[cherdanno]

Blackshoe, I think it is pretty clear that pre-alerts are meant to apply to frequent situations for which the opponents might want to make agreements.

[blackshoe]

Situations, surely. I'm not so sure about "frequent", though - but maybe you're right.

[aguahombre]

Notice I didn't offer my brilliance on the subject. I don't have any. but I certainly stirred the pot.

If the opp who might have made the spec double finds out during after-auction disclosure that they might be missing an ace, I guess he had still better dummy up at that point, because he still doesn't know and doesn't want to give UI.

What happens later, when he finally discovers they really were off an ace? Is a director call a free shot, because they might not have been off a key --or they might have made it doubled on a different layout but couldn't on this one?

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2010, 09:18 PM, said:

What is the (legal) definition of "system," Josh?

If I say I can't think of one will you conclude this 5NT bid is a system?

[dburn]

Curiously (or perhaps not curiously at all) the WBF Systems Policy does not define a "system", although from time to time it employs the spelling "System" in order to bamboozle people by creating a distinction without a difference.

Thrown back upon the dictionary, the closest we can come to the term as used in bridge is that a "system" is:

Oxford English Dictionary said:

An organized scheme or plan of action, esp. one of a complex or comprehensive kind.

Now, if you so organize matters as to prevent your opponents from acting in a particular way, you are compelled by the Laws to disclose that you have done this. Of course, if you had to disclose it you might no longer want to do it, but this cannot be helped. Your best chance is to point out that a "system is also defined as:

ibid. said:

Any method devised by a gambler for determining the placing of his bets.

which might or might not cut the mustard, depending on the make-up of the Appeals Committee.

[gnasher]

Suppose that we bid

1♠-4♠
4NT-5♦
5NT-6♣
6♠

without any prealerts.

Fourth seat has a heart void. However, he assumes, without bothering to ask or check the convention card, that 4NT was some kind of Blackwood, and 5NT was more Blackwood promising everything that was asked for by 4NT. Therefore he decides not to double.

It emerges afterwards that we play 4NT as asking for side-suit controls, 5♦ as diamond control, 5NT as asking what sort of control it is, and 6♣ as saying it's a singleton.

Have the opponents been misinformed?

[TimG]

gnasher, on Jul 30 2010, 07:05 AM, said:

Suppose that we bid

1♠-4♠
4NT-5♦
5NT-6♣
6♠

without any prealerts.

Fourth seat has a heart void. However, he assumes, without bothering to ask or check the convention card, that 4NT was some kind of Blackwood, and 5NT was more Blackwood promising everything that was asked for by 4NT. Therefore he decides not to double.

It emerges afterwards that we play 4NT as asking for side-suit controls, 5♦ as diamond control, 5NT as asking what sort of control it is, and 6♣ as saying it's a singleton.

Have the opponents been misinformed?

No, the opponents have neglected to check the system card or ask for a review with explanation.

The point I expect you are about to make is that those using the Billy Miller speculative double can also check the system card or ask for explanations before making their double.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Jul 30 2010, 02:29 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 29 2010, 09:18 PM, said:

What is the (legal) definition of "system," Josh?

If I say I can't think of one will you conclude this 5NT bid is a system?

No. A single call isn't a "system", whatever the word means. But it can certainly be part of a system. Such as a system designed for finding out what Aces and Kings partner has.

[barmar]

I'm not sure if there's an official definition, but as generally used by players and regulations it seems to mean a collection of conventions, typically organized around a particular approach. So you have systems like Standard American, 2/1 Game Forcing, Precision, Polish Club, BWS, etc.

I think it's clear from common use that a single convention, let alone inferences from the use of the convention, hardly fits the definition.

Pre-alerting this would be akin to Zia pre-alerting that he sometimes makes psychic cue bids.

[Phil]

Ok, 5N is a convention, I concede that, even if TBW has some references to 'system' or 'treatments'. By the way, I was always taught a 'treatment' is a natural bid that has a non-standard meaning, like 1♠ - 2♠ being inverted or 1♦ - 1♥ - 2♠ being a weak distributional hand.

So, given that 5N is a convention, its akin to like Stayman. When I respond to Stayman, do I have to pre-alert if we choose to bid spades before clubs? Do I have to alert? Do I have to make a courtesy alert after the bidding?

Nevertheless, in spite of everything else said here, I think its ludicrous to suggest a pre-alert for a 'non-standard' way of playing a convention. I also would be amazed if any Director gave an adjustment because a pair didn't pre-alert 5N as not promising all the Kings.

