BBO Discussion Forums: No Alert Required - BBO Discussion Forums

From this month's issue of the ACBL Bulletin :

" It has apparently become fairly common among experts and pros in recent years to respond to partner's opening bid with almost no high card points . "

The letter-to-the-editor asked:
" If it's a requirement to announce an opening bid of 1nt as 15-17, it would seem a simple matter to require an announcement by opener for those who commonly respond with as little as a jack or a queen, perhaps a statement to the effect that the response may be very light. Requiring such an announcement would be totally in concurrence with both active ethics and full disclosure."

This was MIKE FLADER's response:
"It is one thing for a pro to respond with fewer than 6 high card points and another to have an agreement. Unless it happens so frequently that the client expects it to be the case and makes allowances for the possibility, or the partnership has a specific agreement, what the pro is doing is not illegal. If a pair did have such an agreement, it is reasonable to require a pre alert and an alert to the response because ACBL regulations require a pre alert for extremely aggressive methods. We also require an alert for some treatments that are unexpected. There are many situations where responding with less than expected values is actually the right action."

Hasn't it been fairly common for years? I mean it is certainly not an "unexpected method" to respond to a short club with xxxxxx xxxx xxx -.

If a person responds 1S to 1C holding no clubs, no points, and six spades, I certainly think no one should complain to the director. But suppose the pair has an agreement that if responder has at most one club then he will always respond to a 1C opening regardless of their high card count. This seems to me to be more in the spirit of the letter writer.

My first view is that I don't actually care. I always allow for the fact that my opponents bid differently than I do. If they respond 1H to 1C because they have hearts I figure it is largely their concern whether they have any points.

But the rules folks set rules, so it would be good to have them speak on this. Having to go through a pre-alert sounds extremely excessive. A pair sits down at the table and must begin by saying "Pre-alert: If one of us opens 1C and if the other responds in a new suit at the 1 level, the responder might not have any points". We really want to require this?

My main wish for rules is that they be clear and that they not change every few hours. Sensible would also be nice.

I think its silly to alert these types of calls. That being said, I wouldn't mind a tickbox on the cc where you can mention that you regularly respond very light to 1m or 1M.

That might be helpful in countries where pairs generally exchange CCs at the beginning of a round, but in the US it wouldn't help the OP.

Whenever I have done this and been asked why, I just say "It was an emergency".

I don't know of anyone that caters to this systematically and the risk of partner hanging you is very real so no alert required in my mind.

You would just be blowing smoke when 99% of the responses are on normal values, especially to the disadvantage of lesser ranked players that may be enticed into an overcall that they wouldn't make otherwise.

ggwhiz, on 2012-May-01, 11:27, said:

Our system caters to the possibility of a very light response.
We say on the front of our convention card that responses to 1C and a 1NT response to 1M may be very light.
Alerting doesn't come into it because these responses require alerting in the EBU for other reasons anyway, but as a general rule I don't think that unusual strength agreements should be alertable.

One part of Mike Flader's reply is definitely wrong. It's not relevant whether opener "makes allowances for the possibility". An implicit agreement is created by the expectation that your partner may take a particular action, regardless of whether you cater for it or not.

ggwhiz, on 2012-May-01, 11:27, said:

We systemically cater to it in response to a 1♦ opening. We alert both the responses (for other reasons as well) and the pass, since we respond with no values at all unless we have diamond length. This is unusual enough that we think the opponents need to know about it.

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-01, 12:38, said:

Agree with Francis. Not only does our system cater towards light responses, it makes them highly unlikely to ever be punished. We have an implicit understanding that we will respond to any minor suit opening unless its suicidal to do so (ie, we will probably pass with xxx xxx xxxx xxx).

CSGibson, on 2012-May-01, 13:20, said:

I feel like that should be alerted while our method should not. You're using intermediate 2D, 2H and 2S, right? Weak NT? I don't think people will put it together that your 1m is semi-forcing unless you tell them.

We play an artificial 1D and responder has to guess occasionally whether to bid with a bad hand. We usually do pass, but obviously not with a 6M and some other patterns with a major. I would think that folks at all familiar with a strong club system would know that responder is captain and because opener will not get carried away with a limited hand that there is better reward/risk potential in responding light.

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-01, 12:38, said:

From the ACBL Alert Regulation:

Quote

Flader says "what the pro is doing isn't illegal". Okay. What, exactly, is the pro doing? Psyching?

I always wonder what to say when partner could be having a total laugh. I generally say something like <whatever it is means>, and 'he can have a zero count,' or 'he has had a zero count before' but people take explanations like that really weirdly.

blackshoe, on 2012-May-01, 16:09, said:

However treatment is not just a suit bid, but a specific meaning

From the ACBL Alert Regulation:

ACBL said:

Glen, I was replying to Frances, who was talking about "unusual strength agreements".

Flader's point was that even though the pro does this, it doesn't necessarily mean that the partnership has an agreement to do so. Whether it's a gross enough misrepresentation to be considered a psych is a judgement call.

gnasher, on 2012-May-01, 12:46, said:

I think he's just making the assumption that the two go hand in hand: if you have an agreement to do something, you'd be expected to allow for it.

Yes, but that line is not clearly true (or at least you will get people who argue that it's not true): "I've seen him do this 6 or 7 times, but we don't allow for it, and I ceratinly don't expect it; therefore we don't have an agreement." In other words, you can have a partnership understanding based on experience, and *explicitly not allow for it* so that you can claim you don't have an agreement, and maybe even get away with it.

Obviously, if you do allow for it, that is prima facie evidence that you have an agreement that it can happen. The negative does not necessarily apply.

straube, on 2012-May-01, 14:39, said:

I think its enough of a gray area that there's probably some maneuverability. I am planning on pre-alerting opponents to our style in response to 1m openings in the GNTs next weekend, but alerting every major suit response to 1m seems overboard after that. After all, they are natural and forcing calls, as expected, and we don't go entirely without risk - it just happens that we have less risk than most because of the variety of major suit raises we employ that generally keep us one level lower, and because we use point-coded minor suits, which means we never jump to 2N with 18-19 balanced.

CSGibson, on 2012-May-02, 14:53, said:

Maybe alert your 1m opening, describe it including that it is almost forcing. I was thinking that would leave you free not to alert your response, but that's not likely technically true.

I'm thinking that your system has some similarity to Fantunes at least as far as 1m openings and 1M response go, and folks who played Fantunes against me were alerting both.