Just curious

[pclayton]

Playing a 9-13 "weak" 2, are any of the following alertable?

 

1. 2♥ / 2♠ (the 9-13)

 

2. 1 major - 1x - 2 major (14-16)

 

3. 1 major - 1x - 3 major (17-19)

 

I realize these calls are natural, but they aren't exactly standard. Thanks.

[ArtK78]

No.

[awm]

In ACBL rules these all tend to fall under the "unexpected strength" category. I think the regulation is that if the bid shows a hand which could potentially be stronger (or weaker) than people would expect, it's alertable. If the bid simply denies certain hand types that might otherwise appear possible (negative inference) then this does not make it alertable.

 

For example, constructive raises are alertable if they include hands with which most people would make a limit raise, but are not alertable if they are simply a "narrow range" bid that eliminates the weakest raises.

 

For the bids in question:

 

2M opening is clearly alertable. This can contain the values commonly accepted for a one-level opening, certainly unexpected strength for a "weak two bid."

 

1M...2M is probably alertable, since few people rebid 2M with 16.

 

1M...3M is a borderline case, since everyone plays that this shows "extras" and some people would bid it with hands up to 19 hcp. Probably the right compromise is that if 3M is forcing it should be alerted, and if not it doesn't need to be alerted.

[jtfanclub]

The 2♥ opening is alertable, since it's not weak.

 

I would rule that you don't have to alert #2 or #3, but it certainly wouldn't be wrong to do so. I don't think a 16 count is *that* unexpected a strength for 1♥-1NT-2♥.

[joshs]

Playing a 9-13 "weak" 2, are any of the following alertable?

 

1. 2♥ / 2♠ (the 9-13)

 

2. 1 major - 1x - 2 major (14-16)

 

3. 1 major - 1x - 3 major (17-19)

 

I realize these calls are natural, but they aren't exactly standard. Thanks.

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No. This is really close to the expected range for this bid.

 

Note playing strong and forcing 2 bids are unusual these days, but I am not sure if they are alerts. I think they should be since no one expects strong....

[keylime]

Ditto Josh - due to the unexpected meaning overtones.

[Guest Jlall]

1 and 2 look alertable to me.

[blackshoe]

What is and is not alertable depends on what alert regulations are in force. Of six people who responded one mentioned a specific set of regulations. Either the others all think all alert regulations are the same for these hands, or they don't realize that alert regulations may differ in different places.

[jdonn]

What is and is not alertable depends on what alert regulations are in force. Of six people who responded one mentioned a specific set of regulations. Either the others all think all alert regulations are the same for these hands, or they don't realize that alert regulations may differ in different places.

Or they know Phil plays in the ACBL

 

.......

[Echognome]

What is and is not alertable depends on what alert regulations are in force. Of six people who responded one mentioned a specific set of regulations. Either the others all think all alert regulations are the same for these hands, or they don't realize that alert regulations may differ in different places.

... or the know the OP and what alert regulations he would be concerned about...

 

Agree that the OP might have said "in the ACBL", but since most of the posters know him, wtp?

[cherdano]

What is and is not alertable depends on what alert regulations are in force. Of six people who responded one mentioned a specific set of regulations. Either the others all think all alert regulations are the same for these hands, or they don't realize that alert regulations may differ in different places.

There is also such a thing as common sense. Unless the alert regulations are clear that I should not, I would always alert 1+2. Same the other way round for 3.

[blackshoe]

Agree that the OP might have said "in the ACBL", but since most of the posters know him, wtp?

Huh. Well, excuse me for butting in to a private party, then. I don't know him - and I do know that posters often assume that the regulations with which they are familiar are in force everywhere, both in asking and in answering these questions. So I pointed out that the right answer depends on the jurisdiction concerned. Wtp? :rolleyes:

 

Oh, and anyone who thinks "common sense" will keep him out of trouble where rules and regulations are concerned is living in a dream world. :)

[Echognome]

Agree that the OP might have said "in the ACBL", but since most of the posters know him, wtp?

Huh. Well, excuse me for butting in to a private party, then. I don't know him - and I do know that posters often assume that the regulations with which they are familiar are in force everywhere, both in asking and in answering these questions. So I pointed out that the right answer depends on the jurisdiction concerned. Wtp? :rolleyes:

 

Oh, and anyone who thinks "common sense" will keep him out of trouble where rules and regulations are concerned is living in a dream world. :)

Nought to do with that. It's the fact that Phil has 5600 posts that might have tipped us off to knowing a little more about him. You have over 600. You should know better. :)

[cherdano]

Agree that the OP might have said "in the ACBL", but since most of the posters know him, wtp?

