[kenberg]

A partner likes to play Flannery. If you feel the need to dis the convention, go ahead, but I am after different fish. We definitely do not play that 1♥ - 1♠ shows five. I know some do, we don't. Still partner might be more inclined to skip over 1♠ when holding only four.

Alerts:

Today we were playing and the auction went 1♥-1♠-2NT-3NT. Partner had four spades. My left hand opponent, who knows we play Flannery, opined that I should alert the spade bid since he expected partner to have five. This seems very far-fetched to me.

However, I have fretted about the following: Partner follows, fairly strictly I think, the rule that he bids 1♠ on four only when he has at most one heart. Otherwise he can bid a forcing NT and, with modest values, take me back to 2♥. I have a somewhat looser view but it is true that I am more willing to skip over a four card spade suit when a Flannery partner opens 1♥.
I am fine with alerting this if I should, but often it seems such alerts and explanations do little to help anyone. For example, unless they ask, they might well assume that the alert is because it shows five, which it doesn't. This was my response in the situation today: Since I did not alert, one should assume that the 1♠ did not show five.

Flannery has been around a long long time although I don't often play it anymore. What is the current thinking on alerts?

[rduran1216]

no alerts are necessary

[Vampyr]

Can you quote the regulation, rduran? It seems to me that if the 1♠ bid shows 0-1♥ and 4♠, or 5♠, it is potentially alertable.

[matmat]

i would think it in the spirit of the laws to alert this.

[rduran1216]

1S is natural and shows 4+ spades. Why would we have to alert implications?

[kenberg]

The argument for alerting: Although 1♠ can be on four cards, the percentage of times that it actually is on four changes as a result of playing Flannery.

The argument against: Many people have trouble with percentage arguments. Or they don't see the point. Or, generally, it just causes trouble without much really helping anyone.

Many years back, when the auction went 1♣-1♥, you were expected to alert if partner would skip over diamonds to do this. We were playing in that style, I alerted, and tried my best to explain. As we moved on to the next table I heard one opponent saying to the other "I don't understand, he said his partner could have longer diamonds but he didn't".

I am ok with alerting that partner is somewhat more likely to have five than if we were not playing Flannery, or perhaps even saying he will have four only if he has at most one heart, although, myself, I don't like being quite so hemmed in when I bid.

Of course this all came up today because my lho wanted me to alert that a four card holding was possible. I could do that too.

[barmar]

When you ask about alerting, you have to specify the jurisdiction, since every regulating authority has different alert rules.

In ACBL, I don't think this is alertable. In general, we aren't required to alert negative inferences or small differences from expectations. Natural bids only have to be alerted if there are implications that are highly unusual or unexpected.

[rduran1216]

barmar, on 2011-July-21, 20:51, said:

When you ask about alerting, you have to specify the jurisdiction, since every regulating authority has different alert rules.

In ACBL, I don't think this is alertable. In general, we aren't required to alert negative inferences or small differences from expectations. Natural bids only have to be alerted if there are implications that are highly unusual or unexpected.

agreed. standard treatment of 1H pass 1S is that it shows 4+ spades and 6+ points, and this accurately describes what your bid shows even with the built in flannery inferences.

[Vampyr]

I think that since the "Flannery inferences" are available to you and not to the opponents, it is probably right to alert them to your agreements as a matter of common courtesy, even if it's not necessary; and who knows whether it is since none of the ACBL posters seem to have access to the regulation.

Question for OP: If you respond to Flannery with 4♠ sometimes, aren't you defeating the purpose of playing the convention?

[rduran1216]

Natural bids never have to be alerted. This is the issue here. 1S is natural. There's a quote in Berkowitz Precision today about alerting 1M pass 4M since it could show opening strength, but again, it is a natural bid, so the ACBL does not require an alert. It is the opponents responsibility to understand the implications of what you play, unless they ask detailed questions about your agreements, in which case you can answer questions. The onus is not on your partnership to alert natural calls.

[the hog]

kenberg, on 2011-July-21, 14:39, said:

Alerts:

Today we were playing and the auction went 1♥-1♠-2NT-3NT. Partner had four spades. My left hand opponent, who knows we play Flannery, opined that I should alert the spade bid since he expected partner to have five. This seems very far-fetched to me.

I would go further than "far fetched" ad say that to alert 1S is idiotic.

[Mbodell]

I agree that this doesn't need to be alerted in the ACBL. If they ask, you should share all the tendencies. If your side declares, you might want to volunteer the information at the end of the auction. I think some people feel that is closer to the full disclosure policy. Although occasionally that could be bad if your volunteered explanation encourages a lead you'd like (or discourages one you don't) people might think that your volunteering was for bad reasons.

[blackshoe]

I had this radical idea, reading this thread. So I went and read the actual ACBL Alert Regulation. It says, among many other things,

Quote

In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable. Some such agreements have become expected and are fairly common, therefore no Alert is required.

Emphasis is in the original. The first example given after this statement is

Quote

EXAMPLES: 1♥-P-1♠
If 1♠ promises a five-card suit (when playing an opening 2♦ bid as five hearts and four spades), no Alert is required.

