11:25, said:

On the other hand, if a pair agrees to play a forcing 1NT response, Opener is forced by the system to bid 2♣ on a 5323 or a 5233 shape. These represent a singificant proportion of 2♣ rebids in this sequence. I play this system with one partner. My opponents might reasonably expect an unalerted 2♣ bid to show 4+ clubs in this sequence, and I therefore alert 2♣ when it comes up.

ACBL players might have a lot of problems with this, if they popped in to a session in the EBU.

ACBL procedures explicitly state 3+ minor and 4+ major are the expected lengths for openings, responses, and rebids.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-17, 23:21, said:

ACBL players might have a lot of problems with this, if they popped in to a session in the EBU.

ACBL procedures explicitly state 3+ minor and 4+ major are the expected lengths for openings, responses, and rebids.

I don't understand this post. I didn't see any indication that the OP was an ACBL member who is wondering about the regulations in case he should come and play in the EBU.

Why are the ACBL regulations relevant?

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-18, 14:44, said:

I don't understand this post. I didn't see any indication that the OP was an ACBL member who is wondering about the regulations in case he should come and play in the EBU.

Why are the ACBL regulations relevant?

It was an observation of a significant difference in the regs. It would be relevant if we crossed the pond and played; I didn't say it was relevant to the OP. And it depends on Jallerton being correct with his post ---to which I was responding.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-18, 18:52, said:

It was an observation of a significant difference in the regs. It would be relevant if we crossed the pond and played; I didn't say it was relevant to the OP. And it depends on Jallerton being correct with his post ---to which I was responding.

There are quite a few differences in the alert regulations in the EBU and the ACBL. Players from the latter planning to play in the former would do well to research the regulations before playing.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-19, 00:12, said:

There are quite a few differences in the alert regulations in the EBU and the ACBL. Players from the latter planning to play in the former would do well to research the regulations before playing.

As the manager of a club that has quite a lot of American visitors, probably more than any other, in practice it doesn't seem to cause many difficulties. Two minutes of explanation before the game, and a bit of goodwill on both sides during it, suffices.

[barmar]

I'd hope that opponents become sympathetic and helpful when they notice the different accent.

[blackshoe]

What different accent?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-19, 09:47, said:

What different accent?

I think he means the fact that we don't have one.

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-17, 16:40, said:

I think that this approach is wrong. An opponent may be familiar with the forcing 1NT, but may think that 1NT was alerted because, for example, it shows 4 or 5 spades. If Forcing 1NT were announceable, this would be different; but because it is alerted, I think that it is too much to ask that an opponent be aware that you happen to be playing Forcing 1NT on this occasion.

Should I ever play against someone who neither finds out what our methods are before we start, nor asks about the alert of 1NT, I'll remember that.
I've not yet played anyone who has not asked why 1NT was alerted.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2011-December-19, 02:33, said:

As the manager of a club that has quite a lot of American visitors, probably more than any other, in practice it doesn't seem to cause many difficulties. Two minutes of explanation before the game, and a bit of goodwill on both sides during it, suffices.

That is good to know. Now perhaps aquahombre can relax.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-19, 11:45, said:

That is good to know. Now perhaps aquahombre can relax.

Perhaps one of us could. But, your needless pot shots are merely amusing.

[Zelandakh]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-December-13, 10:57, said:

I'm puzzled at why a possible 3 card minor should catch anyone out. Would their bidding agreements change? Would they defend differently? Are just whining for the sake of it?

Their bidding agreements might indeed change. For example they might play that 1C - 2C is majors over an Acol 1C opening but natural if 3+ (with 1C - 2D for majors). Similarly one tends to be more likely to lead a club after, say, 1C - 1S; 1NT - 2D!; 2H - 3NT if the opening could be short.

Sometimes people do whine for the sake of it - it is wrong to assume that because someone has a complaint that it has no good reason however. Andy's suggestion of simply letting the opps know you are playing 5 card majors, 2/1 at the start of the round is simple and effective. The same is true if you are playing Acol in a predominantly 5 card major club.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Their bidding agreements might indeed change. For example they might play that 1C - 2C is majors over an Acol 1C opening but natural if 3+ (with 1C - 2D for majors).

Possible, of course but the most popular defences I've seen are

a. ignore it (95%)
b. Defend differently if it is 2+. (5%

That fits well with EBU alert rules which are alert if it could be 2 or fewer else not.
If, however I differentiated according to whether it was 3- or 4+ then I would make damn sure I asked at the start of the round.
I agree, however, that making a brief statement about methods before the round starts is a good idea. Most opponents then respond in kind. Very occasionally you sit down, say hello, say you are playing 5 card majors, short club and Strong NT and are met with silence. You venture to enquire and it is surprising how often what they play is not at all mainstream.

[bluejak]

One of the problems is knowing how much to say. If we say too much their eyes glaze over, too little and you worry about giving the wrong impression.

In case you are wondering, a fairly full description of the basic methods might be "Acol based, mini no-trump 1st/2nd not vul, strong in third, weak otherwise: a Multi 2♣, a mini-Multi 2♦, Lucas Twos and 2NT is weak with the minors". Half the time that statement gets a very poor reaction. I once tried "Variable no-trump, Acol with funny Twos" and that particular pair of opponents felt I had described the methods excellently!

[gordontd]

"Funny two-bids" is a phrase I hear quite often, and seems quite appropriate in that it invites further questions or examination of the system card.

[Statto]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-December-17, 12:21, said:

I think this sequence depends a bit on the opponents. If I don't know them, or I know that they aren't used to forcing 1NT, I would always alert 2C because the 3-card suit would come as a surprise. Against people who are used to the forcing 1NT, I wouldn't alert it because they know that fits completely in with "ostensibly natural that may on occasion only contain three cards". I would alert, of course, if I always rebid 2C without a side 4-card suit so it can be 5332.

Surely you should alert according to the regulations, whatever you think of them, not your opponents (whatever you think of them). I've never heard of a 3+ card suit being alertable; there are plenty of possibilities in old-fashioned systems where it might be a utility bid, e.g. DGR. In any case, in 2/1 if 1♥-1NT;2♣ could be a 2 card suit it should be alerted. Otherwise not (opps got the alert from 1NT, yes?). And to hell with announcements

[gnasher]

Statto, on 2012-January-31, 02:39, said:

Surely you should alert according to the regulations, whatever you think of them, not your opponents (whatever you think of them).

That depends upon your objective.

You should certainly alert everything that the rules require you to alert. If your objective is only to play within the rules, that's sufficient. If, on the other hand, your objective is to have a good game of bridge, which is primarily a test of skill rather than of knowledge of the alerting rules, you may choose to go beyond that.

In a grey area like this, it seems reasonable to interpret the rules one way when playing against people who don't need an alert, and another when playing against people who do. That seems to meet both objectives.

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2012-January-31, 03:46, said:

In a grey area like this, it seems reasonable to interpret the rules one way when playing against people who don't need an alert, and another when playing against people who do. That seems to meet both objectives.

The (EBU) regulations talk about "potentially unexpected meaning". What is "potentially unexpected" for some opponents is just not unexpected for other opponents. So I agree that it is appropriate to vary your alerting depending on the opponents.