[bluenikki]

 jillybean, on 2023-December-02, 18:07, said:

A psyche is a bid that grossly misstates honor or suit length. 2♣/1M is routinely played as artificial gf and I would guess, lacking evidence of other agreements that South is simply creating a forcing/ game forcing bid. We often leap to "psych"! when we don't understand the bid.

I am pretty sure that was not a systemic bid, but rather a tactic to avoid a club lead. As I said, that used to be commonplace.

For the opposite situation, suppose your minors are 5432 and AK. Only the most extreme shape freak would think knowledge of the diamond suit is more valuable to partner than of the clubs. So even if your agreement is that 2♣ is 3+, you might decide that both suits are very close to being 3-card.

[jillybean]

This was in a BBO game. We don't know what agreements, if any, the pair had. Perhaps this was a pickup or casual pair with no agreement to play J2nt.
South bidding 2♣ to avoid a club lead is possible but I think it is more likely that they had no agreement, or South likes to control the bidding.

I believe it is very misleading to suggest that this was a psych and doing so perpetuates the fear and misunderstanding of psychs in this game.

I respect your opinion and agree to disagree

[mycroft]

I am going to deliberately lie about my club strength and length to inhibit a club lead from my opponents. My agreements are X, and my suit length is 2 (<< X). Why is this not a psychic call, just because it has long provenance and (used to be) a common tactic? (yes, I know about "I make tactical bids. You psych. She c-s").

Or, I am going to make a systemic call that shows 2+ clubs (or shows 0+ clubs and a game force, same argument) and not Alert my opponents to that fact in an ACBL game. Well, okay, now not psychic, but there might be another problem?

I would want to see the hand and and system, and I am not going to second-guess the ruling from one-sided and minimal information. But 1♥-1NT; 2♣ on 4=5=2=2 is now Alertable (after at least 30 years of it not being), and there's no more "temporising" bid than that.

[jillybean]

 mycroft, on 2023-December-03, 15:37, said:

I am going to deliberately lie about my club strength and length to inhibit a club lead from my opponents. My agreements are X, and my suit length is 2 (<< X). Why is this not a psychic call, just because it has long provenance and (used to be) a common tactic? (yes, I know about "I make tactical bids. You psych. She c-s").

Or, I am going to make a systemic call that shows 2+ clubs (or shows 0+ clubs and a game force, same argument) and not Alert my opponents to that fact in an ACBL game. Well, okay, now not psychic, but there might be another problem?

I would want to see the hand and and system, and I am not going to second-guess the ruling from one-sided and minimal information. But 1♥-1NT; 2♣ on 4=5=2=2 is now Alertable (after at least 30 years of it not being), and there's no more "temporising" bid than that.

Hi, you can see the hand here

Here is the full hand.

https://tinyurl.com/ys6nvej8


Hasn't 1M:1nt 2♣ on 2 always required an alert? I've always alerted it and didn't wait for a change in regulations to tell me that I should.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2023-December-02, 07:22, said:

We love calling any bid that is unusual, unexpected, non standard or one that we don't agree with, a psyche.
2C/1M generic gf is not at all unusual where I play.

1M/2C generic gf is almost standard where I play too.
But it wouldn't substitute Jacoby 2NT were that played (is there any overlap possible and if so why are the inferences not alerted?).
Nor would it substitute 1M/2D if that could be 4-card (which is quite a common agreement in NA where Jacoby is played).
If those were their disclosed agreements, it looks like a psyche with probable intent to avoid a clubs lead (not that it makes any difference on the actual hand).

PS. probably you should hide the identity of NS unless you have their permission, just edit the nicknames in the link

[mycroft]

 jillybean, on 2023-December-03, 16:17, said:

Hasn't 1M:1nt 2♣ on 2 always required an alert? I've always alerted it and didn't wait for a change in regulations to tell me that I should.

What you said probably always required an Alert; what I said is a change. From the old Alert Procedure (my emphasis):

Quote

Opener's rebid of two of a minor over partner's forcing or semi-forcing notrump response to a major does not require an Alert if it shows three or more of the suit bid (4-5-2-2 does not require an Alert as long as responder expects three or more cards in the minor).

So, as an exception, the people who didn't play Flannery used to be able to rebid the "unbiddable" hand 2♣ on 2 without an Alert, because it was "obvious" from lack of playing Flannery. The people who bid 2♣ on 2 because 2♦ promised 4, yes, always did have to Alert.

