[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-August-09, 13:08, said:

Unbelievable. When my partner opens 1D which by agreement shows 16-21 HCP, you think I shouldn't alert.

Is this 1♦ opening forcing?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-09, 13:12, said:

Is this 1♦ opening forcing?

no, and that isn't our agreement. I am just pointing out the ridiculous logic of the position.

[blackshoe]

I suspect you will get different opinions from different people on whether this bid requires an alert. What's ridiculous is not the logic of the position (and btw, I would caution you, or any poster, against attributing to others thoughts they may not be thinking) but the ambiguity of the regulations, or perhaps the apparent conflict between the Alert Chart and the Alert Procedure.

[barmar]

Yeah, I don't think the alert procedure really describes what the ACBL intended. I feel certain that they would like opening bids with a lower limit more than a king higher than "standard" to be alerted, but they're less concerned about upper limits. Probably a more accurate way for the regulation to be written would be something like "Natural non-forcing openings with a lower limit between 10 and 13 HCP, and an upper limit between 15 and 21+." They might also want to include something about a minimum allowed range -- a 13-15 1♦ would be pretty unexpected and probably should be alerted.

Someone mentioned that Precision pairs should pre-alert this to the opponents at the beginning of the round. First of all, I don't think this falls under the required pre-alerts, although many strong club players do it as a courtesy. Second, inexperienced opponents may not be familiar with the implications.

Another case where there seems to be confusion about whether an alert is required is the Precision auction 1M-4M. For standard players, this is usually a weak raise with 5-card support. But Precision players will bid it with either a weak hand or a hand that's strong enough for game but not strong enough to explore for slam opposite the limited opener. Some Precision players alert this, because of the split range possibility. It's not clear whether this is required or not -- it could fall under the "strong bid that sounds weak" requirement, except that it's not necessarily strong, it just might be strong. Or it could fall under the "unexpected point range" requirement.

[blackshoe]

If I were playing Precision, which I haven't in some time, I would not alert the limited openings. I would alert 1M-4M, because someone not familiar with the system might compete after the 4M, thinking the bid is weak, and then be shocked to discover that the points he thought were in his partner's hand are actually in RHO's. I agree though that it's not clear.

[ddrankin]

barmar, on 2013-August-10, 01:06, said:

Another case where there seems to be confusion about whether an alert is required is the Precision auction 1M-4M. For standard players, this is usually a weak raise with 5-card support. But Precision players will bid it with either a weak hand or a hand that's strong enough for game but not strong enough to explore for slam opposite the limited opener. Some Precision players alert this, because of the split range possibility. It's not clear whether this is required or not -- it could fall under the "strong bid that sounds weak" requirement, except that it's not necessarily strong, it just might be strong. Or it could fall under the "unexpected point range" requirement.

I agree that this is not clear from the alert chart but a careful reading of the alert procedures lists this example:

"EXAMPLE: 1H-P-4H when playing a forcing club where the 4H call may have, by agreement, values for game but not slam."

Nobody says the ACBL makes it easy to understand the regs.

[blackshoe]

Okay, so it is clear.

[chasetb]

Playing a lot of Precision, I always announce 1♦ "may be as short as 2" (I don't have any partners who play it as 0+ or 1+), and I alert 1M-4M. When asked, I explain "To play, no slam interest, could have up to 12-13 HCP". Personally, I don't think the limited nature of 1♦/1♥/1♠ should be alerted - it's a very similar case to opening 1M on 4+ (not canape of course, that is alertable).

[barmar]

chasetb, on 2013-August-10, 20:49, said:

it's a very similar case to opening 1M on 4+ (not canape of course, that is alertable).

4-card major players (non-canape) are extremely rare in the ACBL these days. I'm really surprised they haven't made it alertable, I guess old traditions are hard to eradicate.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Alert Procedure: "Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

It is certainly true that 4 cards majors were common historically.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-10, 21:37, said:

It is certainly true that 4 cards majors were common historically.

Does anyone actually understand that sentence in the ACBL Alert Procedure?

[blackshoe]

Probably not.

[mr1303]

On a matter of semantics, the precision 1D has an potential minor suit canape, which to my understanding makes it alertable under the new EBU laws rather than announceable.

(I know the OP mentioned ACBL).

Is this correct?

[blackshoe]

You seem to be. BB 4H2( b ).

[RMB1]

mr1303, on 2013-August-11, 13:39, said:

On a matter of semantics, the precision 1D has an potential minor suit canape, which to my understanding makes it alertable under the new EBU laws rather than announceable.

The intention is that non-forcing 1m opening is announced. EBU BB 4D1

Any "could be 2" opening will be potential canape: if it is 2 cards there will be a longer suit!

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2013-August-11, 15:17, said:

Any "could be 2" opening will be potential canape: if it is 2 cards there will be a longer suit!

A point that I missed in making my earlier post. Thanks, Robin.

[barmar]

And any 3-card minor is also a potential canape, but you're also not required to alert or announce them.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2013-August-12, 23:02, said:

And any 3-card minor is also a potential canape, but you're also not required to alert or announce them.

Good point! But now I am confused, having thought previously that I understood what I needed to do....

I play a Precision-style 1♦ in EBU-land, but it shows 3+ ♦. We have been alerting this bid (I'm pretty sure on the advice of an EBU TD) not because of the potentially short ♦, but specifically because it might have a longer ♣ suit. (We have also been advised that we should then alert a 2♣ rebid because it might NOT be longer than the ♦ suit.) My expectation was that we would continue to alert for the same reason. But as you point out any 3-card suit must have a longer suit somewhere in the hand, and we are not expected to alert all potentially 3-card "natural" bids.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-08, 16:50, said:

Today, my partner opened 2♥ (standard weak 2). RHO bid 2♠. LHO alerted. I asked. "Um, Fishbein?" The interrogative was pretty clearly "is that enough info?" rather than "I'm not sure". I said "and so?". She said "takeout". I passed, she passed, partner started asking questions (he never heard of Fishbein). She said "takeout" about three times. I finally leaned over to her and whispered "tell him it's like a takeout double of hearts". Nope. "It's takeout". Sheesh.

Technically, is takeout not also a convention name? By rights, should they not have said something like "11+ points, 3+ spades, 3+ diamonds, 3+ clubs." Even CHO should understand that. And if someone kept saying "takeout" and refused to say "takeout of hearts", I might start wondering precisely which suit it was takeout of! After all, if I open 2♠ and partner describes this as "takeout", what would you take that to mean?

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2013-August-13, 07:53, said:

Technically, is takeout not also a convention name?

Not really. It just means "Asks partner to bid his long suit". A takeout bid doesn't show specific hand types, although common hand types can be inferred.