I like this bid :)

[bid_em_up]

Well, lets see:

 

I have stated that it is considered forcing until the 2N responder found out otherwise, he normally expects to hear another call.

 

I have stated that since we tend not to respond on less than 6 counts (it is possible to do so, but it is a hand that will normally be able to get out in 3M after a 2N response). We don't usually bid, just because we think we can improve the contract (i.e. Jxxxx xxx Qxxx x will pass, QJxxxxx xxx xx x will bid but can get out in 3M if need be).

 

If anyone accused you of being unethical, would you necessarily be calm about it? Then don't expect me to either.

 

By posting on an internet forum, you are free to discuss. So far, I have read a bunch of attacks towards both me and the method, but very little real discussion.

 

I make claims of "hey you're the star", because whether you realize it or not, many of your posts towards me come across as condescending and I am simply returning the favor. Yes, mine are the same way sometimes, but at least I am aware of this fact and work hard on not being so. If a mod could read what I originally write 1/2 the time, I would be banned altogether. :)

 

I ask for proof, because it is widely believed that 2C Stayman as not containing a four card major is alertable (it may even be so now, but it didn't used to be and as far as I know, it still isn't). I'm claiming this is simply a similar case. The 2N bidder does not know whether or not the bid is going to be passed. I think I have clearly stated that it IS passable, but the odds of it actually occuring are highly unlikely to happen since we have already made a 1/1 response. As far as I am concerned, that is effectively considered to be forcing at the time the call is made. Call this "changing my position" all you wish. I call it clarification of the original statement. You are certainly entitled to feel that it is alertable. Let me ask you, since when is a natural call (which the 2N rebid is), which is exactly the same as anyone would expect it to be (18-19 balanced), ever alertable? I do not for one minute believe that just because we treat it as mainly forcing, makes it alertable.

 

You are free to disagree, but then the burden is on you to offer proof. Not me. I didn't start the argument. As far as I am concerned it does not require an alert and its up to you to prove otherwise. Gnome, you and the others all claim it MUST require an alert simply because it is a treatement different than you are used to. I say I don't believe you. Prove me wrong. So far, you have failed to do so. You have simply proffered your opinion.

 

It has no meaning other than the standard meaning of 18-19 balanced. That in and of itself makes the bid not alertable. The bid is completely natural. I have also stated that IF ASKED, I would say, it could be passed but highly improbable that it will be. Isn't that full disclosure? Full disclosure does NOT require you to automatically alert every partnership nuance or tendency, the last time I checked. It does to require you to provide that information if asked. The bid is natural, with a "normal" expectation of what the call should represent. It does not have an unusual or strange meaning. Strange meaning as in it shows a running 8 card club suit or it always shows a good spade raise. Then it would be alertable. Just because we treat it as forcing and you don't, doesn't make it require an alert, imo. The hand equals exactly what the opponents are expecting.

 

I never said I agreed with my partners 2N bid. I happen to not like it as well. But it was the call he chose to make.

 

I told gnome he was *****ing nuts (which was edited out shortly thereafter) because I was pretty irritated regarding being told that I was being unethical (my interpretation of what gnome said, not his actual wording). Feel free to say you think the bid should be alerted, but dont make deragotory statements such as the one that was made. Especially when I was not the person failing to alert either bid. I have subsequently acknowledged that partner should be alerting the 1C bid all the time, and that I cannot control his actions. I have asked (told) him again to always alert it, and I announce it 100% of the time we start to play.

 

I think passing AJ9xx xxx xxx xx after a 2N rebid is nuts also. :) I have asked mike via email to run a simulation on this. The only constraints I asked him to apply is that the 2N rebid contain 18-19 hcp and 2-4 spades. I will be happy to admit I am wrong should the simulation prove pass to be correct.

 

I suspect most of you would pass the 2N rebid, because you would not expect the 2N hand to possibly contain 4 trumps in support. Is he supposed to alert the 2N rebid as "may contain 4 card support" as well?

 

As long as we're discussing it, we also happen to play major suit limit raises through a 1N forcing structure, including one that may possibly raise 2x to 4M (1M- 1N-2x-4M). This could be considered a "non-standard" treatment as well, with so many people playing Bergen and such. Are we also required to disclose that a 1N forcing bid may contain this particular hand type, each and every time we bid 1N forcing? If you say yes, again, I ask why? It is responders next call that clarifies what hand type he has, at which point it would be alerted and explained.

