Fantunes Pre-alerting/Alerting
recb...@jamesstuart.org
to Gerben's simple version: http://www.geocities.com/gerben47/bridge/mosca.html),
and looking for some advice on pre-alerts and alerting for this.
The short of it: 5-card majors, but all one-level suit bids are
unlimited and F1R (1C is clubs or balanced). 2-level suit bids are all
9-12, 5+ in that suit (any quality) usually unbalanced.
Obviously, the 2-level bids have to be pre-alerted for lack of
quality. But do I explain just that our preempts are undisciplined
with regard to suit quality? Do I pre-alert their range, length and
quality? (as well as alerting 2C all the time).
With this being the relevant section:
3) SYSTEMS THAT MAY BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAMILIAR TO THE OPPONENTS
Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems
that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include
either strong or weak notrumps with or without five-card majors. The
forcing opening bid will most often be an artificial forcing opening
of 1C or 2C .
When you play a system structured along different agreements than
these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention card
before the round begins.
--
Is a bid like 1H (5+H, 13+HCP, F1R):
a) pre-alert, then alert during play
b) pre-alert, then silence
c) alert
Thanks,
--james
neill...@gmail.com
Hi James,
Assuming this is legal in the event (and have given defenses, etc), I
wouldn't pre-alert the system. Certainly 2-bids that promise just
that suit with 5+crds are not pre-alertable (else precision 2C would
be pre-alerted but it isn't anywhere). When I play this system, I
just say "forcing" when partner opens a 1D/1H/1S and "alert" on the 1C
since it's both 2+crds and forcing. Opponents of all skill levels
react quite well as opposed to screaming for the director.
In my experience, pre-alerts are for high-level non-social events
because they tend to scare/confuse rather than inform/assuage. We are
playing to inform/assuage, are we not?
Thanks,
Dan
danny...@aol.com
A. Pre alert and alert during play.
Your first paragraph looks perfect for it.
Danny
paul...@infi.net
Pre-alert and alert during play. One level bids that are forcing are
certainly unexpected. Two level bids that show 9-12 are unexpected.
The style is not one players should be expected to be familiar with.
paul...@infi.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dan --
I sympathize but I think you should know better than to make up your
own rules for alerting and announcing. Only specific bids are
announceable, such as the forcing notrump response to one of a major
opening; to say "Forcing" in any other context is clearly illegal,
regardless of intent. At the club level I would recommend using the
same procedures which you intend to use at tournaments. You could, of
course, ask Jay's opinion in our area; keep in mind that he did
penalize Ron for announcing "Ogust" when I bid 2NT in response to a
weak two. The logic in that case is clear -- his announcement
clarified the meaning of his rebid. I can't think of any similar
damage from your use of the word "forcing" in such a common situation,
but leave it to the rulemakers to make that decision.
I think we are all better off comforming to the sponsoring
organizations procedures than making up our own. If the F-N style
catches on, the procedures may change in 20 years or so.
Cheers,
Paul
Andrew
The alerting regulations are defined by the sanctioning body in your
part of the world so check out the regs carefully before following any
recommendations here. That being said, here are my opinions:
> Obviously, the 2-level bids have to be pre-alerted for lack of
> quality. But do I explain just that our preempts are undisciplined
> with regard to suit quality?
If an opponent prealerted his 2-bds to you as "undisciplined" would
you know what undisciplined meant to him? Some people could hold any 6
cards and 0-10 HCP. Others might hold a 5- or 6- card suit and 7-11
HCP. And there are many other variations. Your 2-bids have a specific
definition that can be concisely stated. So why provide a potentially
misleading explanation?
> Do I pre-alert their range, length and
> quality? (as well as alerting 2C all the time).
prealert:
1. Our 1-suit opening bids are natural, always sound (13+), F1R and
unlimited.
2. Our 2-suit openings are natural, promise 5+ cards in that suit (any
quality) and 9-12 HCP
> Is a bid like 1H (5+H, 13+HCP, F1R):
>
> a) pre-alert, then alert during play
> b) pre-alert, then silence
> c) alert
IMO, it should be prealert then silence. A natural 1H opening does not
deserve an alert. Similarly, a natural 2-bid does not deserve an
alert.
Andrew
Stu G
Since you quoted a section from the ACBL alerting regulations, I'll
assume that's where you reside.
Your 1H, for example, is what every 5-card SA player would do, aside
from its forcing nature. It fits the 'about expected strength and
shape' that is not alertable in the GCC chart. However, the GCC chart
does not state whether a natural, but forcing, 1x bid is alertable or
not. It does state that if non-forcing, it is not alertable. Logic
would therefore imply it should be alerted. Since it is otherwise
very common, there is no need to pre-alert.