[gnasher]

I think we're losing track of the key point. Consider these actions:

(1) A keycard 4NT followed by 5NT promising all the keycards
(2) A keycard 4NT followed by 5NT not promising all the keycards
(3) A natural 4NT followed by a natural 5NT
(4) A natural 4NT followed by a 5NT as choice of slams
(5) 4NT Rolling ("D/I") followed by 5NT as choice of slams
(6) 4NT Rolling ("D/I") followed by 5NT as GSF
(7) 4NT showing two places to play, followed by 5NT as choice of slams
(8) 4NT showing two places to play, followed by 5NT as an artificial grand-slam try
(9) 4NT as a response to partner's Minorwood, followed by 5NT as a response to his queen-ask.
(10) 4NT as a response to partner's Kickback, followed by 5NT as a response to his queen-ask.
etc

Blackshoe apparently believes that (2) requires (or might require) a pre-alert, and that without such a prealert the opponents are entitled (or might be entitled) to assume (1). If that is so, presumably (3)-(10) would also require a prealert. I wonder how may good pairs could say that they could never have any of sequences (3)-(10)?

[cherdanno]

And I thought the key point was a semantic discussion about who had not defined "system" and why that doesn't matter.

[jdonn]

I thought there was no point. Maybe we are all wrong.

[blackshoe]

ROFL!

Okay. "Might require" is what I was saying (even if I said it poorly). Given all the possibilities Andy has shown (and most of which didn't really occur to me earlier) I retract it.

The ACBL nowhere uses the term "self-alerting" (which term I don't really like, but never mind that) but this may well be a case for it.

[bluejak]

I am not keen on the pre-alerting approach at all. because the idea of pre-alerting something very rare seems counter-productive to the flow of the game. But there is another big downside: unless someone tells you exactly what to pre-alert then your ideas of what to pre-alert and your opponents will often differ.

As to the cumbersome nature of pre-alerting, there have been over the last few months about three threads where several people have suggested pre-alerting a s a solution to the problem. In each case it is a somewhat uncommon part of the system. If you are going to alert uncommon but strange bits of the system, several pairs will be taking a considerable to time to pre-alert and it seems impractical.

I realise that problems will occur over disclosure of strange matters, but I do not think pre-alerting provides any sensible solution.



A system is a collection of agreements over the meaning of calls.

[dan_ehh]

With the exception of Siegmund's reasoning which is explained in his post on the 2nd page, I think bidding 5NT without all the key cards in order to thwart a possible double like this is a controlled psyche and should be treated as such.

[bluejak]

If you have an agreement that a bid means something then using it as per your agreement is never a psyche. A psyche is a deviation away from your agreements. So it is not a controlled psyche.

[mycroft]

I don't think that something that many new players (and Life Novices) play should be pre-Alerted; it's also been mentioned that *at matchpoints only*, agreeing to bid 5NT may only promise X-1 keys if looking for 6NT can pay in frequency over "5NT is a grand try, and brings partner's opinion back into the auction".

Bidding 5NT to miscue a "find a second trick" defence to 6 is the kind of "tactical bid" I wouldn't want to have in my arsenal all the time; but I would want everybody to hear the story about when I did it and made the slam that a more aggressive lead would have set - because then I'd never have to do it again, and I can pick up when people make the aggressive lead that lets through the overtrick on the "trying for grand" auctions.

On ACBL pre-Alerting, I would suggest that if 1NT-2D "hearts or a specific set of strong hands" neither needs a pre-Alert nor an Alert (simply an Alert when a call that doesn't promise 5 hearts is made), that this is definitely in the non-pre-Alertable category.

As always, when discussing things here, speaking for myself only.

[dan_ehh]

The definition of a psychic call in the laws:
"A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or suit length."

Bidding 5NT, unless it is intended as "to play", cannot logically mean anything other than "grand try"*, due to the game mechanics - you cannot go below it so you must go above, and since by going above you're already at the 6 level, there's no reason not to simply bid at the 6 level, unless you are possibly interested in something higher. Agreements are not part of the equations here, this is pure logic.
By bidding 5NT without any grand intentions, you are pretending to explore grand slam, even though you know you have no intention of bidding it. This is a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. Gross, because the difference between small slam and grand slam is very big.

If partner is barred from making the logical move of leaping to grand due to your agreement, this agreement sounds like a controlled psyche to me.

This is very similar to making an agreement that "partner is not allowed to raise my 3rd seat favourable 1NT bid to 3NT because I might not have the promised 15-17. He must go via stayman in order to give me a chance to pass and reveal the psyche". By not bidding 3NT directly, partner is abiding by our agreement, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that the agreement is illegal.



* with the exception of possible 6NT as noted above.

[peachy]

dan_ehh, on Aug 3 2010, 01:17 AM, said:

This is very similar to making an agreement that "partner is not allowed to raise my 3rd seat favourable 1NT bid to 3NT because I might not have the promised 15-17. He must go via stayman in order to give me a chance to pass and reveal the psyche". By not bidding 3NT directly, partner is abiding by our agreement, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that the agreement is illegal.

The agreement is not illegal, just put it on your card and when partner opens 1NT in third seat, announce the range"15-17 but in third seat occasionally *so and so*" - insert your actual agreement in the *so-and-so* and replace 'occasionally' with 'frequently' as the case may be. If the *so and so* is an illegal method where one plays, only then is it illegal to use it.

It is the concealment of the agreement that is illegal.