[neilkaz]

Regarding self alerts on BBO. It is so easy to self alert or at least send an explanation with your bid. When you think your opps may have some doubt and have to ask a question, your quicky explanation reduces their need to ask questions and thereby slow the game or passing UI to his PD.

 

ie when opening 1♣ just type "2+", I play Bergen so when I respond 3♦ I alert and type "limit raise".

 

We were playing to ACOLers the other night. So when I opened 1NT I typed "15-17" and I typed "xfer" when I transfered. I opened 2♠ and then a couple seconds later realized that typing "weak" might be a good idea.

 

Whether the rules say it should be alerted or not, one gets to play a smoother game with fewer questions if you briefly explain any bid the opps may fail to understand as standard.

 

Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..

[jtfanclub]

I ask for proof, because it is widely believed that 2C Stayman as not containing a four card major is alertable

Gah.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/Alert/alertpamp.htm

 

You realize this is not some weird esoteric whatever, right?

 

That you can do real, honest-to-God actual harm by telling beginners that something is legal when it isn't, right? And that the reverse isn't true, that telling them that something is alertable when it isn't won't hurt anybody?

 

Just making sure.

 

Neil- I also direct FTF events where that isn't an option. Online, it's not a big deal.

[bid_em_up]

I ask for proof, because it is widely believed that 2C Stayman as not containing a four card major is alertable

Gah.

 

http://web2.acbl.org/Alert/alertpamp.htm

 

You realize this is not some weird esoteric whatever, right?

 

That you can do real, honest-to-God actual harm by telling beginners that something is legal when it isn't, right? And that the reverse isn't true, that telling them that something is alertable when it isn't won't hurt anybody?

 

Just making sure.

 

Neil- I also direct FTF events where that isn't an option. Online, it's not a big deal.

What part of this:

 

PART I: NATURAL CALLS

Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted.

 

do you not understand?

 

Or this, for that matter:

 

1) STAYMAN

 

No Alert is required for any bid of 2 over partner's 1NT opening or 3 over a 2NT opening if it requests opener to bid a four-card major, regardless of whether the Stayman bidder promises a four-card major. Likewise, a 2 response to Stayman (or a 3 response after 2NT-P-3 ) is not Alterable if it denies a four-card major.

 

 

 

It does not show unusual strength, nor does it show unusual shape. It is a perfectly natural balanced 18-19 and is EXACTLY what any player would expect it to be.

 

You realize this is not some weird esoteric whatever, right?

 

Just making sure.

 

Next time, try to find a document that actually supports your position, please. Instead, all I see is information that says exactly the same things i have been maintaining.

[the hog]

"As long as we're discussing it, we also happen to play major suit limit raises through a 1N forcing structure, including one that may possibly raise 2x to 4M (1M- 1N-2x-4M). This could be considered a "non-standard" treatment as well, with so many people playing Bergen and such. Are we also required to disclose that a 1N forcing bid may contain this particular hand type, each and every time we bid 1N forcing? If you say yes, again, I ask why? It is responders next call that clarifies what hand type he has, at which point it would be alerted and explained."

 

 

Amusingly enough, depending on where you play Stayman is alertable. It has to be alerted in Australia.

 

I certainly believe that the 2NT bid should be alerted here and also the fact that it can contain 4 card support.

 

Yes, your non standard 1NT bid has to be alerted as well. You ask "why". Because it contains various types of strong supporting hands. Regardless of whether the follow up bid shows this or not, it is the opponents' RIGHT to know this information at the time they take a call. Whether you think this wouldn't alter their call in any way, is NOT YOUR decision to make; it is the opponents alone.

 

"nor does it show unusual shape"

If it can have 4 card support it DOES show unusual shape. I hesitate to be as rude as you were in your last post, but what part of THAT do YOU not understand?

[bid_em_up]

"nor does it show unusual shape"

If it can have 4 card support it DOES show unusual shape. I hesitate to be as rude as you were in your last post, but what part of THAT do YOU not understand?

If you choose to claim this is "unusual", be my guest.

