[jillybean]

ACBL land

We play a system where (1M) 2M shows the other major and diamonds.
Today we had an auction (1♠) 2♠ (P) 3♦ AP

Before the opening lead I wrongly announced that there had been a failure to alert 2♠.
The opponents asked about the 2♠ bid and were told "Hearts and Diamonds" then asked about 3♦ and
I said "natural", they then called the director.

The director told our opponents that 2♠ was a cue bid and therefore only alertable if natural.

One opponent then said 3♦ should be alerted, the director said no and the hand was played in 3♦.

When asked about the 3♦ bid I should probably say it is a preference rather than "natural", should our
responses here be alerted?

[aguahombre]

No.

[Bbradley62]

jillybean, on 2012-October-15, 20:09, said:

The director told our opponents that 2♠ was a cue bid and therefore only alertable if natural.

This answer was not exactly right.

web2.acbl.org/Alert/alertpamp.htm said:

4) CUEBIDS

Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert.

EXAMPLE: 1♠-2♥-Pass-2♠

If the 2♠ bid is a heart raise with values or some constructive hand, no Alert is required. If the 2♠ bid is a transfer to clubs, an Alert is required.

EXAMPLE: 1♦-2♦
If the 2♦ bid shows the majors (Michaels), clubs and spades (top/bottom) or some other two-suiter (not including diamonds) no Alert is required.

So, although your cuebid does not require an alert "only alertable if natural" is incomplete.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL, in its wisdom, has decreed that "most" cuebids do not require an alert, without providing much guidance at all as to which ones do. Interestingly, the Alert Chart refers us to the section of the Alert Procedure labelled "alertable cuebids". Why is this interesting? Well, because there is no such section. I see two possible conclusions from this fact: either some idiot at ACBL HQ forgot to put it in there, or there are no alertable cuebids (save the one example in the procedure which is of a cuebid which is a transfer, and direct cuebids of natural bids which are natural, which is mentioned in the Alert Chart but not the Procedure).

My first thought on whether 3♦ in your auction requires an alert was "maybe", because the advancer knows there's a diamond fit, but the ACBL seems to take a very liberal approach to what is "highly unusual or unexpected". At a sectional last weekend, I questioned a raise to 4M in an uncontested auction, because my opponents were playing 2/1 (marked on their card) and the raise, they said after the auction was over, guaranteed an opening hand (that was not marked on their card). I've been playing bridge, off and on, since 1965, and I did not expect this. Had they been playing Precision I would have understood the possibility, yes, but not in 2/1. But "no," says the director, "this was quite common thirty years ago" (a time at which I was not playing bridge, so I have no way of knowing if he's right). So I guess I'm going with "if the alert procedure does not explicitly require an alert, no alert is required".

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-15, 23:03, said:

My first thought on whether 3♦ in your auction requires an alert was "maybe", because the advancer knows there's a diamond fit, but the ACBL seems to take a very liberal approach to what is "highly unusual or unexpected".

Please explain this liberal approach... how ---when partner has shown two suits via an alertable or non-alertable call---my selection of one of those suits could remotely be considered highly unusual or unexpected.

Advance of unusual NT by choosing one of the suits at some level.
Advance of Michaels by choosing one of the shown majors.
Advance of takeout double, negative double, or responsive double by choosing a suit partner has shown.

[blackshoe]

(1♠)-2♠-(P)-3♦

95% of the time (more like 99% around here) 2♠ will be a Michaels cuebid, showing hearts and an unspecified minor. 3♦ then says something like "if your minor is diamonds I want to play here; if it's clubs I can support at the four level". If, OTOH, 2♥ shows hearts and diamonds, 3♦ has a totally different meaning. Or so it seems to me. And a player from around here would not expect the latter meaning. Yet the disclosure requirements are identical in both auctions.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-16, 00:49, said:

(1♠)-2♠-(P)-3♦

95% of the time (more like 99% around here) 2♠ will be a Michaels cuebid, showing hearts and an unspecified minor. 3♦ then says something like "if your minor is diamonds I want to play here; if it's clubs I can support at the four level". If, OTOH, 2♥ shows hearts and diamonds, 3♦ has a totally different meaning. Or so it seems to me. And a player from around here would not expect the latter meaning. Yet the disclosure requirements are identical in both auctions.

