Alertable?

[Phil]

A few days ago we had this auction come up:

 

1♣ - pass - 1♠ - pass

2♠ - pass - pass - double

pass - 2N* - double - 3♥

AP

 

I was the 1♣ opener. When 3♥ came to me, I asked what 2N and was told "2 places to play". We ended up defending 3♥ when 3♠ was cold.

 

I didn't think we were damaged, since my pard had the opportunity to bid 3♠ after receiving the correct information.

 

The director consulted other directors, and they all agreed that 2N is not alertable. Their basis wasn't the alert charts, but rather that "it is impossible for 2N to be natural in this auction". I asked what the 2N bidder would do with a spade stop and a balanced 10 count and I just got a puzzled look.

 

Opinions?

[aguahombre]

Strange. Opposite a balancing double, "two places to play" would not suggest the two red suits, because the double already suggested choosing a red suit, didn't it?

 

In that light, 3H is a bit odd. Also, did partner have 5 spades, and your raise not show 4?

 

Forgetting all that, 2NT has to be a scramble of some kind (thus not alertable as GBK) --even if it could have your suggested 10 HCP with a spade stop. It can't really be to play opposite a partner who didn't act earlier. "at least 2 places to play" would be what I would expect.

[gnasher]

I assume that this is in the ACBL.

 

The director consulted other directors, and they all agreed that 2N is not alertable. Their basis wasn't the alert charts, but rather that "it is impossible for 2N to be natural in this auction".

So what? 2NT is conventional. The rule says that you alert "all other conventional and/or artificial bids". It doesn't say "all other conventional and/or artificial bids, unless it's obvious that they're conventional".

 

The directors' argument might be relevant when it comes to determining damage.

[Phil]

Strange. Opposite a balancing double, "two places to play" would not suggest the two red suits, because the double already suggested choosing a red suit, didn't it?

 

In that light, 3H is a bit odd. Also, did partner have 5 spades, and your raise not show 4?

 

Forgetting all that, 2NT has to be a scramble of some kind (thus not alertable as GBK) --even if it could have your suggested 10 HCP with a spade stop. It can't really be to play opposite a partner who didn't act earlier. "at least 2 places to play" would be what I would expect.

1. The 3♥ bidder held a 2=5=4=2, which is a 2N call itself IMO. I think he got lucky catching four hearts in dummy.

 

2. 2♠ doesn't promise four, but we did have a double fit.

[jeremy69]

It seems to me that 2NT is alertable under the rules in England and as I understand them in the US. I can think of at least two good but old fashioned players that I play with who would not think 2NT was anything other than natural and I am sure that applies to many players in clubs also.

[aguahombre]

I assume that this is in  the ACBL.

 

2NT is conventional.  The rule says that you alert "all other conventional and/or artificial bids".  It doesn't say "all other conventional and/or artificial bids, unless it's obvious that they're conventional".

Whatever the rules interpretation, ACBL directors seem to agree on this and similar auctions.

 

1S P 2S P

P 2NT --certainly conventional, certainly obvious as takeout. Not alertable, according to anyone I know who directs. They might all be wrong, but that is how they rule --that general bridge knowledge precludes the need to alert.

 

P 1C P 1S

1NT would be another.

[bluejak]

Please please please please will all people who contribute to these set of forums remember that we ask [again and again :P ] that people put their jurisdiction when making an initial post, either in the text, or under 'Description [Optional]'. I prefer the latter because it is still seen later in the thread.

 

This is a good example. Is it alertable in France? Paraguay? Wales? USA? Yes, I know people tend to assume that people who do not tell us where they are are from the ACBL, which is pretty rude but often accurate. Better is not to have these problems.

 

:)

 

As Jeremy says, the 2NT bid is certainly alertable in England/Wales.

 

In th ACBL, the relevant regulation says:

 

ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE ALERTED.

 

In general, conventional calls require an Alert. In ACBL-sponsored events, however, there are some common conventions that do not require an Alert during the auction: Stayman, ace-asking bids, most meanings of cue-bids, strong artificial 2♣ openings and most doubles, redoubles and passes.

2NT meaning two places to play is not covered by this as an exception - nor anywhere else in the Alert Procedures - I read through them carefully. So it is alertable.

 

I really am not sure that a group of TDs giving an opinion that clearly differs from an ACBL regulation has any force. What they have done, it seems to me, is to extrapolate the phrase 'there are some common conventions that do not require an Alert' but the list thereafter [and later detailed comments] do not suggest that the agreed 2NT is common enough.

 

Of course, damage is not very likely, but if the opponents are not aware of the likelihood of two places to play then an adjustment might easily be given.

 

In my opinion, a 2NT bid that shows two places to play is definitely alertable in the EBU/WBU and in the ACBL.

[TimG]

ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE ALERTED.