Huh. Well, excuse me for butting in to a private party, then. I don't know him - and I do know that posters often assume that the regulations with which they are familiar are in force everywhere, both in asking and in answering these questions. So I pointed out that the right answer depends on the jurisdiction concerned. Wtp? :rolleyes:

 

Oh, and anyone who thinks "common sense" will keep him out of trouble where rules and regulations are concerned is living in a dream world. :)

Ok. Please let me know about the regulations where alerting 1+2 and not alerting 3. would get me into trouble.

[jdonn]

So I pointed out that the right answer depends on the jurisdiction concerned. Wtp? :)

No changing your tune now :) that is not even close to

 

Either the others all think all alert regulations are the same for these hands, or they don't realize that alert regulations may differ in different places.

[blackshoe]

"And when we got to the Po-lice Station, we discovered that there was a third possibility we hadn't even considered, and we were all arrested." - Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"

[helene_t]

The ACBL alert chart specifies intermediate 2-openings as alertable. 9-13 is a little light for "intermediate", but maybe close to that than to "weak".

 

FWIW in the Netherlands, non of the calls you ask about are alertable.

[blackshoe]

9-13 (roughly) is common even in the ACBL - for a fourth seat "weak two".

 

The ACBL alert regulations don't really work very well when you start talking about seats.

 

"Intermediate" is "defined" in the alert regulation by one example: a Precision 2♣ opening.

 

The regulation says, at one point, something like "if you open the bidding on less than 8 points you should pre-alert..." Of course, people do open the bidding regularly on less than 8 points - when they're preempting. And of course "everyone knows" that the regulation about opening on less than 8 points doesn't apply to preempts - but the regulation doesn't say that.

 

Bottom line: the regulation is flawed. I daresay the ACBL knows damn well it's flawed. They aren't gonna fix it though. It's either that not enough people have complained, or that the "right" people haven't complained. I call it "business as usual". :P

[awm]

At some point, my opponents opened 2♠ in fourth seat on a 17-count. This was not alerted. I asked a director if it's alertable and was told: "if this was their agreement in any other seat it would be, but in fourth seat it's not alertable." I then asked if an agreement to open 2♠ in fourth seat on an 8-count would be alertable, and was told "no one plays that." When I protested that I do, in fact, play that, the director told me to "call him back if it comes up."

 

So... who the heck knows? Like many ACBL rules I suspect it is designed to be deliberately vague in order to allow the director to rule based on the people involved rather than examples or precident.

[barmar]

The regulation says, at one point, something like "if you open the bidding on less than 8 points you should pre-alert..." Of course, people do open the bidding regularly on less than 8 points - when they're preempting. And of course "everyone knows" that the regulation about opening on less than 8 points doesn't apply to preempts - but the regulation doesn't say that.

Actually, it says "fewer than 11 HCP". But the section title says "very light openings or other highly aggressive methods", so the context makes it clear that preempts are not included in that (and throughout the document it generally says "preempt" when they mean that). The alert chart is meant to be read and interpreted by people with general understanding of bridge bidding.

[blackshoe]

The alert chart is meant to be read and interpreted by people with general understanding of bridge bidding.

 

The alert chart makes assumptions about what constitutes "general understanding of bridge bidding". Those assumptions are unlikely to be universally valid, and in any case have no place in an alert regulation.

 

A 13 count "weak two bid" in fourth seat wouldn't surprise me at all. It would surprise a good percentage of the members of my local Tuesday club game.

 

A 17 count "weak two bid" in fourth seat would definitely surprise me. For me, such a hand borders on "too strong to overcall at the one level". Calling it a "weak two" is ridiculous.

 

I think the TD who told Adam to "call me back if it comes up" had his head up his ass.

[Mbodell]

The alert chart is meant to be read and interpreted by people with general understanding of bridge bidding.

 

A 17 count "weak two bid" in fourth seat would definitely surprise me. For me, such a hand borders on "too strong to overcall at the one level". Calling it a "weak two" is ridiculous.

 

I think the TD who told Adam to "call me back if it comes up" had his head up his ass.

But did anyone call it a weak 2? With most of my partners, playing standard American, we've played that in the fourth seat when passed to preempts are very, very conservative/constructive (since no need to go negative when you can get 0) and that 2 bids in particular are not preempts and are stronger than 1 bids (unlike in any other seat). 16-20 points or 6 LTC and 6+ cards in suit.

[cherdano]

But did anyone call it a weak 2?  With most of my partners, playing standard American, we've played that in the fourth seat when passed to preempts are very, very conservative/constructive (since no need to go negative when you can get 0) and that 2 bids in particular are not preempts and are stronger than 1 bids (unlike in any other seat). 16-20 points or 6 LTC and 6+ cards in suit.

I don't know what the standard range for 2M in 4th seat. I play s.th. like 10-12, but other seem to think 11-13 or 12-14 is normal.

(Edit: In particular, 2M is weaker in standard than 1M-2M.)

 

I think your treatment is sufficiently non-standard that I would alert it (if I ever played it).