Alerting of 2NT

[VixTD]

In the Portland Pairs tournament I was asked whether an opening bid of 2NT showing a balanced hand of 20-22 pts but denying a 5-card or longer suit should be alerted under EBU regulations.

 

The relevant section of the Orange Book seems to be:

5 F 1 The following are considered ‘natural’ for alerting purposes:

 

B A bid of no trumps which shows a preparedness to play in no trumps, and which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings; it must not be forcing unless a forcing auction has already been created. Note that certain ostensibly natural no trump bids are permitted to allow a shortage by agreement.

What do you think?

 

The pair in question chose to alert it, and were then told that doing so might put their opponents at a disadvantage, as one of them might feel the need to ask what it means or consult the convention card in case it is one of the modern weak distributional creations, and thus give away the location of the defensive strength, or restrict partner's options.

 

Does that sound like a reasonable objection?

[mjj29]

I don't think that it is alertable

[bluejak]

The pair in question chose to alert it, and were then told that doing so might put their opponents at a disadvantage, as one of them might feel the need to ask what it means or consult the convention card in case it is one of the modern weak distributional creations, and thus give away the location of the defensive strength, or restrict partner's options.

 

Does that sound like a reasonable objection?

No.

 

Either it is alertable or it is not, but this artistic creation of why one should not alert it sounds like Dorothy Sayers.

[blackshoe]

IMO, not alertable, and not a reasonable objection.

[jeremy69]

I don't believe it alertable either. I'd have it on my card(and that is required). I might volunteer it before the opening lead. If a pair did alert it however then I think that does not put their opponents at any disadvantage. They aren't required to ask just because it is their turn.

[VixTD]

Either it is alertable or it is not....

I disagree. If that section of the Orange Book is all we have to go on, I don't see how it can be, unless someone can helpfully define what constitutes "preparedness to play in no trumps" and "unexpected information about suit holdings". I don't expect a natural opening 2NT to deny a 5-card or longer suit.

 

I agree that the opponents wouldn't get very far with their line of argument, although it might be different if it could be established that this 2NT bid were definitely not alertable.

[aguahombre]

From a non TD point of view:

 

Yes 2NT carries additional meaning which is not standard, and maybe technically should be alerted.

No, I wouldn't alert it. I can see no reason why the opps would need to know that at this time. Before the opening lead, we could announce it.

Alerting would merely cause confusion about the possibility of it being "unusual NT" opening --and create inadvertant UI from reactions of the opponents for no particular reason.

[jallerton]

In the Portland Pairs tournament I was asked whether an opening bid of 2NT showing a balanced hand of 20-22 pts but denying a 5-card or longer suit should be alerted under EBU regulations.

 

The relevant section of the Orange Book seems to be:

5 F 1 The following are considered ‘natural’ for alerting purposes:

 

B A bid of no trumps which shows a preparedness to play in no trumps, and which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings; it must not be forcing unless a forcing auction has already been created. Note that certain ostensibly natural no trump bids are permitted to allow a shortage by agreement.

What do you think?

I think that you have quoted one relevant section of the Orange Book, not the relevant section of the Orange Book.

 

Yes, 5F1 defines the 2NT bid as "natural" for alerting purposes. However, we need to look at the alerting rules themselves:

 

5 E Basic alerting rules

5 E 1 Passes and bids

Unless it is announceable (see 5 C and 5 D), a pass or bid must be alerted if

(a) it is not natural; or

(b] it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.

 

It is normal to open 2NT on 5332 shapes in range; many people will consider a natural 2NT to be the best opening bid on certain 5422, 6322, 4441, and even some 6331 shapes.

 

It seems to me that if a pair has decided to use (say) a Multi 2♦ followed by a 2NT rebid to show a natural 20-22 opener with a 5-card suit somewhere then their 2NT opener (20-22, but denying a 5-card suit) has a potentially unexpected meaning and should be alerted, according to 5E1(b]. And quite right too: as an opponent, I'd certainly want to know that declarer does not have a 5-card suit when I am planning the defence!