Actually, no. Disclosure of "pass or Correct" is required. 3D in your Michaels example ---if "p/c" --- is alertable. I don't pretend to know what your "folks around here" expect. But the disclosure requirements are not the same for picking one of two known suits as they are for pass/correct.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-16, 00:49, said:

(1♠)-2♠-(P)-3♦

95% of the time (more like 99% around here) 2♠ will be a Michaels cuebid, showing hearts and an unspecified minor. 3♦ then says something like "if your minor is diamonds I want to play here; if it's clubs I can support at the four level".

This is certainly not the only way of playing a 3♦ advance of a Michaels cue bid. I suspect for most intermediate players this wuld simply be a natural call without any support for hearts of clubs, while I personally prefer to play it as a good heart raise. I am sure that in most jurisdictions the former (as well as the OP situation) would not be alertable while the latter (and your pass/correct advance) would be.

[bluejak]

Amongst lesser players, 3♦ is natural, ie shows diamonds, because they always bid 2NT to ask for partner's minor. A natural 3♦ is not alertable, but 2NT is alertable since it is artificial, though I doubt that many players in the ACBL bother, unlike the UK where they are used to alerting artificial bids, and whether alerted or not, damage would be very rare.

Amongst better players, 3♦ would often be pass or correct, which is clearly not a natural bid, and thus alertable. Failure to alert this is quite likely to cause damage, since it is likely to be taken as natural, for one of two reasons:

• The opponents are likely to play it as natural themselves - see before - so will not think to ask.
  
• Since various meanings for the cue are not alertable, there is no reason to suppose 3♦ is not natural without knowing what 2♠ is.

[aguahombre]

If only people could make their point about such things as disclosure without categorizing the quality of a player by the methods he/she uses.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-16, 02:02, said:

Actually, no. Disclosure of "pass or Correct" is required. 3D in your Michaels example ---if "p/c" --- is alertable. I don't pretend to know what your "folks around here" expect. But the disclosure requirements are not the same for picking one of two known suits as they are for pass/correct.

Where in the regulation does it say that 3♦ requires an alert if it's pass or correct?

If the opponents are unaware that the cuebid shows two known suits (because it doesn't require an alert) how are they to know that 3♦ picks a known suit? Because it's not alerted? I wonder how many around here (I'm not really too concerned about what people who play elsewhere do) would realize that.

[aguahombre]

Interesting extension, but I don't buy it. The cuebid is not alertable, because the regs say so. Nevertheless, the opponents know it means something conventional or it would have been alerted. Now, we should alert a simple preference if the opponents don't ask? Certainly it would be silly to alert a simple preference if they did ask.

(Cue): "What is it?" "Shows hearts and diamonds".
3D: "Alert." "What is it?" "Desire to play in diamonds." "Duh."

[aguahombre]

As for the alertability of P/C bids, you would be hard pressed to argue that the wide-spread practice of alerting them is not required.

P/C bids are not simple preferences. They often would much prefer to play in the suit not bid. 2D (Multi)-2S...implies decent support for hearts, and not much about spades ---Alert.

In your 3D p/c case over Michaels, if it is p/c, it shows willingness to play at a higher level in clubs, and not much about diamonds other than a dislike of hearts. Alert

Of course, we lesser players in the opinion of Bluejack might be using 2NT to inquire on the minor and 3m to suggest a long suit of our own.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-October-16, 10:29

[ArtK78]

When the ACBL changed the alerting of conventional cuebids to no alert, the rationale was that the cue bid is "self-alerting," that is, when a cue bid is made the opps know that it is not a natural call, and they can ask what it means.