This does not, of course, address the question whether 1♠ requires an alert if it might be on a four card suit. The regulation does say that most natural bids (and this is, per the regulation, a natural bid) do not require an alert. I am worried though about the inference that if responder has only 4 spades, he is likely to be short in hearts. This is not, it seems to me, an inference a non-Flannery player is likely to make, so in the spirit of the regulation, at least, it ought to be alerted. I wouldn't be at all surprised, though, if the official position is that it isn't. Best advice, I think, is that if you're playing at a tournament, ask the DIC (preferably before it comes up at the table). At least you'll be right for that tournament.

[Phil]

rduran1216, on 2011-July-21, 22:35, said:

Natural bids never have to be alerted.

Not true.

[peachy]

Vampyr, on 2011-July-21, 18:21, said:

Can you quote the regulation, rduran? It seems to me that if the 1♠ bid shows 0-1♥ and 4♠, or 5♠, it is potentially alertable.

From the ACBL Alert regs:

In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable. Some such agreements have become expected and are fairly common, therefore no Alert is required.

EXAMPLES: 1H-P-1S
If 1 promises a five-card suit (when playing an opening 2D bid as five hearts and four spades), no Alert is required.

This (to me, at least) says that Flannery is common enough that no alerts are needed. Bu t then we go to the next round - if it does not promise five spades, is it alertable when we play Flannery. I would think not, but do not know for sure, just reading the regulation. However, it is common enough (LOL) to have 4 spades in auction 1H (P) 1S, so why should there be alert?

[Vampyr]

peachy, on 2011-July-21, 23:46, said:

so why should there be alert?

Did you bother to read what blackshoe wrote?

blackshoe, on 2011-July-21, 22:41, said:

I am worried though about the inference that if responder has only 4 spades, he is likely to be short in hearts. This is not, it seems to me, an inference a non-Flannery player is likely to make, so in the spirit of the regulation, at least, it ought to be alerted.

[peachy]

rduran1216, on 2011-July-21, 22:35, said:

Natural bids never have to be alerted. This is the issue here. 1S is natural. There's a quote in Berkowitz Precision today about alerting 1M pass 4M since it could show opening strength, but again, it is a natural bid, so the ACBL does not require an alert. It is the opponents responsibility to understand the implications of what you play, unless they ask detailed questions about your agreements, in which case you can answer questions. The onus is not on your partnership to alert natural calls.

You are mistaken, sorry. The Alert regs give three examples (among many others) that are alertable.

EXAMPLE: 4M openings which are natural but are weaker than might be expected because the partnership has some other method (an example is the Namyats convention) for showing a good 4, opening.

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

EXAMPLE: A natural 3C opening which is stronger than expected since the partnership has agreed to open 2S (a Mid-Chart agreement so the Mid-Chart has to be in effect) with weak minor-suit preempts.

These examples are not exclusive, the principle applies.

Edit: Discussing ACBL regs.

[peachy]

Deleted

[barmar]

By considering the sections that both blackshoe and peachy quoted, it becomes clear that the ACBL regs are ambiguous. You basically have to guess whether your treatment falls into the "Some such agreements have become expected and are fairly common" category that doesn't require an alert. Walsh-style bidding used to be rare, and was alertable, until they decided it had become popular enough that they added it as an example of non-alertable bids in this section.

Most Flannery players play that a 1♠ response shows 5 unconditionally. So I don't think "5+♠, or 4 with a singleton or void ♥" would be "expected anad fairly common". But I'm still not sure that this minor variation from the expected type of hand is enough to require an alert -- the examples peachy quoted are all cases where there can be significant difference from the expected meaning.

Although I wonder WHY you play like this? Who worries about a singleton opposite a 5-card suit when bidding NT?

[kenberg]

1. Both Barmar and Vampyr have asked why one would do this. I will give a perhaps unsatisfactory answer:
See Steve Robinson's Washington Standard2nd ed, p175: "One Heart One Spade does not promise five".
This is with a partner with whom I play about once a week. It's important to have some agreement, he likes WS, so there we are. As far as the more rigid requirement that 1S only when holding at most one heart, I don't care so much for that. I prefer: "Don't mind being raised on three." This way of looking at it takes into account both the heart holding and the quality of the four card spade holding.
My actual preference is that 2♦ show diamonds, but I can live with Flannery. However I generally like the idea of just saying "By default, we go with how it is written in X". Perhaps I prefer X to be Mike Lawrence, but WS makes a fine X.

2. There is the issue of whether lho would have led a spade if he knew my partner might have held T98x. Indeed, lho had long spades and this is why he brought up the fact that he knew we were playing Flannery and so supposed that dummy would come down with a five card suit. I held AKx, the Queen but not the Jack was on my right. The principal issues in the hand were transportation, as in clubs I held Jx in hand opposite KQx in dummy, ace on my left. There was no way to beat the contract although perhaps a spade lead would have kept me from making five. Or maybe not, I am not sure. With the actual diamond lead I could definitely have been kept to fewer that eleven tricks.

3. On this hand, I am very uncertain that alerting and explaining our agreements would have helped, and I can well imagine an opponent wondering a bit about my intent if, after I explain that the spade holding can be on any four cards, he leads a spade and I show up with AKx.


4. What I get out of this is that the situation is at least a little ambiguous.