I have communication from the C&CC committee that states that this is a deliberate change (fine, reasonable; especially as it is in parallel to the changed "Forcing, may have 4 spades" Announcement the Flannery people get to do).

Like the "oh by the way, Ace-asking responses are Alertable (now), but they're almost always Delayed Alerts. You don't have to understand this, just explain your slam(-try) auctions before the opening lead, and you'll be fine"(*) (but much lower frequency), I wish this had been made clear in the "official Bulletin summary". Or at least made clear in an example in the document. I can't imagine many people working that out from the (lack of) description in the new Alert Procedure.

I do like the "Don't Alert these...otherwise Alert all..." formatting. It makes a lot of things very clear when a dispute arises. I don't like it for "well, obviously you should know this" *changes* to Alerting, because it's *really easy* to miss.

(*) I'm really frustrated that this obvious, important to all, and easy to not notice change wasn't highlighted officially (in the Bulletin article). Because the whole point was to stop "what does 5♣ mean" (or, less critically for ruling, but much more annoying in the play, "what is 4NT") - everyone should *expect* that all this will be explained after the auction and not ask. But they don't (and they're right not to), and they're so worried they'll not find out...Good idea, bad communication.

[jillybean]

Michael, sorry I just can't read the Alert Procedures perhaps one day when I have nothing better to do I will sit down and force myself to read it.

At the end of an auction involving keycard, I explain our ace asking auction and I am often given the smile reserved for beginners and told "it's ok dear, everyone knows that".
There's definitely a lack of understanding about why, when and how to alert. Unless you are a Secretary Bird, who is going to read the rules and alert procedures, learning the rules is simply not required.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2023-December-05, 09:18, said:

What you said probably always required an Alert; what I said is a change. From the old Alert Procedure (my emphasis):

....

Like the "oh by the way, Ace-asking responses are Alertable (now), but they're almost always Delayed Alerts. You don't have to understand this, just explain your slam(-try) auctions before the opening lead, and you'll be fine"(*) (but much lower frequency), I wish this had been made clear in the "official Bulletin summary". Or at least made clear in an example in the document. I can't imagine many people working that out from the (lack of) description in the new Alert Procedure.

I do like the "Don't Alert these...otherwise Alert all..." formatting. It makes a lot of things very clear when a dispute arises. I don't like it for "well, obviously you should know this" *changes* to Alerting, because it's *really easy* to miss.

(*) I'm really frustrated that this obvious, important to all, and easy to not notice change wasn't highlighted officially (in the Bulletin article). Because the whole point was to stop "what does 5♣ mean" (or, less critically for ruling, but much more annoying in the play, "what is 4NT") - everyone should *expect* that all this will be explained after the auction and not ask. But they don't (and they're right not to), and they're so worried they'll not find out...Good idea, bad communication.

Sorry but as a distracted observer of ACBL I'm a bit lost about which changes (to what) you are commenting.
I remember the document you link, and those Delayed Alerts which always struck me as unrealistic (in WBF land, opps can always ask "Please explain your auction" which seems both flexible and effective).
Then an Alert Procedure in April 2022 which doesn't seem to be what you are discussing?

[mycroft]

"They change Alerting all the time!" Well, yes, if you mean three times in 30 years from 1990 to 2020. The changes:

• Announce all NT openers, not just "outside 15-18" (because WeaSeL works against strong NTs too).
  
• 2♣-2♦ now not Alertable no matter its meaning (because nobody knew when to Alert it, and frankly it's not that relevant until after the auction anyway).
  
• 2NT-3♣ not Alertable if asking about majors (because people, perhaps unconsciously, used the Alert or lack thereof of Puppet Stayman to understand partner's response "correctly"). (Of course, this was understood as "Puppet Stayman is no longer Alertable", so wouldn't Alert 1NT-3♣...)

Huge changes that nobody understood and made Alerting so terribly complicated that it wasn't worth getting right. Unless you played Precision or 2-way Stayman or something, where if your disclosure wasn't perfect, immediate and complete, you were clearly either "trying to confuse rather than win by playing Bridge" or "-ing", of course.

That set of procedures, which most current players learned and "grew up" in (those that don't remember "before Alerts"), is still available on the web (I got it from here).

With the Great Convention Charts change, changes to the Alert Procedure were required (if for no other reason than to remove references to the Mid-Chart). They went whole-hog into it. I think the changes by and large are good ones, related carefully to changes in Expert Bidding since 1990.(*)

The new chart is here, by the way.

