[phoenixmj]

My partner and I play Flannery.

So, under the new acbl alert rules - If I open 1H and partner says 1N -do I need to alert - or announce - that he could have 4 spades?

Also, if I open 1h and partner says 1S, do I need to alert/announce that I know he has at least 5 spades?

Thanks

[Stephen Tu]

phoenixmj, on 2025-May-01, 18:09, said:

My partner and I play Flannery.

So, under the new acbl alert rules - If I open 1H and partner says 1N -do I need to alert - or announce - that he could have 4 spades?

Also, if I open 1h and partner says 1S, do I need to alert/announce that I know he has at least 5 spades?

Currently you need to announce that 1h-1nt could have 4 spades. 1h-1s showing 5 is apparently not an alert.

[phoenixmj]

Stephen Tu, on 2025-May-01, 18:56, said:

Currently you need to announce that 1h-1nt could have 4 spades. 1h-1s showing 5 is apparently not an alert.

Is that true even if our agreement is that he will have 5 spades?

[Stephen Tu]

It's a natural bid, and most natural bids under current rules are not alertable, except for a select few specified sequences that are unexpectedly non-forcing or forcing. Your opps need to ask or look at your convention card if it matters to them.

[mikeh]

phoenixmj, on 2025-May-01, 18:09, said:

My partner and I play Flannery.

So, under the new acbl alert rules - If I open 1H and partner says 1N -do I need to alert - or announce - that he could have 4 spades?

Also, if I open 1h and partner says 1S, do I need to alert/announce that I know he has at least 5 spades?

Thanks

I’ve often wondered how this inversion, of 1S and 1N, works out. Back when I played Flannery….many years ago but I played it for a long time…we didn’t use the inversion. My understanding is that Flannery shows a minimum range opening hand, classically 11-15. So how do you handle a 4=5 major suit hand with 16-17 hcp, not strong enough to ‘reverse’ over 1N (maybe some 17 counts could reverse but surely not all of them) so if responder has less than gf values and 4 spades, I have no idea how one finds the spade fit. Obviously that’s a low frequency parley and maybe that’s the answer….’we think we gain enough on the other hands that we ‘ll accept the occasional missed game or poor partscore). Every bidding system has hands it can’t handle well, maybe this is just one of those….move along, folks, nothing to see here.

[mycroft]

I don't play Flannery. There are reasons, but this isn't one of them.

But the answer is simple. The people who play it 11-15 (and will always bypass 4 spades to bid F1NT) think 16 *is* strong enough to reverse. The people who downgrade 4522 16s into 2♦ (or any 16s) do it so that when they do bid 2♠ after 1♥-1NT, it's strong enough for *them* to reverse.

Might not be strong enough for you (or I) to reverse, but it is both majors and 9 cards.

Of course, I do (in one partnership) play 1♦-2♥ as 54xx 6-10 or so, so what do I know?

[TMorris]

A lot of the time I read about ACBL alerting rules I get the impression the idea is to hide as much as possible what is going on. Who does this benefit I wonder.

[awm]

It’s surprisingly difficult to write a good set of alerting rules. Here in Switzerland they have decided that game forcing 2/1 bids are alertable, so lots of people are alerting the 2♣ response to 1M, and you have no idea if it’s just GF or something more exotic. In serious events you really should exchange CCs before the round; this is something the US is atrocious about.

It seems reasonable to me that a 1♠ response to 1♥ that shows length in spades and is forcing ought not to be alertsble though.

[DavidKok]

awm, on 2025-May-03, 04:48, said:

It seems reasonable to me that a 1♠ response to 1♥ that shows length in spades and is forcing ought not to be alertsble though.

Here the rule is to alert when you think the opponents might expect something else if you did not, along with a list of explanations and mandatory alerts. In my canapé system 1♦-1M shows at least five (and is forcing, unlimited, and shows at least 5 HCP or so) and we alert to clarify that it's not a 4 card suit. While this style of alerting has its own problems I think this is good disclosure.

[jillybean]

awm, on 2025-May-03, 04:48, said:

It’s surprisingly difficult to write a good set of alerting rules. Here in Switzerland they have decided that game forcing 2/1 bids are alertable, so lots of people are alerting the 2♣ response to 1M, and you have no idea if it’s just GF or something more exotic. In serious events you really should exchange CCs before the round; this is something the US is atrocious about.

It seems reasonable to me that a 1♠ response to 1♥ that shows length in spades and is forcing ought not to be alertsble though.

2♣/1M 'could be short' needs an alert
If you play it as natural, gf why would you alert?

[awm]

jillybean, on 2025-May-03, 13:46, said:

2♣/1M 'could be short' needs an alert
If you play it as natural, gf why would you alert?

Because those are the rules. A lot of these rules revolve around what is considered "normal" or "expected" or "natural." In ACBL, all of the following natural bids are alertable:

1NT-2♣ to play
2♣ opening natural non-forcing
2♠ opening natural and strong

Whereas for example 2NT for minors is not alertable as an overcall (despite being highly artificial) and is alertable as an opening (despite meaning the same thing as the overcall) and 1NT for the unbid suits is alertable unless you're a passed hand in which case it's not. And 1♣-2♣ is not alertable if it shows majors (which everyone plays) and also not alertable if it shows spades and diamonds (which very few people play) but it is alertable if it shows clubs (even though this is moderately popular), and for a long time it was quite mysterious whether it was alertable if the 1♣ "could be short" and it showed clubs.

It's just that when you play something that might be unfamiliar to people, local regulators tend to require an alert (unless you're in England, where basically artificial bids are always alertable even if "everyone plays them" like Stayman, which causes its own problems when someone actually does play the natural meaning and opponents assume they just forgot to alert).

2/1 GF is not so popular here as it is in the US (although it certainly has its adherents).

[awm]

DavidKok, on 2025-May-03, 04:58, said:

Here the rule is to alert when you think the opponents might expect something else if you did not, along with a list of explanations and mandatory alerts. In my canapé system 1♦-1M shows at least five (and is forcing, unlimited, and shows at least 5 HCP or so) and we alert to clarify that it's not a 4 card suit. While this style of alerting has its own problems I think this is good disclosure.

I feel like this could devolve pretty quickly to "every bid is alertable" if your basic system is slightly different from what most people play. And it's a nightmare if you're not familiar with what most people (regionally) play.

For example, Elianna and I do not play Dutch Doubleton (even though we play a very natural "Green" system aside from a couple of preempts and some bids on the second round of the auction). Do we need to alert 1♣ (can't be two), 1♦ (could be three)? Do we need to alert 1♣-Pass-1♦ (promises length in diamonds, does not deny a four-card major even if weak)? It just seems like even though all these bids are quite natural, there could be marginal inferences that are unfamiliar to the local players in the Netherlands, and we probably won't even know what their expectations might be.

If the answer is "yes, we should alert all bids, that is good disclosure", well fair enough, but at that point the alert is almost worthless isn't it?

[DavidKok]

No, none of those bids are alertable here. The converses are (1♣ 2+ is alertable, as is a Walsh 1♦ response).

Using 1♥-1♠ to show five is sufficiently unexpected that I don't think it's a good comparison. I think that information should be actively disclosed.