they were “routine.” {5} The State argues that the objection did not state “the ground or grounds of the objection or motion ... with sufficient specificity to alert the mind of the trial court to the claimed error or errors, ... [so] that a ruling thereon [could] then be invoked.” State v. Elliott, 2001-NMCA-108, ¶21, 131 N.M. 390, 37 P.3d 107 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We hold that Child’s objection was sufficient. The objection raised the issue that the applicable rules of the court did not countenance amendments to conform to the evidence. The trial court responded in kind. Proper preservation does not always require that counsel refer to the specific rule violated when making the objection. See Albertson v. State, 89 N.M. 499, 501, 554 P.2d 661, 663 (1976) (<HOLDING>); cf. State v. Jacobs, 2000-NMSC-026, ¶ 12, 129
holding that an objection based on relevancy was specific enough to alert the trial court that the testimony was improper under the rule addressing the admissibility of prior misdemeanor offenses holding that a party waives an objection by failing to request a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence before the district court holding that objection by defense counsel that he did not see the relevance of the evidence was not a proper relevancy objection holding that objection must reasonably be expected to alert the trial court to the ground subsequently raised on appeal holding that plaintiffs objection to an r  r was not specific enough to constitute an adequate objection under  fedrcivp 72b