 

My understanding of "unusual" would be something like 4-1-2-6 which is NOT something the opponents would be expecting (not that I would ever expect to see this treatment, but purposes of example). That would require an alert.

 

A 18-19 balanced hand with 4-3-3-3 or 4432 is still natural, still balanced, and by its own very definition, not unusual. Just because you wouldn't expect it, you still have a reasonable enough idea of what the 2N rebidders hand is going to look like.

 

In this case, I refer you to Part I also, where it specifically says:

 

If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary.

 

Just because the hand may contain 4 card support does not change the fact the bid is natural and balanced.

 

But then again, maybe my reading comprehesion skills are as bad as my bridge.

[awm]

One can argue endlessly about ACBL alert regulations, especially since they are apparently deliberately vague. However, I think most directors will agree that a bid early in an auction which is played as forcing when virtually everyone plays it as not forcing, or vice versa, should be alertable even if the strength promised by the call is not very different.

[jdonn]

What part of this:

 

PART I: NATURAL CALLS

Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted.

 

do you not understand?

 

Or this, for that matter:

 

1) STAYMAN

 

No Alert is required for any bid of 2 over partner's 1NT opening or 3 over a 2NT opening if it requests opener to bid a four-card major, regardless of whether the Stayman bidder promises a four-card major.  Likewise, a 2 response to Stayman (or a 3 response after 2NT-P-3 ) is not Alterable if it denies a four-card major.

 

 

 

It does not show unusual strength, nor does it show unusual shape.  It is a perfectly natural balanced 18-19 and is EXACTLY what any player would expect it to be.

 

You realize this is not some weird esoteric whatever, right?

 

Just making sure.

 

Next time, try to find a document that actually supports your position, please.  Instead, all I see is information that says exactly the same things i have been maintaining.

How about from the same link

 

The objective of the Alert system is for both pairs at the table to have equal access to all information contained in any auction.

 

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization. [note that it says "meaning", so not simply limited to shape and strength]

 

In all Alert situations, Tournament Directors should rule with the spirit of the Alert procedure in mind and not simply by the letter of the law. [combined with the first sentence I quoted, just think about it]

[sceptic]

I have one question for you though. Why do you (and others) seem to presume that is your place to tell anyone how to play something? I do not recall asking for your opinion, or Mike's, or Matt's or anyone elses.

 

I think that any one that posts a question or answer in this forum, is by the simple fact of doing so, is actually inviting opinions (even ones that differ from one's own) and a lot of us are experienced enough to realise that some people have strong opinions about certain things and the will advise you (sometimes with great emphasis) on what they consider the correct way of bidding something.

 

just because you do not like the answer given, does not really give you the right to use foul language and make rude personal remarks in the forums, they are after all an area for discussion and varying opinions

 

I think you owe Matt an apology, but hey what the heck, thats just my opinion

[Guest Jlall]

Bid_em_up,

 

Bidding 2N on unusual hands like AKxx xx Kx AKQxx is made much more attractive when 2N is forcing than when it is non forcing. I know that if I was trying to defend and it turned up declarer had that hand and elected to bid it that way because 2N was forcing and I did not know this I would be very annoyed. If responder ended up playing the hand and showed up with a hand that I think would often pass 2N but didnt because 2N was forcing and I misdefended, I would be very annoyed.

 

You can bid however you like, but I deserve the opportunity to be able to draw the right inferences based on your agreements. If 2N is not alerted I am denied this opportunity (unless I ask about a standard bid that is not alerted, which would mean I need to ask about every bid, which slows down the game and is tedious, hence the alert system).

 

That is really the last thing I have to say about this, hopefully I made at least some sense to you in this thread even if you do not agree. I think I have at least made it clear where I'm coming from.

[helene_t]

2N as forcing is very common here in NL, maybe due to influence from (I think it was) Ed Hoogenkamp hoe recomends this style to intermediates.

 

Nice to know that I would have to alert this in the US. Will I also have to alert in next week in Croatia? Nobody alerts it over here. You might as well alert a non-forcing 2NT.

