[bd71]

The title says it all. I thought the answer was "no", but an opponent disagreed yesterday.

Who's right?

[jillybean]

I alert our S3N bids, will be interested to hear the official reply.

[aguahombre]

I am positive it is alertable. It is artificial, not a desire to play in NT at that or any level.

That being said, perhaps it should be a suggestion for changing regulations, and somehow lumped together with bids above 3NT for the same reasons those are delay-alerts rather than immediate alerts.

It is one of those conventions where the alert can only reassure the bidding side about their agreements or prevent a misunderstanding, and the opponents don't really have a need to know at the time 3NT is bid.

[blackshoe]

My reading of the regulation is that it requires an alert whether serious or non-serious. As to making it a delayed alert, I first read that regulation as "at or above 3NT," and it took me a while to realize I was wrong. So I wouldn't have a problem with the change, but if folks want to further discuss it, please start a new thread in "changing laws".

[mycroft]

Is it an offer to play 3NT? No; in fact, partner will "never" pass. Therefore, it is conventional.
Is it a cuebid, either stopper or strength-showing in a suit? Of course not.
Is it one of the conventional exceptions? No.
Therefore it is Alertable.

Is it an immediate Alert? Yes, because it is not "at the four level or higher" (and the wording on that, but not the intent, has been changed in the Alert Procedure - because way too many people, including me, read it first the way Ed did). I would not want that to change, because I think the knowledge that this is not an offer to play is important during the auction, and the chance of the opponents forgetting is low. But I could be convinced - and if it did happen (along with other conventional "delayed" 3NTs) I wouldn't sweat it, except that "nobody" would get it right, like "nobody" does now.

Frankly, I can't imagine anyone thinking that it *wasn't* Alertable. Having said that, the cuebids made "serious" or "frivolous" by not bidding 3NT are *not* Alertable, even as a delayed Alert - but probably should be disclosed after the auction anyway, if declaring, following the Code of Active Ethics.

[aguahombre]

I, too, use "cuebid" to describe control bids in addition to actual cuebids. Merely posting this to acknowledge the sticklers for terminology and clarify if some of them actually were confused about what Mycroft was saying.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2012-October-29, 10:59, said:

Is it an immediate Alert? Yes, because it is not "at the four level or higher" (and the wording on that, but not the intent, has been changed in the Alert Procedure - because way too many people, including me, read it first the way Ed did).

I see the ACBL has screwed the pooch again. The wording is indeed changed as indicated here, in part X of the Alert Procedure. However, under "Types of Alerts" at the beginning of the procedure, the wording is still "above 3NT". Does anyone in that organization have two brain cells to rub together?

I dropped a note to the ACBL webmaster.

[aguahombre]

I just read Section X of this and I certainly didn't see any inconsistency. Above 3NT, 4-level or higher, seem the same to me. Can't find anything to write to the ACBL about.

[FrancesHinden]

Not so relevant to this question, but is a double of 3NT 'above' 3NT?

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-29, 13:07, said:

I just read Section X of this and I certainly didn't see any inconsistency. Above 3NT, 4-level or higher, seem the same to me. Can't find anything to write to the ACBL about.

On careful reading, and careful thought about what is written, you're right. The problem, as Mycroft pointed out, is that a lot of people misread it and misinterpreted it to include bids of 3NT as requiring a delayed alert. "4 level or higher" avoids that problem. If that's why the bit in section X (which used to say "above 3NT") was changed, then the same bit in the earlier "Types of Alerts" should also have been changed.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I look on a web page for something, and I see it early in the page, I don't usually go looking further down the page to make sure there are no inconsistencies. Granted there isn't really an inconsistency here, but if many people are misreading the something, there would appear to be one, even if technically there isn't. In fact, IMO, the ACBL would have done better, if they were only going to change one instance of "above 3NT", to change the earlier one, since, again IMO, more people would be likely to read that one.

[jeffford76]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-29, 13:45, said:

Not so relevant to this question, but is a double of 3NT 'above' 3NT?

In the ACBL it doesn't matter as alertable passes, doubles, and redoubles are always immediate alerts no matter the level of the auction.

[aguahombre]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-29, 13:45, said:

Not so relevant to this question, but is a double of 3NT 'above' 3NT?

Yes. 1150 is above 660.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-October-29, 16:08

[bluejak]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-29, 13:45, said:

Not so relevant to this question, but is a double of 3NT 'above' 3NT?

No.

aguahombre, on 2012-October-29, 16:06, said:

Yes. 1150 is above 660.

Irrelevant. That could make 1♥ doubled "above" 4♣ which is an unhelpful and absurd conclusion. Scores have nothing to do with it.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-October-29, 18:06, said:

No.


Irrelevant. That could make 1♥ doubled "above" 4♣ which is an unhelpful and absurd conclusion. Scores have nothing to do with it.

David's back. No attempts at humor without an accompanying emoticon.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-29, 15:43, said:

On careful reading, and careful thought about what is written, you're right. The problem, as Mycroft pointed out, is that a lot of people misread it and misinterpreted it to include bids of 3NT as requiring a delayed alert. "4 level or higher" avoids that problem. If that's why the bit in section X (which used to say "above 3NT") was changed, then the same bit in the earlier "Types of Alerts" should also have been changed.

While that's probably a good idea, it hardly makes the earlier text "wrong". If someone can't tell the difference between "above" and "at or above", I think that's their problem. The "Types of Alerts" section is clearly a brief synopsis, and it refers to the later section for precise details.

[blackshoe]

I never said the "above 3NT" wording was wrong. I said it was confusing. The ACBL attempted to dispel the confusion, but they only "fixed" the wording in one place, instead of in both. At best, that's poor editorial practice.

[gnasher]

Whilst "above 3NT" is unambiguous to anyone with a reasonable grasp of English, Blackshoe is right that some people will misunderstand it. Given that, why wouldn't one change it to a phrase which will be understood by all? The purpose of writing is to communicate.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-29, 18:17, said:

David's back. No attempts at humor without an accompanying emoticon.

While you are about it, please add a 'u' as well as a smiley.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-29, 18:17, said:

David's back. No attempts at humor without an accompanying emoticon.

bluejak, on 2012-October-30, 06:43, said:

While you are about it, please add a 'u' as well as a smiley.

"Dauvid's back. No attempts at humor without an accompanying emoticon. "

'U' and smiley added.

[Trinidad]

He means "emoticoun", e.g. :u).

Rik