All of that is prelude, of whatever amount of care a non-ACBL player needs to take. Also, remember that the ACBL's attitude to Alerting is "Alerts should have meaning besides 'this isn't Natural'; minimize Alerts for calls the opponents should expect." One of the results of that is that Alerts are asked about at the time a lot more than maybe in other RAs.

Specifically to this sub-thread, the Committee deliberately, but implicitly, changed Alerting with Ace-asking bids. In the old Procedures,
"4NT Blackwood (any variety over suits) and 4♣ Gerber (any variety over notrump) and expected responses thereto do not require an Alert of any kind." (my emphasis) If you wanted to know, you had to ask. So they did. Frequently they'd ask about 4NT (which is a great way of ensuring that partner's going to understand my bid. Thanks!), but often directly after the response. Which, when it turned out the lead of the response suit was good, and they got that lead, led to a Director call, as you might expect - even though it frequently was a mindless ask and just coincidental. And, as you know, they "never" needed to know what the response meant, just "is it artificial?" (which was usually obvious) until the play anyway - but this is how they learned to play.

The new Alert Procedure very carefully does *not* have "responses to Ace-asking bids, even ones that aren't Alertable" as an exception to "Alert all Artificial calls except..." even though the exceptions for Alerting "normal" Blackwood and Gerber are still there. Because of the nature of Delayed Alerts (which also basically haven't changed, but nobody that didn't play "weird stuff" ever used to have enough Delayed Alertable sequences to care), they're "all" Delayed. And the committee added, as a "retroactive Delayed Alert", control Cuebids even if below 3NT. So, basically (as shown in the "Delayed Alert" examples), "at the end of the auction, if your side looked for slam, explain your auction". Which was *intended* to avoid all the bad issues in the previous paragraph (you don't have to ask, they'll tell you. You tell them, so they don't ask, perhaps badly or at the wrong time.") And, if everybody did it, and everybody expected it, would have been a great improvement.

And then the person who was responsible in the Bulletin to write the "summary of changes" didn't mention it. At all. I did, in my 6-page summary, but who (outside of Units 390 and 205) reads some random?

So, nothing has changed. You get jillybean's opponents' response ("Yeah, we know, it's obvious, why are you saying anything?") *and* you get people asking at 4NT and/or at 5♦. And you get people who do know the rules looking like (and frankly, being) SBs at the end of the auction, when the opponents *don't* give them their Delayed Alerts without (serious! especially if they play 1430 and first-first or first-and-second control cues - I mean, doesn't everybody?) prompting. Worst of both worlds.

Yet another situation where those who know the rules and play by them get to get frustrated and feel at a disadvantage, and get to annoy and Bridge Lawyer SB those who don't for little gain.


Yes, we too can "please explain your auction". The few times I actually do that - rather than exercise my L20F3 rights, with attendant responsibilities - I start looking for my second head myself, because they're so obviously looking for it. And if I insist (frequently because "what call are you interested in" is going to be more useful to declarer than to partner), it goes "well, 1♥ was normal..." (wait for partner) "2♣ was natural" ("game forcing?" "well, yeah, of course") (wait for partner...) until we get to the interesting stuff, rather than "we play 2/1. Everything's Natural until...and then..."

(*) I am still explicitly uncomfortable, though, with the guiding principle that "in general, strength of call doesn't make a call Alertable, even if 'uncommon'"(**) It's supposed to be available from the (new) CC, but we've mothballed that one, and it wasn't great at that anyway - and you've read JillyBean about the state of CCs in general. She's Wrong™, but not wrong. I understand "in the Expert Game, all this is 'expected', and so there would be a lot of unnecessary (and therefore not made) Alerts. And then when we're playing with a client in the Side Pairs, how do we know that it's isn't 'expected' there?" But still, and when the C pairs are +150 defending 1NT into their game after 1♣-1♥ on 4-4-4-1 1-count; 1NT, we get another scream about "these guys should be able to beat us with their skill, rather than these kinds of games". And they're not wrong.

(**) 2♣ not "Very Strong", 3M raise not limit (including GF), and for some odd reason, weak 2s that "could have 12 HCP" are the exceptions that come to mind.

[blackshoe]

There are three possibilities:

1. The bid is systemic. Meaning they have an agreement to bid this way.
2. It's a mis-bid. Meaning their agreement on this bid is something different to the hand held.
3. The bid is a psych - meaning a deliberate and gross distortion of the agreed strength or shape.

"Psych" is listed last because IMO it's the least likely.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2023-December-06, 10:35, said:

"They change Alerting all the time!" Well, yes, if you mean three times in 30 years from 1990 to 2020. The changes:

• Announce all NT openers, not just "outside 15-18" (because WeaSeL works against strong NTs too).
  