[campboy]

I am not convinced about that. OB 5G3l seems to say that such a negative inference does not make the call alertable, even if it might be an unexpected negative inference (as some of the examples given are).

[bluejak]

Either it is alertable or it is not....

I disagree. If that section of the Orange Book is all we have to go on, I don't see how it can be, unless someone can helpfully define what constitutes "preparedness to play in no trumps" and "unexpected information about suit holdings". I don't expect a natural opening 2NT to deny a 5-card or longer suit.

Ok, you have lost me. If you disagree with "Either it is alertable or it is not" then I cannot see how we can proceed. What other suggestion do you have?

 

You then say "I don't see how it can be" which confuses me further: can be what?

[awm]

Perhaps a bit off topic, but can anyone think of a case where a choice to alert a non-alertable bid lead to damage and an adjustment?

 

The case made by the opponents here (that alerting the 2NT forces them to ask or look at the system card, which then gives information to the alerting side) seems fairly reasonable to me. Under the assumption that the 2NT is not, in fact, alertable... and one opponent asked and was subsequently (and correctly) played for most of the outstanding values by declarer... it does seem like there is potential for an adjustment.

[aguahombre]

and from the other side....not alerting 2NT in this case, even if it might be alertable would never result in damage, nor adjustment --as long as disclosure before the opening lead occurs.

[helene_t]

and from the other side....not alerting 2NT in this case, even if it might be alertable would never result in damage, nor adjustment --as long as disclosure before the opening lead occurs.

Unless the 2NT opener ends up defending. But that doesn't happen so often. So it's better not to alert.

 

The objection is a little bit reasonable I think, but it doesn't trump the principle than whenever in doubt, alert. In general, the objection is an argument for alerting, since an inquiry about a non-alerted call is more revealing than one about an alerted call. But since a non-alerted 2NT would clearly be taken as strong and balanced, so opps would rarely ask during the auction, it isn't an issue here.

[paulg]

and from the other side....not alerting 2NT in this case, even if it might be alertable would never result in damage, nor adjustment --as long as disclosure before the opening lead occurs.

In the EBU, either the bid is alertable or not. If it is not, then verbal disclosure is not required and, I would say, not actively encouraged although many do.

 

In my experience the better the player the more likely they are to disclose such agreements and nuances even when it is not required.

[bluejak]

In the EBU, either the bid is alertable or not.

Nice of you to say so. I still cannot get over the fact that I have been told earlier in the thread that this is not true! :)

[VixTD]

In the EBU, either the bid is alertable or not.

Nice of you to say so. I still cannot get over the fact that I have been told earlier in the thread that this is not true! :rolleyes:

Tell me then whether it is or it isn't, not just that it is or it isn't!

[iviehoff]

Either it is alertable or it is not....

I disagree. If that section of the Orange Book is all we have to go on, I don't see how it can be, unless someone can helpfully define what constitutes "preparedness to play in no trumps" and "unexpected information about suit holdings". I don't expect a natural opening 2NT to deny a 5-card or longer suit.

Ok, you have lost me. If you disagree with "Either it is alertable or it is not" then I cannot see how we can proceed. What other suggestion do you have?

I'm guessing the third possibility is "the regulations leave it unclear whether it is alertable or not".

[nige1]

Passes and bids

Unless it is announceable (see 5 C and 5 D), a pass or bid must be alerted if

(a) it is not natural; or

(b] it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.

It is normal to open 2NT on 5332 shapes in range; many people will consider a natural 2NT to be the best opening bid on certain 5422, 6322, 4441, and even some 6331 shapes.

• Agree with Jallerton.
  
• Also, if you ask about call (alerted or not) and then pass, EBU regulations disadvantage your partner. In other jurisdictions, you can reduce UI by always or never asking.
  

[bluejak]

I'm guessing the third possibility is "the regulations leave it unclear whether it is alertable or not".

It is still alertable, or it is not. Whether the regulations are clear or not does not affect that.

 

Also, if you ask about call (alerted or not) and then pass, EBU regulations disadvantage your partner. In other jurisdictions, you can reduce UI by always or never asking.