[gwnn]

I think the crux of the argument is this: if a bid can be passed, but in practice will be passed only once in 100 times it has been made, can it be considered forcing? bid_em_up seems to say that in a certain practical way it can be. Others, I think the rest of the posters, or the vast majority of the rest of the posters, seem to disagree, and furthermore, they state that 2NT is a bad bid primarily because of this: 2NT risks to be passed out when the expected score of 4♠ will heavily outweigh the one of 2NT. If we think game has to be reached, we need to make sure we get to game, not making any bids that have any chances (even those that are accepted to be very low) of being passed out.

 

For what it's worth, I think any call that can be passed is non-forcing and do not like drawing an arbitrary line based on the likeliness of it being passed out (1NT-3NT is passed out 99.999%, that's non forcing, etc, 1M-1NT-2x is passed out quite rarely, like 25%, but ok, let's say it's non forcing, 1m-1M-2NT will be passed out 1%, that has to be forcing. [i know the percentages are approximate] where's the line? 10%? 5%? 2.5%? who is to measure it? et cetera.). Simplest would be applying word "forcing" only when the bid is not allowed to be passed out ever ever ever.

[ochinko]

I am wondering why 1m 1M 4M is not used showing 19 hcp  unless 2NT has a special meaning with a fit and no stopper in one suit

It is not about the points when you have such a good fit. It is mostly about controls, and the easiest way to count them is losers.

 

1♣ - 1♠ - 4♠ is ok with me if the opener shows exactly 5 loser hand. AKT2-T2-K5-AKQ83 has only 4 losers plus a promising source of tricks in clubs, so you shouldn't bid it in the same way as a 5 loser hand.

 

It's nice to be able to distinguish it from say AJxx-KQ-KQ-Axxxx which has the same ponts and distribution but much less slam potential.

[the hog]

"1♣ - 1♠ - 4♠ is ok with me if the opener shows exactly 5 loser hand. AKT2-T2-K5-AKQ83 has only 4 losers plus a promising source of tricks in clubs, so you shouldn't bid it in the same way as a 5 loser hand."

 

A large number of people use 1C 1S 4C to show that hand type - 4 card S support and a solid C suit. This hand qualifies admirably, and this is a far more despriptive bid than the afforementioned 2NT.

[Codo]

"1♣ - 1♠ - 4♠ is ok with me if the opener shows exactly 5 loser hand. AKT2-T2-K5-AKQ83 has only 4 losers plus a promising source of tricks in clubs, so you shouldn't bid it in the same way as a 5 loser hand."

 

A large number of people use 1C 1S 4C to show that hand type - 4 card S support and a solid C suit. This hand qualifies admirably, and this is a far more despriptive bid than the afforementioned 2NT.

obvious.

4 Club: 10 points

4 Spade: 3 Points

2 NT: Nut points

4 NT: no points

anything else: no bridge or a very special agreement

[ochinko]

"1♣ - 1♠ - 4♠ is ok with me if the opener shows exactly 5 loser hand. AKT2-T2-K5-AKQ83 has only 4 losers plus a promising source of tricks in clubs, so you shouldn't bid it in the same way as a 5 loser hand."

 

A large number of people use 1C 1S 4C to show that hand type - 4 card S support and a solid C suit. This hand qualifies admirably, and this is a far more despriptive bid than the afforementioned 2NT.

I didn't know that, and I didn't exactly defend the 2NT bid, just the need to have a bid that shows a hand better than a game.

 

I meant to say that I would raise directly to 4♠ if you replace the Ace of trumps with a small one:

 

Kxxx-xx-Kx-AKQxx

[pbleighton]

I think the crux of the argument is this: if a bid can be passed, but in practice will be passed only once in 100 times it has been made

 

Most people, of course, pass it more than 1% of the time.

 

Peter

[gwnn]

Of course the percentage is higher than 1%, my question was in a way more theoretical than concerning the 2NT rebid.

[jtfanclub]

What part of this:

I know that. That's why I put up the link.

 

The point is, whether something is alertable is up to documents like this, and the opinions of TDs, not whether you have what you consider to be proof.

 

PART I: NATURAL CALLS

Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted.

 

Wow, nice stop. Try reading the next sentence.

 

As to length, ACBL accepts as NATURAL any offer to play in a suit for the first time that shows:

 

The bold, italics, and capitalizations are in the original.

 

Virtually every person in the U.S. considers an unlaerted bid of 2NT here an offer to play in No Trump. A rebid of 6NT, or a check for aces and then 6NT, is not uncommon.