• 2♣-2♦ now not Alertable no matter its meaning (because nobody knew when to Alert it, and frankly it's not that relevant until after the auction anyway).
  
• 2NT-3♣ not Alertable if asking about majors (because people, perhaps unconsciously, used the Alert or lack thereof of Puppet Stayman to understand partner's response "correctly"). (Of course, this was understood as "Puppet Stayman is no longer Alertable", so wouldn't Alert 1NT-3♣...)

Huge changes that nobody understood and made Alerting so terribly complicated that it wasn't worth getting right. Unless you played Precision or 2-way Stayman or something, where if your disclosure wasn't perfect, immediate and complete, you were clearly either "trying to confuse rather than win by playing Bridge" or "-ing", of course.

That set of procedures, which most current players learned and "grew up" in (those that don't remember "before Alerts"), is still available on the web (I got it from here).

With the Great Convention Charts change, changes to the Alert Procedure were required (if for no other reason than to remove references to the Mid-Chart). They went whole-hog into it. I think the changes by and large are good ones, related carefully to changes in Expert Bidding since 1990.(*)

The new chart is here, by the way.

All of that is prelude, of whatever amount of care a non-ACBL player needs to take. Also, remember that the ACBL's attitude to Alerting is "Alerts should have meaning besides 'this isn't Natural'; minimize Alerts for calls the opponents should expect." One of the results of that is that Alerts are asked about at the time a lot more than maybe in other RAs.

Specifically to this sub-thread, the Committee deliberately, but implicitly, changed Alerting with Ace-asking bids. In the old Procedures,
"4NT Blackwood (any variety over suits) and 4♣ Gerber (any variety over notrump) and expected responses thereto do not require an Alert of any kind." (my emphasis) If you wanted to know, you had to ask. So they did. Frequently they'd ask about 4NT (which is a great way of ensuring that partner's going to understand my bid. Thanks!), but often directly after the response. Which, when it turned out the lead of the response suit was good, and they got that lead, led to a Director call, as you might expect - even though it frequently was a mindless ask and just coincidental. And, as you know, they "never" needed to know what the response meant, just "is it artificial?" (which was usually obvious) until the play anyway - but this is how they learned to play.

The new Alert Procedure very carefully does *not* have "responses to Ace-asking bids, even ones that aren't Alertable" as an exception to "Alert all Artificial calls except..." even though the exceptions for Alerting "normal" Blackwood and Gerber are still there. Because of the nature of Delayed Alerts (which also basically haven't changed, but nobody that didn't play "weird stuff" ever used to have enough Delayed Alertable sequences to care), they're "all" Delayed. And the committee added, as a "retroactive Delayed Alert", control Cuebids even if below 3NT. So, basically (as shown in the "Delayed Alert" examples), "at the end of the auction, if your side looked for slam, explain your auction". Which was *intended* to avoid all the bad issues in the previous paragraph (you don't have to ask, they'll tell you. You tell them, so they don't ask, perhaps badly or at the wrong time.") And, if everybody did it, and everybody expected it, would have been a great improvement.

And then the person who was responsible in the Bulletin to write the "summary of changes" didn't mention it. At all. I did, in my 6-page summary, but who (outside of Units 390 and 205) reads some random?

So, nothing has changed. You get jillybean's opponents' response ("Yeah, we know, it's obvious, why are you saying anything?") *and* you get people asking at 4NT and/or at 5♦. And you get people who do know the rules looking like (and frankly, being) SBs at the end of the auction, when the opponents *don't* give them their Delayed Alerts without (serious! especially if they play 1430 and first-first or first-and-second control cues - I mean, doesn't everybody?) prompting. Worst of both worlds.

Yet another situation where those who know the rules and play by them get to get frustrated and feel at a disadvantage, and get to annoy and Bridge Lawyer SB those who don't for little gain.


Yes, we too can "please explain your auction". The few times I actually do that - rather than exercise my L20F3 rights, with attendant responsibilities - I start looking for my second head myself, because they're so obviously looking for it. And if I insist (frequently because "what call are you interested in" is going to be more useful to declarer than to partner), it goes "well, 1♥ was normal..." (wait for partner) "2♣ was natural" ("game forcing?" "well, yeah, of course") (wait for partner...) until we get to the interesting stuff, rather than "we play 2/1. Everything's Natural until...and then..."