People do not 'always ask' so UI is given by questions in any jurisdiction, and what a question shows is known best by the partner. EBU regulations merely clarify this. Anyway, you can always ask in the EBU: it is merely a fact that people do not, and did not when the regulation was made.

 

As for never ask, I suppose some people do. To say they are disadvantaged by EBU regulations as against other jurisdictions is just not true.

 

Players give UI to partner. EBU regulations warn of this. Other jurisdictions do not warn. That does not mean that it is not true in other jurisdictions, nor does it mean the UI Laws are any different.

[VixTD]

I'm guessing the third possibility is "the regulations leave it unclear whether it is alertable or not".

It is still alertable, or it is not. Whether the regulations are clear or not does not affect that.

Those who have offered opinions so far, including some EBU directors, referees and experienced players, don't seem able to agree on this. You don't seem able or willing to come down on one side or the other. So how can you maintain that this bid either does or does not require an alert?

 

I get asked at virtually every tournament whether some or other call is alertable. Often I can give a definitive "yes" or "no" answer, and show a clause in the Orange Book to support my answer. Players can accept this. Sometimes I have to say that the regulations aren't clear, and that they probably wouldn't be criticised whether they choose to alert or not. They can accept this also.

 

What I cannot do is say "It either is alertable, or it isn't, but nobody knows which." This is just guaranteed to wind up the poor punters, who want a practical answer to a practical question, not a philosophical conundrum.

[dburn]

In English, the proposition "X is alertable or it is not" is not strictly incompossible with the proposition "X is alertable and it is not". The Law of the Excluded Middle has yet to find its way into either the Laws of Duplicate Bridge or the Orange Book.

 

Of course, this position is absurd, but so are our alerting regulations.

[campboy]

What I cannot do is say "It either is alertable, or it isn't, but nobody knows which." This is just guaranteed to wind up the poor punters, who want a practical answer to a practical question, not a philosophical conundrum.

And is also false, since alertability is not a property that exists independently of people knowing about it (where, for the sake of pedantry, I include "being able to look it up" as "knowing"). If we get a definitive answer then it will become one or the other, but at the moment the cat is neither alive nor dead. The parrot, on the other hand...

[bluejak]

Those who have offered opinions so far, including some EBU directors, referees and experienced players, don't seem able to agree on this. You don't seem able or willing to come down on one side or the other. So how can you maintain that this bid either does or does not require an alert?

Whether one specific person gives an opinion or not on IBLF does not mean that a call is not one or the other: that is absurd.

[blackshoe]

When the regulations, or for that matter the laws themselves, are unclear, and the authorities (NBO, ZA, WBF) have not given an interpretation, it is up to the TD to decide. Law 81C2. Some people object to this, saying it would be better if the laws and regulations were clear. Okay, they're right — but so what? Whatever we might want the rules to be, sometimes they aren't clear.

 

It seems to me the TD's proper answer to the question "is it alertable?" in such a case is "the regulation is unclear, which leaves it to the TD to decide. For this event, I'm going to decide it is (or isn't, take your pick)". The downside, of course, is that the TD at the next event may go the other way. So the players will have to ask before every event. Perhaps eventually enough complaints about that will reach the ears of the aforementioned authorities that they will do something about it.

[iviehoff]

I'm guessing the third possibility is "the regulations leave it unclear whether it is alertable or not".

It is still alertable, or it is not. Whether the regulations are clear or not does not affect that.

Many things in life are not binary. Sometimes there is more than two categories (eg, yes, no and maybe) and sometimes there are unclear dividing lines between categories. Here you can either say that there are two categories with an unclear dividing line, or else you can say that there are three categories: the (definitely) alertable, the (definitely) non-alertable, and the unclear. It amounts to the same thing.

 

The aim of the alerting regulations might have had the objective of making a perfect binary split between the alertable and the non-alertable. But the reality is that the dividing line is fuzzy. The regulations are written in a way that requires the exercise of judgment, for example as to whether something is "unexpected" or not. So in fact there is not a perfect binary split.