Your 2 bids are weak and natural. That is what is listed under 'not
alertable'. Only intermediate natural 2 bids are alertable. I don't
consider 9-12 to be intermediate. The quality of the suit should not
be too significant. That is a matter of style; lots of players use 2
level preempts with ratty suits.
Despite these comments, you can always pre-alert as a matter of
courtesy.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Nick France
Basic concept with an unusual system is you pre-alert before the cards
are pulled and then you alert any bid that requires an alert (which in
your case would be most of your opening bids).
Nick France
Travis Crump
I'd say just alert. If you assume that(bidding) prealerts are primarily
to allow the opponents to discuss defenses before it comes up, it seems
unnecessary to prealert since I can't imagine doing anything special
over these bids. I never 'expect' 1 bids to be passed out anyway.
Perhaps include in the alert that you have no artificial forcing
openings. On second thought if you employ an artificial negative of the
cheapest bid the opponents might want to agree whether X shows that suit
or takeout of opener's suit[takeout seems more reasonable], so maybe
pre-alert than alert is right. pre-alert and then silence just strikes
me as always wrong.
Travis
Andrew
Travis Crump
Well. intermediate/strong natural 2 bids are certainly alertable. 1H as
forcing seems to qualify as 'highly unusual/unexpected'. Surely if you
think it is so unusual that it requires a prealert than it is unusual
enough to require an alert. If you want to argue that it doesn't need
any alerts whatsoever and you just alert the artificial negative if you
have one that's a different kettle, but that doesn't seem to be your
stance. You could just as easily say you were prealerting your NT
ranges and then not announce them, but that isn't done. What's the
difference?
Travis
raija d
"Andrew" <agum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebb4662c-c92b-40d3...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Many natural bids require an alert because the alert regulations require us
to alert them.
I would think it is unusual and unexpected (therefore alertable in ACBL) for
a one-level opening other than 1C to be forcing.
paul...@infi.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Alerting (in the ACBL, at least) has virtually nothing to do with
whether a bid is natural or not. My Precision 2C opening is completely
natural (6+ clubs, 11-15 hcp)and also highly unexpected when compared
to common usage (a hand of near game forcing strength.) Penalty
doubles of overcalls are natural, unexpected, and alertable. A forcing
1 level bid is unexpected and therefore alertable. I agree the opening
bids would not be alertable on strength alone, but the forcing
treatment requires an alert.
Adam Beneschan
> "Andrew" <agump...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Unfortunately, the "Alert Procedures" says about natural opening bids
that bids that show unusual shape or strength must be Alerted. I am
not sure that an unusual forcing vs. non-forcing nature of a bid falls
into that category.
I'd either Alert or pre-Alert anyway. I'd probably pre-Alert, without
caring much about whether ACBL regulations require it. But that's
because my tendency is to answer the question "What do I need to do to
make sure the opponents have sufficient knowledge about our methods
without unduly slowing down the game", as opposed to "How much can I
not say and get away with it under the rules"? The fact that our
opening suit bids are forcing is definitely something that opener's
LHO needs to know *before* deciding whether to act, because the fact
that he definitely (as opposed to "probably") will have another chance
to act may affect his decision.
-- Adam
rbu...@gmail.com
The 2 of a suit openings can easily be pre-alerted - we say 10-13, 6+ cards or 5 cards with no minimum suit quality and some shortness (and <4 cards in the other major when we open 2M).
These pre-alerts, while meeting the letter of the ACBL regs, don't really do justice to the system. Opponents, for example, would not expect us to routinely reopen (which we do) after a simple overcall of a 2-level opening is passed back to opener.
As to providing defenses, I don't think anything is really required in that regard - the one-bids are completely natural except for 1C and the two-bids are also natural.
It's also an interesting issue whether the 1NT opening should be pre-alerted, both for range and also for the wide variety of shapes possible. I for one find opening 1NT with 5=2=4=2 shape bizarre, although there is no ther bid for it in the system. Certainly opponents shouldn't be expected to anticipate this.
judyo...@gmail.com
>
>
> It's also an interesting issue whether the 1NT opening should be pre-alerted, both for range and also for the wide variety of shapes possible. I for one find opening 1NT with 5=2=4=2 shape bizarre, although there is no ther bid for it in the system. Certainly opponents shouldn't be expected to anticipate this.
Carl
Steve Willner
>> these, you should draw the opponents attention to your convention
>> card before the round begins.
attention to your convention card. If you want to go beyond that -- a
good idea -- you might type out some cards listing the key unusual
points of the system.
