[mycroft]

pescetom: But yes, that's the difference I mentioned. Something that is "usually X but sometimes a weak Y" - especially in auctions where "I'm going to bid Y, and your partner won't find out it's the weak option until the opening lead" is important for the opponents to know right away.

But this one's different - it's either "game try" or "slam try". I can't come up with a real situation where "if it could be slammish, I'd better X" where X isn't the call if it is "gameish" the way I can "well, if I knew it could be a weak bailout to 2♦, I would have done X even though the bid is usually invitational; because if I'd known it was an option, the hand tells me it is the case this time".

blackshoe:"At the end of the auction...[t]he declaring side should explain any Alertable bids where Alerts were delayed." And, of course, "we" here is generic for "the ACBL". The C&CC subcommittee for the new Alert Procedure made the recommendation, several people (including me) reviewed it and commented, and it was submitted to the BoD for review and approval (and they made some changes that are - shall we say controversial?) And no matter what you think of "The government doesn't speak for me", whether it's Congress or the BoD, that means "this is how it's supposed to happen in the ACBL".

I originally wrote "this is how it's going to happen in the ACBL". Given how this sub-thread started, I guess "unless by mischance or deliberate omission, it isn't pointed out to the players, and for reasons [that I am not going to publicly speculate on] it isn't one of those things that people just do or expect done." I'm sure there are no other situations where that has ever applied to the ACBL.

jillybean: I am glad you attempt to do that. When asked, absolutely you should; it's more here a question of "should this be Alertable because in 10% of cases it's something other than Natural, and in those cases, it's even stronger than the rest of the time?"

The reasoning behind Delayed Alerts (in general) is that in the circumstances that trigger them, the use to the opponents of partner Alerting is minimal (usually the only thing the opponents might do is double for a lead or a sacrifice suggestion, and if it wasn't Alertable, well, wouldn't double be right anyway?) The effect of "don't worry, I am still on track with you" when partner Alerts (or "hey partner, that bid means this. If you forgot, now you remember"), always a factor, is deemed to be of more value *during the auction* than that minimal benefit. Obviously, the information will be required for the play, so it is required to be explained before the play.

There's a reason I recommend (in many circumstances) that when the non-Standard players go into Alert Frenzy, that you don't ask until the end of the auction. Yeah, they may know what they're doing, but a) will you really understand in the dribs and drabs?; b) it's almost always a game-forcing auction, do you really need to know anything besides "this is artificial" to make your calls?; and of course c ) if they do remember, it's just more comfortable to have that confirmed - and if one doesn't, well, you're never going to prove it later when they say "oh I always knew that it was 'what type of control'." We have just decided that bids, over 3NT, after a round of the auction, is a reasonable tipping point between "opponents might need to know during the auction that this is odd" and "the information unfortunately leaked by the FtF partner-Alert procedure is useful to the Alerting side".

This is going more into speculation, but my guess about control bids is that "since we have a Delayed Alert procedure, and we have decided that answers to Ace-asking auctions (even the "normal" ones) are Alertable, and we have moved from 'alert at end of auction' to 'explain at end of auction': effectively all slam(-try) auctions are going to be explained anyway. So 'it's free' to add to the spiel: 'tell 'em about your control cue-bidding style, and where it started', to the game's benefit and without adding anything onerous." IIRC, control cues weren't Alertable on the old chart ("length or strength"), so this isn't a reduction in at-the-time disclosure; strictly a little extra information for the opponents who might not be as aware as others.

[akwoo]

Against decent opponents, if they asked about 1S-2S-3D(!), I would say that 3D shows singleton or void in diamonds (assuming that's what you're playing), and take it as "general bridge knowledge" that partner had some reason to show this shortness (i.e. it would help me judge the correct level to be at).

Against opponents who might not know this, I further explain this is a game try - should I also explain that it might be a slam try? Generally, I find that, for the opponents who don't know it already, this is too confusing.

[jillybean]

How do you judge your opponent's comprehension of the auction?