In this case, rather than a classic Michaels cue-bid showing hearts and an unknown minor, the cue bid showed the red suits. The opponents can always inquire to find out.

The 3♦ response in this context is a choice between the two suits shown by the cue bidder. This is not alertable. The fact that the opps don't know that it is a choice between the two known suits if they don't ask the meaning of the cue bid is their problem. They have already been "alerted" that the cue bid is conventional by the non-alert^*. The 3♦ call, in this context, is neither conventional nor does it have an unexpected meaning. Therefore, the 3♦ call is not alertable.

^* Please don't ask me to elaborate on this. It is giving me a headache just thinking about it.

[WellSpyder]

I'm with aguahombre on this one. If 3D shows a preference between two suits which the oppo happen not to know the identity of because they haven't asked, then it is fundamentally natural and there is no reason to alert. If it is a pass or convert bid, then it is not fundamentally natural, and I would expect it to be alertable (I would certainly alert such a bid myself in England).

[jeffford76]

As many have mentioned, the cue bid is not an alertable bid. This is a rare occasion on which I would ignore the regulation and alert anyway. I don't think in this case any problem is caused, and it allows the method to stand on its own merits, not opponent confusion.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-16, 09:56, said:

If the opponents are unaware that the cuebid shows two known suits (because it doesn't require an alert) how are they to know that 3♦ picks a known suit? Because it's not alerted? I wonder how many around here (I'm not really too concerned about what people who play elsewhere do) would realize that.

Are you suggesting that the alertability of the 3♦ bid should depend on whether the opponents asked for an explanation of the cuebid?

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-16, 08:26, said:

If only people could make their point about such things as disclosure without categorizing the quality of a player by the methods he/she uses.

Why? When it is is relevant, it is relevant, and it is a fact that less experienced players play certain things, which more experienced players are less likely to. When this affects disclosure it is correct to use it in the argument. Suggesting it should not be used when it is relevant seems pretty pointless.

blackshoe, on 2012-October-16, 09:56, said:

Where in the regulation does it say that 3♦ requires an alert if it's pass or correct?

Without looking it up, I believe the ACBL alert regs start off by saying something like most natural bids are not alertable, most conventional ones are. It them lists a lot of places where this is not so.

Pass/correct bids are conventional, and thus require an alert under ACBL regs, since they are not listed as an exception.

blackshoe, on 2012-October-16, 09:56, said:

If the opponents are unaware that the cuebid shows two known suits (because it doesn't require an alert) how are they to know that 3♦ picks a known suit? Because it's not alerted? I wonder how many around here (I'm not really too concerned about what people who play elsewhere do) would realize that.

Natural bids - I would like to play here, partner, please - are not alertable, since they are not listed as an exception.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2012-October-16, 15:33, said:

Are you suggesting that the alertability of the 3♦ bid should depend on whether the opponents asked for an explanation of the cuebid?

No, I'm suggesting (or at least I intended to suggest) exactly the opposite. It seems to me clear that if the opponents know that partner has shown two suits then they will also expect a "natural" bid of one of those two suits to be simply expressing a preference - so there is no need to alert it. I think it follows that the same reasoning applies when partner has shown two specific suits, whether or not the oppo happen to have asked what he has shown.

[barmar]

WellSpyder, on 2012-October-17, 01:37, said:

No, I'm suggesting (or at least I intended to suggest) exactly the opposite. It seems to me clear that if the opponents know that partner has shown two suits then they will also expect a "natural" bid of one of those two suits to be simply expressing a preference - so there is no need to alert it. I think it follows that the same reasoning applies when partner has shown two specific suits, whether or not the oppo happen to have asked what he has shown.

But how would the opponent know that partner has shown two suits in this auction, unless they asked about the cue bid or looked at the CC?