The forcing one-bids get alerted when they occur.
> The 2 of a suit openings can easily be pre-alerted
unusual things.
> - we say 10-13, 6+ cards or 5 cards with no minimum suit quality and
> some shortness (and<4 cards in the other major when we open 2M).
alert them because they might be a little stronger than a normal weak
two. If the opponents ask, then of course explain all.
> Opponents, for example, would not
> expect us to routinely reopen (which we do) after a simple overcall
> of a 2-level opening is passed back to opener.
values? If so, it should be alerted when it happens. I think we need
to know more about the system to form an opinion here.
> As to providing defenses, I don't think anything is really required
> in that regard - the one-bids are completely natural except for 1C
> and the two-bids are also natural.
> It's also an interesting issue whether the 1NT opening should be
> pre-alerted, both for range and also for the wide variety of shapes
> possible.
have one, but the regulation above says you pre-alert the whole system,
not individual calls. Obviously you would explain if this comes up or
if opponents ask for a general system description, but I doubt it would
make anyone want to change their defense to the 1NT opening.
Many jurisdictions -- but not the ACBL -- have a place on the System
Card something like "Aspects of the system opponents should be aware
of." That would be the place to put things like the ones above. In the
ACBL, disclosure seems to be via a supplementary card or orally.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Will in New Haven
level opening bids in Roman but don't seem to in Fantunes. Of course,
I haven't been keeping up with ACBL regulations because I no longer
have a partnership where we want to play Roman but I once did and were
told the forcing one-level bids were the problem. Other than being
canape, they were fairly similar to the one-bids in Fantunes.
--
Will in New Haven
judyo...@gmail.com
> Other than being
> canape, they were fairly similar to the one-bids in Fantunes.
> --
>
> Will in New Haven
But to say it was canape is a huge understatement. Even today I believe you would not be allowed to open 3=1=6=3 systemically with 1S or 2=2=7=2 with 1H.
Also, the frequent use of step responses was not approved, and thus not allowed, until C C Wei's political influence forced the change.
Carl
Will in New Haven
wrote:
Oddly, that it the same "one step is weak" that is common opposite the
strong 1C and 2C openings.
I never opened a two-card Major but we didn't get to play it that
often. I did open 1S with AJx, on almost the exact distribution you
mention, and got to play the hand in 4S when partner had six of them.
We were in a normal contract for a normal score, slightly above-
average, but it _still_ annoyed the opponents.
judyo...@gmail.com
For all I know, they still are.
Carl
Will in New Haven
wrote:
pairs who played that a simple overcall denied an opening bid.
Adam Beneschan
> Herbert neg to takeout doubles were a separately banned convention for decades.
>
> For all I know, they still are.
-- Adam
Steve Willner
> I find it puzzling that the ACBL had a problem with the forcing one-
> level opening bids in Roman but don't seem to in Fantunes.
the GCC?
The problem now, as I think someone else wrote, is the Herbert negative
over bids other than 1C. I don't think that's legal even on the
MidChart. (It's OK on the SuperChart, and 1D negative to 1C is GCC.)
You _might_ have a problem with opening 3-card majors, but there's
probably a way around that.
Michael Angelo Ravera
You will need to alert the 1- and 2-level level suit openers in time (and probably your 2NT opener, if, like most of us, you play in as a 2-suited minor preempt) and announce your 1NT opener.
No defenses need be provided because all of the openers are GCC.
Promising only 13HCP for your 1D, 1H, and 1S openers makes both Relay Force and Relay Negative into MidChart conventions. If they promised 15HCP, you could pretty much play what you like (except that you still can't use 1NT as your game force over 1M opener).
If you want to make a prealert card, you should probably say
<QUOTE>
All 1-level suit openers show 13+HCP and are forcing for at least 1 round.
All 2-level suit openers show 5+cards and generally 9-12HCP
Opening 2NT is Preemptive with at least 5-4 in the minors
/QUOTE>
Steve Willner
> Herbert neg to takeout doubles were a separately banned convention for decades.
have played them briefly. They are certainly GCC-legal now. Are you
thinking of Herbert negative advances of overcalls?
judyo...@gmail.com
Anti-Italian prejudice, I guess.
Carl
Kenny McCormack
judyo...@verizon.net <judyo...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>the mid 80s at least.
Are you saying that they *are* GCC-legal now?
This would be good news, to be sure.
--
"The anti-regulation business ethos is based on the charmingly naive notion
that people will not do unspeakable things for money." - Dana Carpender
Quoted by Paul Ciszek (pciszek at panix dot com). But what I want to know
is why is this diet/low-carb food author doing making pithy political/economic
statements?