Please don't dumb down your explanations because you believe it will be too confusing.
At minimum say something like, this is a short suit game try but it could be more complex, would you like me to explain?

[pescetom]

 akwoo, on 2023-December-09, 20:02, said:

Against decent opponents, if they asked about 1S-2S-3D(!), I would say that 3D shows singleton or void in diamonds (assuming that's what you're playing), and take it as "general bridge knowledge" that partner had some reason to show this shortness (i.e. it would help me judge the correct level to be at).

Against opponents who might not know this, I further explain this is a game try - should I also explain that it might be a slam try? Generally, I find that, for the opponents who don't know it already, this is too confusing.

As an opponent (however you judge my level) I would not assume shortness, FWIW.
As a Director, I would expect you to alert and explain if requested.
I assure you I would not be confused by any reasonable explanation.

[akwoo]

 jillybean, on 2023-December-10, 01:26, said:

How do you judge your opponent's comprehension of the auction?

Please don't dumb down your explanations because you believe it will be too confusing.
At minimum say something like, this is a short suit game try but it could be more complex, would you like me to explain?

For this one, I would judge by the level of the game unless I actually knew the opponents (personally or by reputation).

I am fairly confident that, legally speaking, saying that it shows a singleton or void is sufficient in this case. (Yes of course this is alerted.) (And I should be clear - if it is a slam try, it still shows a singleton or void - an advance control bid showing A or K is made differently.)

[msheald]

Hello! Here is the official response from ACBL. What I found most helpful was that a temporizing bid i just another name for an artificial bid. Best regards.

Mike



The document the Director should have referenced is the Alert Procedures which delineates which calls require an Alert and which do not.

The term "temporizing bid" is just another term for "artificial bid". Artificial bids require an Alert unless they are specifically listed as exceptions under the Alert Procedures (such as stayman, Michaels Cuebids and others).

A 2C response to a natural opening bid that can be made with fewer than 3 clubs is an Artificial Bid by definition. An Alert is required.

Since the 2C bid was not self-alerted, it seems the result should have been adjusted to what would have happened had you doubled or entered the auction as you might have done with a proper Alert.

Here's a link to the Alert Procedures for your reference:
https://web2.acbl.or...-Procedures.pdf

I hope this information was helpful.

Sincerely,

Lynn Yokel
Tournament Director and Rulings Box Associate

[blackshoe]

 pescetom, on 2023-December-09, 07:42, said:

A small but growing number of players here play a 2♦ response to 1♠ as either natural game force with diamonds or a weak raise of spades. Opener won't know at the time the bid is made which it is. While we're still below 3♠ he will treat it as a weak raise. Is this a Delayed Alert for you? Or an Alert of "weak raise of spades"? For me it is an Alert of "either game force with diamonds or a weak raise of spades".

Not an alert, delayed or otherwise, as I read the ACBL alert regulation.

[blackshoe]

 pescetom, on 2023-December-09, 07:42, said:

A small but growing number of players here play a 2♦ response to 1♠ as either natural game force with diamonds or a weak raise of spades. Opener won't know at the time the bid is made which it is. While we're still below 3♠ he will treat it as a weak raise. Is this a Delayed Alert for you? Or an Alert of "weak raise of spades"? For me it is an Alert of "either game force with diamonds or a weak raise of spades".

Well, apparently the ACBL regards any bid which is not specifically natural or quasi-natural as artificial, and artificial bids require an alert except when the Alert Regulation says they don't. So if the regulation doesn't make an exception for a bid that may be natural or artificial it should be alerted.

There's a difference between an alert and an explanation. When I alert, I say "Alert". When I explain, I say (in your example case) the same thing you would: "either GF w/♦ or weak ♠ raise". Online I don't alert, I explain, as required by ACBL regs for online play.

The NT probe or control bid case is a little different, since control bids, even at the three level, require a delayed alert, and I don't think NT probes require an alert (I could be wrong about that, I haven't looked at it that closely).

[jillybean]

 blackshoe, on 2024-January-07, 03:25, said:

(I could be wrong about that, I haven't looked at it that closely).

HNY