jeffford76

Because generally negative inferences don't make a natural bid alertable, just like you don't alert passes when playing support doubles or opening 1♥ bids when playing precision.

A 12-count with 10x of hearts should be raising 2NT to 3NT.

It's more likely to be successful if you give partner a meaningful glare first. :) But won't partner take you for hearts and clubs if you bid it in tempo?

This seems to be accepting the premise that if it does deny 3 in responder's major it requires an alert. I don't think that's true anyway.

Not sure why you think they haven't already done so. My understanding is that after the exploration they decided that the current format better suited most of the players. The district web page has contact information for the GNT/NAP coordinator if you want more information.

I don't see anything clever to do. 3♣ for me.

It is sensible to play in this auction, even playing UVU generally, that 3S is forcing, and that 3D is invitational values in spades.

This is irrelevant as to whether South is required to pause.

Assuming declarer is south, this is making two tricks - it would be absurd to ruff a heart high.

I'd like to know whether South paused after the skip bid. If not, West is allowed to take that time without generating UI.

In the ACBL it's illegal to psyche this 2♥ bid, but it's not illegal to forget your agreement and misbid. If the director thought it was the latter, it's the right ruling.

I don't know where you're coming up with this. The ACBL Alert Chart is very clear that there is a specific list of non-alertable NT overcalls, and that anything else conventional is alertable. There's not an exhaustive list of alertable NT overcalls, but rather an exhaustive list of conventional, but not alertable NT overcalls. It's also fairly normal in my area to play 2NT as natural (19-21 or so) over a weak 1NT.

Maybe it should be. :D

2NT requires an alert. The alert chart says to alert, "Conventional NT overcalls except those specifically not requiring an Alert". The things specifically not requiring alerts are passed-hand NT bids, jumps to 2NT showing lowest unbid suits or minors, and 4-level or higher bids showing the same. That said, if everyone heard "that's not natural", while it's not the correct form of alert, there is no damage from that error. The damage is from north/south not knowing their methods over an artificial 2NT (or knowing, but not asking and assuming the wrong thing about what 2NT showed). I would warn east to alert correctly the next time, but I'm not changing the score.

Double seems right with these conditions. I voted before I read them, because I've never not played takeout here.

I don't think someone should be banned because other people disagree. I think he should be banned because he's not attempting to make any effort to engage in normal conversation, and he's causing it to be impossible for the people who want to do so. No one has a right to post here. If banning someone makes it better for everyone else, it should be done.

Double dummy results depend on exactly what constraints you use. This is 1000 hands where north and south have exactly 12 balanced (5cd minor ok but not 5cd major), with no 8 card major fit. It also excludes any deals where the east hand has 9+ hcp and a 6+ card suit or 5+/5+ suits and any east hand with 11+ hcp and 5+/4+ under the theory most of those hands would come in. I didn't put any restrictions on west. Tricks <7 59 Tricks =7 170 Tricks =8 393 Tricks =9 295 Tricks >9 83 Note that as mycroft said, this doesn't mean these numbers are right single dummy - I think 12 opposite 12 is harder to defend accurately than to play accurately.

The only call more descriptive than pass is 2♥.

You mean there are people who have not?

Developers are told not to go look for patents. If you do so, you can end up liable for treble damages for willful infringement. If you never look at patents, then infringement is accidental.

I think you can know once dummy hits the table.

The partnership was playing regular XYZ. It was a first time partnership, and I wouldn't presume to know what partner was thinking about. It could be that they were trying to get out, using the UI, and it could be that they didn't think 3NT was a logical alternative. (When I polled the hand later unpolluted there were people passing and people bidding so bidding was clearly a LA, but people don't always judge that correctly when they think they would have passed and so would everyone else.)

Partner forgets a convention and bids a game forcing 2♦ (that you alert and the opponents ask about) in the unopposed auction 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠. They then pass your 2NT rebid, so it's clear that their earlier bid was a misbid to everyone at the table before the opening lead is made. When dummy comes down, you realize that it is likely that if the director is called the score will be adjusted to 3NT down one more trick than the amount 2NT is down given the unauthorized information from your alert. Would you call the director? (This isn't in one of the laws forums, because I think it is clear that you have no legal obligation to call.)

I think the confusion was because the bid was alerted even though it isn't supposed to be, so there was an assumption that there was something particularly unusual about it and different than normal Stayman. Not being forcing at all would definitely fall into that category.

I'm a little turned around by this sentence structure, so maybe it's what you meant, but 1M-4M Precision *is* alertable. From the alert pamphlet here: (Yes, this example is part of a section on unusual openings which isn't where I'd have put it.)