Nevertheless, the above quote is dead-on, because, the thing is - business
in one breath tells us they don't need to be regulated (which is to say:
that they can morally self-regulate), then in the next breath tells us that
corporations are amoral entities which have no obligations to anyone except
their officers and shareholders, then in the next breath they tell us they
don't need to be regulated (that they can morally self-regulate) ...
Steve Willner
>> >the mid 80s at least.
> Are you saying that they*are* GCC-legal now?
Yes. The ACBL's present position is that once a convention is legal,
all followups are legal (with the usual exception for destructive
methods, whatever they are, and the strangely defined relay systems).
Takeout double is a legal convention.
Thanks to Michael for pointing out that nearly everything is legal after
any opening one-bid promising 15+ HCP. Contrary to what he wrote, I
don't see why 1NT GF response isn't legal as long as it's not part of a
relay system.
Michael Angelo Ravera
> >> Herbert negative to takeout doubles was specifically banned until
>
> >> >the mid 80s at least.
>
>
>
> On 2013-06-16 7:57 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
> > Are you saying that they*are* GCC-legal now?
>
> Yes. The ACBL's present position is that once a convention is legal,
> all followups are legal (with the usual exception for destructive
> methods, whatever they are, and the strangely defined relay systems).
> Takeout double is a legal convention.
> Thanks to Michael for pointing out that nearly everything is legal after
> any opening one-bid promising 15+ HCP. Contrary to what he wrote, I
> don't see why 1NT GF response isn't legal as long as it's not part of a
> relay system.
But, I can see where you got the idea. The GCC explicitly grants permission for all (constructive) calls beginning with Opener's rebid. The Mid-Chart grants permission without a prealert to all (constructive) calls beginning with the Opener's partner. So, it's only Responses to 1-level suit Openers and Advances of Overcall suit bids on the GCC that are restricted. In addition, conventional Responses are legalized on the GCC, if the overcall is conventional (like cuebids and takeout double). Also, almost everything is legal over a 1NT opener and everything *is* legal over 2-level and higher openers. Also, transfer advances are legalized on the GCC. So, most of what isn't legal on the GCC are things like nonsupport relay negatives over 1-level openers that don't promise at least 15HCP and and suit overcalls and artificial Advances of suit overalls that don't show length or high cards in a known suit. (You can't use strength "steps", for instance).
1M-1NT[FG] is illegal because I got an interpretation from Rulings at ACBL that it was illegal. There is a conflict between "whatever you want after a forcing opener" and a "1NT that promises invitational or better values"
Here is my E-mail exchange with Rich Beye:
<Thread>
Michael,
We may be having some language problems here. When the GCC says 'may not', that means NO you can not. If you still don't understand we suggest you speak with one of the senior TDs the next time you attend a tournament. If you are in San Diego please don't hesitate to seek out either Mike Flader or me.
rb
There is nothing "World Championshipish" about using all 2-level bids as light openers nor in promising extra values for the 1-level bids (We play them all 15+ with the minors semi-forcing).
Are you saying that we may not use a 1NT response as forcing to game, but may use any other bid (that doesn't start a relay)?
Are you saying that even if we made our 1M bids forcing, we couldn't play 1NT as an artificial game force?
By the way, since this is Response and Rebid, we would be allowed to play this even at MC-2, wouldn't we?
From: "rul...@acbl.org" <rul...@acbl.org>
To: Michael Angelo Ravera <michr...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Fri, November 13, 2009 4:07:09 PM
Subject: Re: 1M[NAT STR]-(P)-1NT FG
#2 states a specific exclusion. You my not use 1NT forcing to guarantee game going values. There is no conflict here, nor in any of the other sections you note. Too, the system you refer to is played in World Championship play, not in any other venue.
Rick Beye
Michael Angelo Ravera <michr...@yahoo.com>
I'm looking for clarification about various permissions granted under the General Convention Chart that seem to be in conflict. All of the involve the Response and Rebids permissions:
I'll excerpt the GCC here:
2. ONE NOTRUMP response to a major suit opening bid forcing one round;
cannot guarantee game invitational or better values.
3. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES WHICH GUARANTEE GAME
FORCING OR BETTER VALUES. May NOT be part of a relay system.
7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP),
forcing opening bids ...
Permissions #2 and #3 seem to be in conflict. Can a 1NT response be used as an artificial game force over a 1M opener? Permission #3 says you can. #2 says you can't.
Similarly, it is perfectly legal to play a strong 1M opener that promises at least 4 cards in the suit bid (by definition of "natural"). If you also played the 1M opener as forcing, permission #7 would seem to allow you to play anything you liked in response (including a 1NT that was artificial and forcing to game).