 

In general, conventional calls require an Alert. In ACBL-sponsored events, however, there are some common conventions that do not require an Alert during the auction: Stayman, ace-asking bids, most meanings of cue-bids, strong artificial 2♣ openings and most doubles, redoubles and passes.

I don't think this list is meant to detail every case, otherwise it would not say "most" doubles rather than list all the specific doubles; it does not appear exhaustive to me.

[Phil]

Sorry David, this was the ACBL. I gathered you knew that (because its me), but its a good policy to state the SO.

[peachy]

I would think it is general bridge knowledge that 2NT cannot be natural (he would leave it in with a hand that attempts to make 2NT). However, if there is something in the ACBL Alert regs that say this must be alerted, I'll believe it when I see it. Thid auction is a little similar to Sandwich NT. Alertable when by unpassed hand, not alertable when by passed hand, or something like that.

[bluejak]

ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE ALERTED.

 

In general, conventional calls require an Alert. In ACBL-sponsored events, however, there are some common conventions that do not require an Alert during the auction: Stayman, ace-asking bids, most meanings of cue-bids, strong artificial 2♣ openings and most doubles, redoubles and passes.

I don't think this list is meant to detail every case, otherwise it would not say "most" doubles rather than list all the specific doubles; it does not appear exhaustive to me.

I agree it is not exhaustive, but surely it details the type, and 2NT = 2 places to play is not the type listed.

 

I would think it is general bridge knowledge that 2NT cannot be natural (he would leave it in with a hand that attempts to make 2NT).  However, if there is something in the ACBL Alert regs that say this must be alerted, I'll believe it when I see it.  Thid auction is a little similar to Sandwich NT. Alertable when by unpassed hand, not alertable when by passed hand, or something like that.

The alert regulations are not based on general bridge knowledge. If they were, fine, but they are based on what is included in the Alert Procedures. Furthermore, I am unconvinced anyway: good and experienced players certainly expect this to be two places to play but I very much doubt that weaker players do. I have two main clients: one a good practical player with a fairly simplistic approach, the other a medium club player. I am certain both play it as natural and nothing else would occur to them without an alert.

 

As far as "cannot be natural" is concerned, that is just not so: it certainly can be natural. It is just that a majority of good players now think that less useful.

 

Sorry David, this was the ACBL. I gathered you knew that (because its me), but its a good policy to state the SO.

My very great apologies, Phil, but I have no idea who you are. And if I do not know, how do expect [for example] Chris from the wilds of Australia to know?

[lamford]

I can think of at least two good but old fashioned players that I play with who would not think 2NT was anything other than natural

I agree; and more importantly I can think of quite a number of average and old fashioned players at all clubs of which I am a member who would assume it was natural when an opponent bids it; and it is for their benefit that the alert is needed.

 

It seems a no-brainer. If the opponent states he would have bid but thought 2NT was natural and was thus deterred he is generally believed, and an adjusted score is awarded. If he is an expert back-room lawyer who knew all along that 2NT was two places to play, but knew all along that it was alertable and sees a chance to benefit, then he gets the short shrift he deserves. And I am pleased that there is a clause in the OB about "probably knowing its meaning" - and sorry I don't have time to seek out the exact wording.

[blackshoe]

Forgetting all that, 2NT has to be a scramble of some kind (thus not alertable as GBK)

It's certainly not part of my GBK.

[barmar]

The list in the alert procedure doesn't mention Unusual NT, yet everyone knows that NT bids that are unlikely to be natural are almost always some form of takeout, usually a 2-suiter. It also doesn't mention 1NT overcall by a passed hand, but surely it's GBK that this is unusual or sandwich, and doesn't require an alert.

 

I know several posts said there are players who play this sequence as natural, but I have a hard time understanding how this can be reasonable. The example given was what to do if you have 10 HCP and a spade stop. Since the balancing double only shows around 10 HCP (with more he would have doubled at his previous turn), and could be even weaker, there's almost no safety in 2NT.

[blackshoe]

A jump to 2NT to show the minors or the lower unbid suits is not Alertable. A bid of 3NT as unusual must be Alerted. A bid of 4NT is not Alertable as long as the prior bid was by an opponent. Non-jump unusual notrump bids below 4NT, except those made by a passed hand, must be Alerted.

 

Just because it's not listed in one place in the alert procedure doesn't mean it's not listed in another. That paragraph, btw, comes from part IX "Defensive and Competitive Calls".

[jeremy69]

I think it is odd to argue about this whichever jurisdiction you are under. The purpose of alerting is to let the opponents know something unusual is happening. A failure to alert doesn't necessarily cause damage and good opponents might have a hard time persuading a director that any damage has ensued but as several have already said 2NT would be likely natural for many club players and whether that is a. logical b. best doesn't really matter. You should tell them what is going on IMO.

