Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Mike Ma
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
LOL. I was the one who in one of the earliest comments said that was the rules. No one needed you to tell us the rules. The Bulletin article spelt it out clear, and some of us went to the Alert Chart document to make sure in spite of being incredulous about it. People were saying that they will alert anyway because the rule is beyond absurd, and you were telling them that they must not, that somehow they would be committing some grave crime for daring to not follow a silly rule. 'Whether you choose to ignore them is up to you." That is what I have been saying all along. If I were to play 2 as transfer, I will for sure alert, and I will accept the consequence if opponents call the director on it.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, are you seriously trying to say a colloquial use of no one = 0? Do you understand the word “basically”. Look at the OP and the comments, how many knew about this no alert thing until the t article. The same went for all the people at my club I have talked to.

Suspending this one rule till the new rules is similar to a temporary restraining order. Other than you and Ed Reppert (surprise, surprise), is there anyone who supports keeping No Alert of 2? It is a limited sample for sure, but it is pretty overwhelming.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, the article in Bulletin precisely shows the difference between control response and transfer. And other control responses to 2 are alerted. Announcing the meaning post auction does not help someone considering bidding .

As for the other statement, I am talking about people not in authority who want to tell others what to do. I don't tell you you must alert, why should you tell me I must not? As I have already said, you are welcome to call the director when I alert.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael R, I think so. I was referring to 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 in my method, Since advancer does not agree , she will have GF hand, with 4!, but otherwise unknown to doubler.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Since basically no one knows about this no alert on any 2 thing, how about ACBL just issue a special notification that transfer over 2 needs announcement, including 2.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AMicahel R, all my connects correspond to 2 GF unless 4-4M, in which case it may be invitational.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael R, as I said, I was only giving what I play. I have no comment on what others play.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, I don't disagree with you. But many of us see the rule as problematic and contrary to the stated purpose of Alert Procedures Official document. We also realize this document was written 6 years ago, which means it may very well be outdated.

I don't fault anyone for not alerting. I myself will alert if 2 is not waiting, positive, negative, point count, or control.

As usual, there are some people who want to dictate to others what they should do, while some others just want to do what they feel right. If I alert 2 at your table, feel free to call the director on me. If you don't alert, I will not call on on you.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There was.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sounds like Mr. SB is going back to his engineering days.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
strip and endplay. I am not so sure what is so special about it.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, first Jan 2014 meant written in 2013. AFAIK (and both because of my lowly station in Bridge and because I live in Cincinnati, I may be 5 years behind), transfer response to 2 was not on the map then.

Highly unusual is in the Objective Statement, and they explicitly recognized it as fuzzy. So why are you picking on it here as opposed to the one million other cases.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray, the point is the law does not change constantly to adjust for the changing trend. When it was written on 2011 or was it 2013, how many people play transfer response to 2? Perhaps they looked at the conventions then, waiting, positive, negative, controls etc and decided it was better to issue a blanket no alert statement rather than create confusion by choosing which of those should not be alerted and others should be. They probably also decided that variations of those choices should be fine.

OTOH, to have no alert of 2 as transfer violates their statement of objective, which is to inform opponents of highly unexpected and unusual bids, as well as arbitrarily differentiating 2 transfer from 2 transfer. It is simple logic to realize that is enological, and likely unintended.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
What happens when the bids overlap? E.g. good trumps and good shape.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Khokan, I never said anything about best method (or even better method). I just explained the way I play, why 3 is forcing. And I am pretty sure the way i play is pretty common. It makes no sense to proclaim superiority of method without saying what it is. Can advancer have an invitation hand without both M with the cue bid?
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael R, of course you are speaking from a voice of experience and knowledge. And yes, after a double of 1, and the 2 cue, I would also bid first. My whole point is confirming fit at the 3 level, not 4. I am assuming with 5, and knowing we have 8 card fit, it is never a problem. Not sure why if responder takes a delayed 3, why that should be a problem. Advancer will X.

Of course my experience is limited, but I have had no problem with the up the line approach except with people who don't know what the cue means, and forcing till M fit is found (or 2NT). Or the partnership does not agree whether it is M first, or bid up the line. At the club, many of the experienced players would bid 4 with 4=4 M GF after (1) - X, so this is all moot anyway.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Khokan, I was talking about how I play. I cannot comment on how you play. I explained what the 2 bid shows in my previous comment. Consistent with that is that if advancer does not have both M, she will have a GF hand. So when she raises to 3, denying both M, it is GF.

As to raising 2NT to 3, when doubler denies 4 M by bidding 2NT over 2, he has a solid double. It is borderline for N's hand whether to raise. So I can go with P or 3NT. The J98 seems useful in NT, so maybe that bends me towards 3NT.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Craig, let's say it goes
X - 2 - 2 - 2 - 3, how is advancer going to confirm fit? You have to go to 4 level.

The thing is I don't see any drawback to the bid up the line approach (not considering revealing to defense now), especially when doubler has 5 .. I want to confirm fit at the 3 level, not 4.

I see this as just the same principle as bidding 2/1 with longer m than M.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter, thanks.
Dec. 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I very much doubt” is not an accusation. It is an opinion, because if this is good Bridge for this hand, it is good any time this situation happens. That is why I repeatedly say they should keep a record of such happenings. Not the psyche by itself but the psyche and fielding the psyche successfully. Keeping the record should just be matter of fact, not accusation.

As it is, everything is innuendoes. In this case, with a loud outcry of how this pair is beyond reproach. The whole point is it should be based on objective data. But if there is no data, there can be no objectivity.
Dec. 11
.

Bottom Home Top