(*) I am still explicitly uncomfortable, though, with the guiding principle that "in general, strength of call doesn't make a call Alertable, even if 'uncommon'"(**) It's supposed to be available from the (new) CC, but we've mothballed that one, and it wasn't great at that anyway - and you've read JillyBean about the state of CCs in general. She's Wrong™, but not wrong. I understand "in the Expert Game, all this is 'expected', and so there would be a lot of unnecessary (and therefore not made) Alerts. And then when we're playing with a client in the Side Pairs, how do we know that it's isn't 'expected' there?" But still, and when the C pairs are +150 defending 1NT into their game after 1♣-1♥ on 4-4-4-1 1-count; 1NT, we get another scream about "these guys should be able to beat us with their skill, rather than these kinds of games". And they're not wrong.

(**) 2♣ not "Very Strong", 3M raise not limit (including GF), and for some odd reason, weak 2s that "could have 12 HCP" are the exceptions that come to mind.

So it is the the April 2022 Alert Procedure we are talking about, thanks.
It remains a strange world to me (*), but of the changes I managed to note, most seemed positive.

Fully agree about the disadvantages of obliging the strong guys to talk about their Stayman at level 1/2 or encouraging the weak guys to ask about artificial bids at level 4/5, of course.

I confess I am bemused about the "retroactive Delayed Alert" of control-bids below 3NT... yes I can see the situation, it was only apparent as a control-bid once the bidding progressed, but the non-natural agreement that it could be a control-bid was in place at the time... no excuse for non-disclosure that I can see (even applying the "attitude" that non-natural is not enough to require alert: how many ACBL players would play this way in the first place?).

I don't usually have to look for a second head after "please explain your auction" Maybe because I often add "from level 4 onwards" (if I had no doubts below), which seems a reasonable compromise with L20F3. If there is any doubt, it is usually about whether I insist on alternate explanations or if it is ok for the more expert player to explain all (which is less lawful but faster and often clearer). If I have any ethical doubt, it is about the extent to which I am asking for my partner.

(*) But watch this space, because I am just back from debating the 2024 Italian regulations and what was decided but is not yet official has some ACBL-like twists.

[thepossum]

Surely such a bit should be on a card or alerted.
Most people expect people to have the suits they bid unless it is an artificial bid
I don't really care much about so-called common practice and what anyone may say
If its unusual and doesn't describe your hand the decent thing to do is alert on a card
2c gf can have any number of clubs etc

I don't even understand why it needs to be an argument
Seriously what happened to Bridge

Is it not basic etiquette and part of the game that opps should get clear information about every single bid, and no information goes to partner that doesn't go to opps

Basic principle of the game

[mycroft]

The issue with the control cuebids are (usually) minor suit slam auctions where the 3-level cuebids "sound like" probes for 3NT until pulled; or (usually) major suit slam auctions where the 3-level bids "sound like" game tries until overridden as "this is a control cue, and so was the last one". They almost always *are* probes for 3NT/4M, after all.

Alerting them at the time, especially if their "normal meaning" is Natural and only rarely are they shown to have been control cues later, would be difficult for many to understand and annoying to play (from both sides).

"Alerting them" through the Delayed Alert procedure (effectively, the "explain your slam auctions" procedure - we've moved to "just explain, don't bother to "bidX is a Delayed Alert." "Okay, what is it?" "<explanation>", which was always a waste of time) after, when they are clearly understood to be control Cues (and you can explain what type you play at the same time) is simple, avoids the confusion, and effective.

That is, if we'd bothered to advertise it, of course.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2023-December-06, 21:47, said:

Alerting them at the time, especially if their "normal meaning" is Natural and only rarely are they shown to have been control cues later, would be difficult for many to understand and annoying to play (from both sides).

"Alerting them" through the Delayed Alert procedure (effectively, the "explain your slam auctions" procedure - we've moved to "just explain, don't bother to "bidX is a Delayed Alert." "Okay, what is it?" "<explanation>", which was always a waste of time) after, when they are clearly understood to be control Cues (and you can explain what type you play at the same time) is simple, avoids the confusion, and effective.

Isn't alerting (however different our regulations and philosophy may be) quintessentially a warning about things that are rare and may be difficult to understand?
An advanced opponent capable of figuring out the second meaning is going to suspect it at the time and spot it later, with or without Delayed Alert.
Any other opponent deserves the true explanation at the time, IMHO.

[mycroft]

The point is, what is true?