[Bende]

I know several posts said there are players who play this sequence as natural, but I have a hard time understanding how this can be reasonable. The example given was what to do if you have 10 HCP and a spade stop. Since the balancing double only shows around 10 HCP (with more he would have doubled at his previous turn), and could be even weaker, there's almost no safety in 2NT.

Does there have to be safety in 2NT? Perhaps the playing thinks 2sp might make (which in an imps game will be expensive) and that 2NT, although it probably won't make, is the least expensive contract available?

[Phil]

If he is an expert back-room lawyer who knew all along that 2NT was two places to play, but knew all along that it was alertable and sees a chance to benefit, then he gets the short shrift he deserves.

Which is why I didn't mention that I doubled with AQxx, Qxx,xx AJxx (or something like that - I know, I know...., :) ) and why I didn't press too hard for redress :P

 

Feels good to come clean LOL

[Phil]

And by the way, up until about about 9-10 years ago, I would have definitely thought this was natural.

[jdonn]

I honestly wouldn't have thought to alert since it seems so normal to me. If it's supposed to be alerted then fine, but I don't think a failure to alert is likely to have caused damage in this case. Of course it would help to know the hands.

[nige1]

The list in the alert procedure doesn't mention Unusual NT, yet everyone knows that NT bids that are unlikely to be natural are almost always some form of takeout, usually a 2-suiter.  It also doesn't mention 1NT overcall by a passed hand, but surely it's GBK that this is unusual or sandwich, and doesn't require an alert.

 

I know several posts said there are players who play this sequence as natural, but I have a hard time understanding how this can be reasonable.  The example given was what to do if you have 10 HCP and a spade stop.  Since the balancing double only shows around 10 HCP (with more he would have doubled at his previous turn), and could be even weaker, there's almost no safety in 2NT.

If I understand them correctly, I agree with Bluejak that it is local alert regulations that define what is alertable. Unless general bridge knowledge is part of those regulations, it can be relevant only in damage assessment.

 

The ACBL regulation specifies what kinds of widely understood conventional bid are not alertable. Among the types of convention that are missing from that list, presumably deliberately missing, are

• 2N response = 2 places to play
  
• 2N overcall = unusual
  

FWIW, without discussion, I would assume both these 2N bids to be natural. Although I admit that my Scottish partner did take the precaution of warning me that his 2N overcall is like a 2N opening bid.

 

Outsiders resent it when opponents assume that some local idiosyncrasy is GBK; and I feel that directors should be chary of such claims.

 

Oh dear :lol: I've just read Blackshoe's post about ACBL 2N jump overcalls :( Well At least I've learnt something :)

[Jlall]

I honestly wouldn't have thought to alert since it seems so normal to me. If it's supposed to be alerted then fine, but I don't think a failure to alert is likely to have caused damage in this case. Of course it would help to know the hands.

Yeah, I never alerted any of these scrambling 2N bids and one opp got mad at me and the director informed me that I had to alert it. Glad to see that he was correct, I have been alerting since that incident, but I think most people in the ACBL are not aware that it is technically an alert.

[aguahombre]

yep, justin..u got that right. If there are a few players who still think there is a conceivable hand where 2NT would be other than scrambling, we should alert it and then explain it because it is "highly expected". I hope others won't feel insulted that we did that.

[debrose]

There are many auctions in which 2N could be played as either takeout, Lebensohl, or natural. I believe that some partnerships have either clear enough rules, or sufficient partnership experience, to virtually always be on the same wavelength as to which it is. IMO those partnerships should always alert 2N if it is something other than natural, unless it's a situation where there is no chance that their opponents could think it's anything but what it is. 1S-P-2S-P, P-2N would be such an example. Yes, I do take into account who the opponents are when deciding whether or not to alert.

 

In the given auction I think all "modern" experts would treat 2N as takeout, but perhaps a few more "old-fashioned" experts would think it's natural. And what if you are playing against non-experts? I never see the harm in alerting if you clearly know what partner's bid means and there's any chance the opponents might not. That's assuming your knowledge is based on a partnership agreement - whether it's about the specific auction, derived from general principles, or based on extensive partnership experience. Of course if your certainty is based on what you have in your hand, that's different.

 

When I've often found myself unsure whether or not to alert 2N, it's when I feel it's probably takeout, but I'm in a partnership without clear agreements. Against experts, if it's an auction I expect they know many would treat as takeout, I usually won't alert unless I'm sure. Against players who I think might have less reason than I do to suspect 2N is takeout, I'll usually alert. If all the players are of about equal general bridge knowledge, and the partnership has no special agreement, I certainly wouldn't alert, or expect one from my opponents. When they bid 2N in an ambiguous auction, I've often asked if my opponents have any relevant agreements, even if they don't alert.

[debrose]

Hadn't seen Justin's post when started my reply. Glad to know that at least one director confirmed these bids are alertable. Thanks.