 

You apparently do NOT have the bid as natural, because it is not an offer to play in No Trump. And apparently, you have banned sequences where partner takes you straight to 6NT, or checks for aces and then bids 6NT, because when I pointed it out to you you said it wasn't going to happen.

 

Now, you can argue that since it 'isn't a suit' that somehow, a bid of NT that is not an offer to play in NT is not alertable. But you won't find any evidence for that anywhere in the document. For example, a Forcing NT response has to be announced even if the bid promises a balanced hand.

 

It's not the shape that's unexpected.

 

It's whether the bid is an offer to play in No Trump, whether two, three or six.

[Guest Jlall]

I meant to say that I would raise directly to 4♠ if you replace the Ace of trumps with a small one:

 

Kxxx-xx-Kx-AKQxx

This looks like a textbook 3S bid...

[bid_em_up]

You apparently do NOT have the bid as natural, because it is not an offer to play in No Trump.  And apparently, you have banned sequences where partner takes you straight to 6NT, or checks for aces and then bids 6NT, because when I pointed it out to you you said it wasn't going to happen.   

 

Now, you can argue that since it 'isn't a suit' that somehow, a bid of NT that is not an offer to play in NT is not alertable.   But you won't find any evidence for that anywhere in the document.  For example, a Forcing NT response has to be announced even if the bid promises a balanced hand. 

 

It's not the shape that's unexpected. 

 

It's whether the bid is an offer to play in No Trump, whether two, three or six.

I just love the way you assume things.

 

It is an offer to play in NT. Could be 2N (although, as I have said, it is unlikely), could be 3N, 4N, 6N or 7N.

 

I don't know where you reached the conclusion it is not an offer to play in NT.

 

You apparently do NOT have the bid as natural, because it is not an offer to play in No Trump. And apparently, you have banned sequences where partner takes you straight to 6NT, or checks for aces and then bids 6NT, because when I pointed it out to you you said it wasn't going to happen.

 

Because again you assume that partner automatically will just up and blast 6N. We would go thru a form of checkback sequence before bidding 6N. So its simply not going to happen that it goes 1x-1y-2N-6N. Doesn't mean we won't or can't end in 6N though, just not via your described method. I suppose we could go back to simply blasting 6N, but since we have other inquiries that follow 2N, there is absolutely no reason to do so.

[mikeh]

I was asked to do a simulation, but am not going to.

 

To work out, via a simulation, whether rebidding 2N with a balanced 18-19 hand with 4 card support is effective would require a large number of hands and a fair amount of guesswork/subjective assessment of responder's decision over the 2N.

 

Frankly, from my perspective, doing a simulation in which opener can have 4 spades and a doubleton is silly.... if you are playing that 2N is non-forcing, and in the styles I play, no other treatment makes sense, then I refuse to risk playing in a hopeless 2N with 9 or 10 tricks available in spades. And while I suspect that the losses on 4=3=3=3 hands would be significantly less, I am not going to distort my (pretty effective) rebidding scheme over 2N rebids in order to allow responder to check back for 4 card support.

 

So partly because the simulation would take too much work to yield significant results, and partly because my 30+ years of bridge experience tell me that rebidding 2N with 4 spades is losing bridge, I am declining the request.

 

As to how often I or partner pass 2N rebids... not often... and I don't track this kind of thing, but it happens often enough that it is non-trivial.

[ochinko]

I meant to say that I would raise directly to 4♠ if you replace the Ace of trumps with a small one:

 

Kxxx-xx-Kx-AKQxx

This looks like a textbook 3S bid...

And what does your your textbook prescribe for Kxxx-xxx-Kx-AKQx? Same 3S or just 2S?

[mikeh]

I meant to say that I would raise directly to 4♠ if you replace the Ace of trumps with a small one:

 

Kxxx-xx-Kx-AKQxx

This looks like a textbook 3S bid...

And what does your your textbook prescribe for Kxxx-xxx-Kx-AKQx? Same 3S or just 2S?

I open 1N B)

 

If playing 15-17, which is standard

[bid_em_up]

I was asked to do a simulation, but am not going to.

Thanks anyway, and I appreciate your reasons for not doing so.