So, are the permissions cumulative or is there primacy attached to the order and what significance does the restriction that the forcing 1NT response not promise invitational or better values place on the "Anything may be game forcing" provision.
This, incidentally, isn't out of idle interest. I am trying out a Fantoni-Nunes-like system. It would seem like a 1NT that shows game values would fit nicely into the works. If it is specifically illegal, we could use a "Cheapest suit forcing", but the whole point of the system is to bid naturally whenever possible.
</Thread>
Steve Willner
> First, you are wrong about permission for a conventional call
> automatically granting permission for conventional followups.
place, but now I look it isn't in the Convention Charts. I suppose the
statement might have been a summary of the ACBL's typical approach
rather than a statement of an actual rule. Or maybe it's just my bad
memory again.
> The Mid-Chart grants permission without a prealert to all
> (constructive) calls beginning with the Opener's partner.
pre-alert.
> ... most
> negatives over 1-level openers that don't promise at least 15HCP
need not be strong. In fact, it looks as though transfer advances to a
natural 1C (not necessarily strong) are not allowed on the GCC, despite
their popularity overseas.
> and suit overcalls
As far as I can tell, conventional direct suit overcalls aren't allowed
unless the opening bid was conventional.
> and artificial Advances of suit overalls that
> don't show length or high cards in a known suit.
showing a known suit.)
> 1M-1NT[FG] is illegal because I got an interpretation from Rulings at
> ACBL that it was illegal.
conflict, then gives an interpretation that seems opposite the plain
language. Also his contention that F-N is only played in "World
have gotten a different answer. Maybe I'll give it a try. Virtually
all strong club players play a 1NT response to 1C as FG and often
artificial; I can't believe Rick thinks that is illegal. (There's an
example in this month's Bulletin bidding contest: 1C-1NT is FG and shows
spades.)
Michael Angelo Ravera
Lone Locust of the Apocalypse
>On 2013-06-18 8:45 PM, Michael Angelo Ravera wrote:
>> 1M-1NT[FG] is illegal because I got an interpretation from Rulings at
>> ACBL that it was illegal.
>...
>> Here is my E-mail exchange with Rich Beye:
>
>Thanks. Very amusing! Especially the part where he says there is no
>conflict, then gives an interpretation that seems opposite the plain
>language.
violate #2, because #2 says "cannot guarantee game invitational or better
values" and 1NT[FG] does not guarantee game invitational or better values,
it guarantees strictly FG+ values.
Is this ridiculously hair-splitting and language-torturing? Sure, but
they started it :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo
Michael Angelo Ravera
Forcing 1NT is only restricted not to show invitational or better values after a 1M opener. You can, apparently, do whatever you like over a strong 1m. Playing 1M[NAT STR F]-(P)-1NT either similar to Jacoby 2NT or as a game forcing non-fit response both hold a lot of merit in my mind.
You can make overcalls on the GCC that show two known suits with 5-4+ distribution. NonJumps have to show 10HCP, but jumps need only show the shape. (1C)-2D showing majors is allowed, for instance. Any overcall that shows 4 or more cards in the suit named is considered natural, even if it promises another suit, known or unknown and even, if it could be weak. For some reason, direct transfer overcalls are not permitted over opponents' opening 1-level suit bids.
The GCC war (apart from transfers) seems to be against suit bid that doesn't promise at least 10 HCP or a known suit until the other side has had a chance to bid. If I wrote the GCC, it would go down to the following:
1) Initial bids by both sides must promise one or more of the following:
a) 4 or more cards in one known suit
b) at least 10 HCP
c) at least 8 HCP and 3 or more cards in the suit bid
2) Initial Passes by both sides must not promise values
Steve Willner
> Forcing 1NT is only restricted not to show invitational or better
> values after a 1M opener. You can, apparently, do whatever you like
> over a strong 1m.
> Playing 1M[NAT STR F]-(P)-1NT either similar to
> Jacoby 2NT or as a game forcing non-fit response both hold a lot of
> merit in my mind.
forcing, but that doesn't seem all that difficult to defend against.
Presumably if 1NT is natural ("generally, no singleton or void and only
one or two doubletons"), it can be played any strength. Does that help?
judyo...@gmail.com
>
> Agreed. My _guess_ is that someone was worried about 1M-2m non-
> forcing, but that doesn't seem all that difficult to defend against.
>
> Presumably if 1NT is natural ("generally, no singleton or void and only
> one or two doubletons"), it can be played any strength. Does that help?
>
Carl