[barmar]

pran, on 2015-August-27, 13:08, said:

I wonder:
Do you vary your alert routines when you meet an opponent whom you do not know?

Of course not. I alert what the alert regulations say I should alert. And nothing in the alert regulations makes mention of the specific opponents.

From the ACBL Alert Procedures:

Quote

This procedure uses the admittedly “fuzzy” terminology of “highly unusual and unexpected” as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. “Highly unusual and unexpected” should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

It doesn't say anything about determining it with respect to the specific opponents, it's talking about the more general bridge community. It also quotes the Laws:

Quote

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization.

It says "an opposing pair", not "the opposing pair". So again, it's not specific to these opponents, but opponents in general. But it also doesn't say "every opposing pair", so we don't have to cater to the lowest common denominator (imagine playing against someone who has never played before -- practically every bid would have an unexpected meaning, but we don't require alerting everything).

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-August-27, 17:08, said:

It is precisely a problem in real life that the regulations are made for the alleged majority and we expect the minority to know they are a minority in the region or level they are participating.

You can say it is not a problem; Barry can say it isn't a problem. But, it is a problem. "Expected" is a problem.

You think it is a problem and so do one or two others, but no one has come up with a single real-life example where this alleged problem occurred. Normally what happens is that this pair, who have been cocooned in cotton wool and have no idea how others around them bid, are told by opponents or the director early on that their bid is alertable.

[helene_t]

barmar, on 2015-August-26, 08:12, said:

The alert rules are generally based on what the common meanings are

This is a very strong assumption. I suppose it may be true in some parts of the World.

Quote

And of course, when the alert rules specifically say "alert unexpected meanings", they're defined to be the equivalent.

But this is circular logic. In Germany, almost nobody plays strong twos, but the non-alertable meaning of a two-opening is "strong", so therefore the expected meaning of a non-alerted two-opening is "strong".

2/1 GF has about the same frequency in the Netherlands as in England but because it is alerted in England but not in the Netherlands, the expected meaning of a non-alerted 2/1 bid is "natural, forcing for only one round" in England, but "Natural, forcing for at least one round" in the Netherlands.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2015-August-28, 01:33, said:

2/1 GF has about the same frequency in the Netherlands as in England but because it is alerted in England but not in the Netherlands, the expected meaning of a non-alerted 2/1 bid is "natural, forcing for only one round" in England, but "Natural, forcing for at least one round" in the Netherlands.

This has little to do with what is "expected" and what is not. The Dutch alert regulation specifically makes strength or the forcing or non forcing character of a bid "generally non-alertable" (whatever that means). Inverted minors are not alertable (and neither are "standard" minor raises), weak jump raises are not alertable (and neither are invitational or forcing jump raises), etc... So, the difference between "forcing for one round", "forcing to 2NT", and "forcing to game" is really not an issue for an alert in the Netherlands.

Rik

[fromageGB]

helene_t, on 2015-August-28, 01:33, said:

This is a very strong assumption.

I'm not sure whether I should alert that. How strong would opponents expect the assumption to be? In fact is your assumption itself unexpected?

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2015-August-28, 01:33, said:

This is a very strong assumption. I suppose it may be true in some parts of the World.

But this is circular logic. In Germany, almost nobody plays strong twos, but the non-alertable meaning of a two-opening is "strong", so therefore the expected meaning of a non-alerted two-opening is "strong".

Well, I'd like to politely suggest that Germany's alerting rules are poorly designed if they make the most common meaning alertable. Although I suppose it works in practice, since unexpected silence can act like an alert.

EBU used to have alerting rules like this, too, since their simple rule was "If it's artificial, alert it." They wised up, adding announcements and changing Stayman from alertable to announceable, so that an alert of 1NT-2♣ really warned the opponents that something they need to ask about was going on.

[jeffford76]

akwoo, on 2015-August-25, 18:54, said:

I can't imagine the difference between 14-16 and 16-18 making much of a difference in the bidding, though I automatically ask before the opening lead if the NT bidder is declarer.

Maybe you can't, but I play different defenses against these ranges. I am happy all ranges are announced.

[akwoo]

jeffford76, on 2015-August-28, 09:36, said:

Maybe you can't, but I play different defenses against these ranges. I am happy all ranges are announced.

Interesting - many people play 2 NT defenses, but I wouldn't have expected the cutoff to be between 14-16 and 16-18.

[jeffford76]

akwoo, on 2015-August-28, 15:57, said:

Interesting - many people play 2 NT defenses, but I wouldn't have expected the cutoff to be between 14-16 and 16-18.

Been around too many conversations that started "You have a reasonable 13 count so you open a 14-16 NT" to not treat it as weak.