[Siegmund]

One of the systems I play on a very occasional basis (but perhaps soon to be more frequently) has a 1NT opening that shows a balanced 11-14, denying a 4-card major or 6-card minor.

I would like to know how my opponents would like to hear about it.

I believe just announcing "11-14" is inadequate.

One reading of the ACBL policy says I should do just that anyway, since it's a natural notrump. Another interpretation is that this is nonstandard enough I should say "Alert" rather than announcing a range. Then I can say describe the bid when asked, and get a lecture about how rude it was of me not to announce it.

What I want to do is just announce "11-14 no 4CM" in the first place. Doing so is, however, clearly a technical violation of the rules.

(Yes, I posted this in general discussion, not the laws forum: I know all three approaches are going to occasionally lead to director calls and annoyed opponents. What I want to find out is which one will annoy the fewest opponents.)

[RunemPard]

How is telling your opponents what your bids mean annoying or improper? (never played in the US so this is extremely confusing to me...)

[kenberg]

Just speaking form me, I would be happy with the "11-14, no four card major" announcement. I can imagine that there might be follow-up inquiries later. For example, 2♣, what ever it is, does not ask for a four card major.

There are other features that could be harder to fully deal with. Sometimes in defending a hand I will reason along the lies of "Rho cannot have such and such, because s/he would have opened 1NT with that holding". The reasoning would be invalid against you because the explanation for the non-1NT opening could be possession of a four card major. But I see this as something of a general problem. We all have out own styles and so reasoning out opponent's hand based on what s/he did not do has risks. Playing at highly competitive levels I suppose this is dealt with, but you have to ask them just how.

[mgoetze]

kenberg, on 2013-January-01, 17:41, said:

Playing at highly competitive levels I suppose this is dealt with, but you have to ask them just how.

They use some fancy gizmos called "convention cards".

[RunemPard]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-01, 17:43, said:

They use some fancy gizmos called "convention cards".

What on earth is this witchcraft you speak of?

[blackshoe]

Without going into a huge amount of detail, you have information about your partner's 1NT opening that opponents cannot be expected to know or deduce, and announcing the range does not adequately convey that information. So you alert partner's 1NT opening. I would then describe it as "11-14, natural, denies a four card major or six card minor". If they object to your alert, or "instruct" you that you're supposed to announce, ignore that. If they persist, call the director.

I sympathize with your desire to streamline things by changing the announcement, but we get enough people doing that (incorrectly) already. Let's not add to that problem.

The number of people in the ACBL who actually look at convention cards system cards the back of the score card is very small and, I think, dwindling.

[gnasher]

I believe it's alertable:
"Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted."
"In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable."

Alerting it is also safe:
"there is no penalty for Alerting unnecessarily"

However, for the sake of an easy life it's probably better to announce it instead, even if that's technically a breach of procedure. It's hard to imagine anyone objecting to your doing this.

[blackshoe]

They'll object as soon as they find out the bid denies certain holdings, particularly if they got a bad score on the board.

[lalldonn]

gnasher, on 2013-January-01, 18:01, said:

However, for the sake of an easy life it's probably better to announce it instead, even if that's technically a breach of procedure. It's hard to imagine anyone objecting to your doing this.

If I was his opponent I wouldn't say anything since I rarely do in these situations, but I'd definitely feel like he is doing the wrong thing. Alerting seems like the clearly correct answer to me. I don't see how alerting makes my life tougher than announcing (if anything isn't someone more likely to object to the incorrect procedure anyway?)

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-01, 18:06, said:

They'll object as soon as they find out the bid denies certain holdings, particularly if they got a bad score on the board.

I think gnasher was suggesting that he make the non-regulation announcement, not just announce the strength.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-01, 18:06, said:

They'll object as soon as they find out the bid denies certain holdings, particularly if they got a bad score on the board.

I think gnasher was suggesting that he make the non-regulation announcement, not just announce the strength.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2013-January-01, 18:11, said:

I think gnasher was suggesting that he make the non-regulation announcement, not just announce the strength.

Yes, that's what I meant.

My suggestion to announce it related to an environment where one might "get a lecture about how rude it was of me not to announce it."

[barmar]

But if you do it against me, you'd get a (polite) reminder that you should only use the standard announcements, anything else should be alerted.

I do the same thing when people announce transfers to minors, instead of alerting them as they should. I've also run into occasional players who announce Jacoby 2NT, I point out that this is wrong as well.

[PrecisionL]

I play a similar system where an opening 1NT denies a 4-cd Major:

September 2012
To: rulings@ACBL.org

I am beginning a new partnership this week and we are going to play: 1NT = 11-14 nV or 14-16 V without a 4-cd Major (unless 4M333 hand with Jxxx or less in the major). This is the old Match Point 1NT bid played by Anderson and Wei.

What are our obligations for alerting and pre-alerting?

ACBL reply:

You are required to announce the range of the NT opener. If you want, you could tell the oppoents at the beginning of each played round that 1NT denies a four card major. At the end of the auction on hands your side declares, you should offer to disclose this inference to your opponents (if your subsequent auction has not already made it clear).

[Vampyr]

PrecisionL, on 2013-January-01, 20:02, said:

ACBL reply:

You are required to announce the range of the NT opener. If you want, you could tell the oppoents at the beginning of each played round that 1NT denies a four card major. At the end of the auction on hands your side declares, you should offer to disclose this inference to your opponents (if your subsequent auction has not already made it clear).

I have heard that answers from the ACBL are very hit-and-miss. It doesn't seem to me that this information should be given at the end of the auction unless you want a lot of MI rulings; and there seems to be no instruction on when to give the information if your side defends. If you give it at what this answer would suggest is the appropriate time (after the hand is finished) you will receive misinformation rulings on the auction and the play.

[kenberg]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-01, 17:43, said:

They use some fancy gizmos called "convention cards".

Yes, I have heard of those. And I am easy on these matters. But when I am thinking through an opponent's likely holding, part way through the hand after an auction where NT was never bid, I don't think it would occur to me to pick up their convention card and see if the fact that declarer holds four hearts might be the explanation for why 1NT was not opened. If at that point I was convinced that he had a point count in the opening NT range, and had not opened 1NT, I would expect more dramatic distribution than the possession of a four card major.

I do think that this is a common problem, not just one fir this particular agreement, hence my lack of vigor in contesting this. But really it simply would never occur to me to think "Oh, he has four hearts. I had better check his cc to see if that explains the non-opening of 1NT". I would look elsewhere for the explanation.

You can count it as my error if you like.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-January-01, 18:42, said:

Yes, that's what I meant.

My suggestion to announce it related to an environment where one might "get a lecture about how rude it was of me not to announce it."

"Director, please!" After which I would explain to the TD that I alerted because I felt there was pertinent information that might get lost if I merely announced, and also that I did not appreciate being lectured by my opponent.

[blackshoe]

"rulings@" is not official, and in fact is wrong often enough to be worrisome.

[sfi]

Are announcing and alerting mutually exclusive? If not, why not do both?

[Cascade]

barmar, on 2013-January-01, 18:45, said:

But if you do it against me, you'd get a (polite) reminder that you should only use the standard announcements, anything else should be alerted.

I do the same thing when people announce transfers to minors, instead of alerting them as they should. I've also run into occasional players who announce Jacoby 2NT, I point out that this is wrong as well.

I would really find this annoying and I do not think it is proper. As a player it is not my job to tell the opponents what they should and should not do. If there is a problem the only proper action is to call the director. As a director if a problem developed because you were telling the opponents what to do then I would and frequently I do apportion the blame primarily towards the person who tried to tell the opponents what to do.