If you alert all HSGTs and probes for 3NT as "[looking for help for game]|[stopper-showing NT probe], or cuebid for slam", are you confusing the newer players more in the 95% of auctions where it's the former (which is not Alertable)? Especially when, after it has been shown to be "oh, or it's the other thing", you're in a slam-try auction and they will find out about it before the opening lead?

There are definitely situations where "oh, or the other thing" is a problem for the opponents. I dislike the explanation of "showing an invitational hand" after 1x-1y; 1NT-2♣ - because "oh, or wants to play 2♦ instead of 1NT." That's an alternative meaning, hiding of which improves the preemptiveness of the 2♣ call. Or Psychic Ogust, to ride my frequent hobby-horse again (the purveyors of which object strenuously when you say that "could be a preemptive raise to 3" or "frequently, but not always, interested in game" should be part of the explanation. "We didn't say it promised any strength!") Or many other calls where there's a rare, weak option.

But this one, the alternative meaning is "extra strength"; the only relevant calls are "preparing a sacrifice" or "preparing a lead", neither of which change with it being a slam try rather than a game try/choice of games probe.

But I guess your concern applies to all the calls that are Delayed Alerts in the ACBL "any other opponent deserves the true explanation at the time". Which is a point. I won't argue that. The ACBL believes (and several other RAs have a similar belief, even if they act on it in different ways) that these Alerts are more helpful to the Alerting side than the opponents during the auction. Your point aside, I trust their judgement. Frankly, I've only heard of one case where it wasn't - it's one of the neverending (73!) appeal set from Toronto 2001, and even that was a "was the should-have-been Alerted bid the problem that triggered the mistake over the Delayed-Alertable bid, or was it obvious?"

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2023-December-08, 13:31, said:

But I guess your concern applies to all the calls that are Delayed Alerts in the ACBL "any other opponent deserves the true explanation at the time". Which is a point. I won't argue that. The ACBL believes (and several other RAs have a similar belief, even if they act on it in different ways) that these Alerts are more helpful to the Alerting side than the opponents during the auction.

No, it wasn't a knee-jerk concern about truth at all costs and all moments, I agree with the many RAs (including my own) that are prepared to silence the auction above 3NT. I'm just uncomfortable with lowering the bar, especially when the convention involved is far from obvious to weaker players and if correctly explained might have an impact on how they bid at the time.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2023-December-06, 21:47, said:

we've moved to "just explain, don't bother to "bidX is a Delayed Alert."

Have we? Does the Alert regulation actually say that? And who is "we" anyway?

[blackshoe]

 pescetom, on 2023-December-07, 16:35, said:

Isn't alerting (however different our regulations and philosophy may be) quintessentially a warning about things that are rare and may be difficult to understand?
An advanced opponent capable of figuring out the second meaning is going to suspect it at the time and spot it later, with or without Delayed Alert.
Any other opponent deserves the true explanation at the time, IMHO.

For me, if not for most, when I have an agreement that a three level bid may be either a NT probe or a control bid, I usually won't know at the time the bid is made which it is. Which I think is why it's a Delayed Alert. Especially considering that when we're still below 3NT we treat it as a NT probe, and will only discover it's not when partner goes beyond 3NT.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2023-December-08, 20:24, said:

For me, if not for most, when I have an agreement that a three level bid may be either a NT probe or a control bid, I usually won't know at the time the bid is made which it is. Which I think is why it's a Delayed Alert. Especially considering that when we're still below 3NT we treat it as a NT probe, and will only discover it's not when partner goes beyond 3NT.

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".

Admittedly that is not a great analogy, because the default explanation is the artificial one rather than the natural one... I'll try to come up with something more pertinent. Perhaps a 1♦ response to 1♣ which we alert as "could be weak with clubs" and others keep quiet about, arguing that it is a natural convention.

Which I guess brings us closer to what irks me in the first place, an apparently natural bid which it is understood may turn out not to be so. Maybe I just have a lower tolerance for that than most, for some reason.

[jillybean]

This is where it gets cloudy for me. A probe for NT is just bridge, forward going. Experienced opponents don't ask, if others ask I try to remember to say it's a probe for nt or it could be a control bid for a slam try. I have the same problem with our (alert) game try sequence, ostensibly it is a whatever type game try but it could be an initial cue for a slam try.
I don't think it's right to gauge my opponents skill level and alert/explanation to suit. Aert if needed, and give a full explanation if asked. Don't dumb it down for newer players. I think they will either go away and study the full explanation or they have asked because that's the thing to do and they won't care about the convoluted explanation.

Is the purpose of delayed alerts to minimise questions and UI by the opponents?