[aguahombre]

In any jurisdiction, shouldn't the practical answer be that the possibility of partner having a singleton be (actively) alerted/announced only if "systemically" your responses and rebids allow for it? Of course your experience with partner opening 1NT holding a stiff would still be disclosable if the opps ask.

[paulg]

 Vampyr, on 2012-September-01, 09:23, said:

I think that not being surprised is sufficiently "systemic" to require an announcement.

I agree.

But I'd also not be surprised if playing with at least half the field at a regular tournament, even if it were a first-time partnership with no agreements.

[gnasher]

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-01, 09:24, said:

In any jurisdiction, shouldn't the practical answer be that the possibility of partner having a singleton be (actively) alerted/announced only if "systemically" your responses and rebids allow for it?

No. What the opponents need, and are entitled, to know is whether it's possible, and if so on what hands. They are unlikely to care whether the opening side's methods cater for it - mainly they need to know when they are defending or declaring.

In one partnership we used to play that all 4441 shapes in range would open 1NT, but our methods didn't cater for the possibility at all. In the same partnership we do now cater for this possibility in some sequences. The set of hands on which we open 1NT hasn't changed, so why should there be any change to the way we disclose them?

[Lurpoa]

 aguahombre, on 2012-August-30, 12:12, said:

However, Simon seems to be a pretty smart guy. He wants to know what HE should do under EBU auspice.

Half the players at our ACBL club games have no idea what a T/O double should look like. Their partners rarely compete or advance at the proper level unless they have a nice long suit. Random noise doubles are still considered abnormal in ACBL, and they don't do any better with the terms "takeout", etc. over here either. That doesn't mean someone who knows his partner's bids don't represent what he would be expected to hold (and adjusts his own bids accordingly) shouldn't disclose.

NO, no, they all know.........
but not the same as you.

[f0rdy]

 paulg, on 2012-September-01, 10:28, said:

I agree.

But I'd also not be surprised if playing with at least half the field at a regular tournament, even if it were a first-time partnership with no agreements.

I had always assumed that the minimum for announcing "may contain a singleton" NT openings was if you agree to open 1NT on one particular unbalanced hand shape (eg 4414), or a reasonable proportion of one hand type (eg 3451 without strong diamonds).

I have no careful reading of the orange book to back this up, but this seems like it would be the most useful point at which to set the cutoff.

[mycroft]

 Vampyr, on 2012-August-31, 18:32, said:

This one is a little unfair. How many years was this the case, and how many years has it not been the case? Not every player has read the new Lawbook.

Well, I still remember when revokes were two tricks no matter what...

Yes, maybe that's a little unfair (but how many revokes have occurred at your table in the last 4 years? As opposed to, say, "everyone is responsible for dummy" issues? Surely, this change has been triggered at least once by now), but when it's *directors*, or *players saying it as opposed to calling the TD*, that's when folk wisdom falls down - and I don't care how recently it's changed.

Oh, another one - "you don't have to/why should we have to announce 15-17 NTs". That one's been *20* years (at least in the ACBL), and the reasons are *to protect the NT opening side*, for Kaplan's sake :-).

[bluejak]

 SimonFa, on 2012-August-29, 14:55, said:

It's got to the point where I think I should be alerting. However I am worried that ops will see this as a penalty and are equally likely to misread pertner's bid. Leaving it until the end of the auction to clarify may also mislead ops.

I do not think you should worry about opponents assuming alert = penalties. While it is true that some people do believe that you should be doing the right thing, whether that is alerting or not, and not worrying if they are misled by failing to understand the rules.

 paulg, on 2012-August-29, 16:13, said:

Pretty common amongst stronger players too. In fact, who doesn't do this?

I don't. Of course, it is not up to me to decide whether I qualify as a "stronger" player or not.

 aguahombre, on 2012-August-30, 02:10, said:

And you should be concerned. You have knowledge that partner won't have those hand types with the frequency the opps would expect; and your own advancing actions will be affected by that knowledge. They deserve to be alerted to that information.

The number of times I have seen this argument on RGB! There was a player in our area who used to alert any call if he knew something about it the opponents might not. This meant he alerted 75% of bids and made alerting meaningless. It was with the best of intentions.

You alert if your TO tells you to alert. What is being asked here is whether the EBU has said this is alertable. You do not alert because you think opponents deserve to be alerted because your views are different to the next person along.

[aguahombre]

Yes, I wasn't aware that EBU had figured specifically everything to be alerted and drew the line of "if we say it is, it is..otherwise it isn't". Some jurisdictions mention the alertability of calls which would otherwise not require an alert but which have unexpected extra meanings.

Of course this is subject to the views of the person choosing to alert as to whether the call has "highly" unexpected nuances, and I don't recall ever being taken to task for excessive alerting. People have been subject to negative rulings if the opponents and/or TD views an action as highly unexpected.

Given that knowledge, which would we prefer to do? Keep em in the dark, or enlighten them? We would also prefer the same courtesy to be extended by opponents who are aware of the variance of their methods from the expected.

[barmar]

Yes, full disclosure is correct, but you need to be reasonable about it.

These days, most experienced players open aggressively -- some will open all 12 counts, and most 11 counts. Suppose you have an old fashioned partner who insists on sound openers -- he never learned to count to "rule of 20". Would you really alert all his 1-level openers, to inform the opponents that 13 HCP is very likely?

I think this is the kind of thing that David was alluding to when he said such a policy would require alerting 75% of bids.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-September-07, 11:00, said:

Yes, full disclosure is correct, but you need to be reasonable about it.

These days, most experienced players open aggressively -- some will open all 12 counts, and most 11 counts. Suppose you have an old fashioned partner who insists on sound openers -- he never learned to count to "rule of 20". Would you really alert all his 1-level openers, to inform the opponents that 13 HCP is very likely?

I think this is the kind of thing that David was alluding to when he said such a policy would require alerting 75% of bids.

Yes, he probably was. Extending the concept of full disclosure to a situation not under discussion for the purpose of making it sound ridiculous seems ridiculous in and of itself, to me.

[SimonFa]

Thanks everyone, some stimulating reading.

I have decided to alert and the first time I did one of the better players was most appreciative.

Regards,

Simon

[Bbradley62]

 barmar, on 2012-September-07, 11:00, said:

Suppose you have an old fashioned partner who insists on sound openers -- he never learned to count to "rule of 20". Would you really alert all his 1-level openers, to inform the opponents that 13 HCP is very likely?

No, but I might put it in the "General Approach" section of my convention card, where it is front and center. (This is also where "very light openings" would be marked.)

[blackshoe]

I suppose there's (barely) enough room for it.