Vampyr Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 As may be, David, but it's not how you would play it that matters, but how he plays it. FWIW, I was taught that the Q is not a feature.But the point David is trying to make is that there has to be an agreement concerning what to do with a maximum that does not have whatever the partnership defines as a "feature". So the relevant question is, does 3♦ promise a minimum? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knyblad Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 But one problem with all this is that 3NT will probably make, so we do not want to adjust to 3NT making!Opening lead a little ♣. West gets the trick with the king and finesse for ♦Q. Now N-S have 3 ♣ tricks, 1 ♦ trick and 3 ♥ tricks for 3 down. I think there is something totally wrong with the arguments in this thread. If the pair is playing Ogust, then 2NT should have been alerted. At the same time you are claiming that Vest has UI, because the East did not alert 2NT. If I was in Wests seat playing Ogust and Flannery I would assume that East had simply forgotten to alert the 2NT. Besides, E-Ws CC should clearly state if they are playing Ogust. Starting to claim that they are playing Ogust when it is not listed on the CC seems like miscarriage of justice to me. Anyway, the 3♦ bid looks based on UI to me. East hand is so good that it is a logical alternative to raise a natural 2NT to 3NT. Without knowing E-Ws agreements, it is hard to see where the bidding would have ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddrankin Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 I think there is something totally wrong with the arguments in this thread. If the pair is playing Ogust, then 2NT should have been alerted. At the same time you are claiming that Vest has UI, because the East did not alert 2NT. If I was in Wests seat playing Ogust and Flannery I would assume that East had simply forgotten to alert the 2NT. Besides, E-Ws CC should clearly state if they are playing Ogust. Starting to claim that they are playing Ogust when it is not listed on the CC seems like miscarriage of justice to me. Anyway, the 3♦ bid looks based on UI to me. East hand is so good that it is a logical alternative to raise a natural 2NT to 3NT. Without knowing E-Ws agreements, it is hard to see where the bidding would have ended. In the ACBL, 2nt in response to a weak 2-bid requires an alert only if it is natural and non-forcing. All conventional meanings are not alerted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Playing with screens and therefore no unheard alerts or lacks of alerts, if the auction goes:2D-(p)-2N-(p)3S-(p)-4H-(p)p -(x)-p -(p) Is East allowed to be "woken up" by the auction to realize that EW is not playing weak 2 and then bid 5D? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Why not? What UI does he have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 Why not? What UI does he have?Dunno. I've never played with screens, so I'm just trying to catch up on how the world works. Thanks. But, I guess this East heard the original alert and therefore has UI. Since he has an LA (pass) after the double of 4H, he cannot pull? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 In the ACBL, 2nt in response to a weak 2-bid requires an alert only if it is natural and non-forcing. All conventional meanings are not alerted.Not that I've ever played it (I have played "natural" and non-forcing (but might be off-shape)), but would natural but forcing be not Alertable? (Certainly down around "we want to play a Strong Spade" in "chance of needing to know" level, of course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 The regulation does not say that a natural and forcing 2NT response to a weak two bid requires an alert. One might think this means it does not, but I think such an agreement is unusual enough that it should be alerted for that reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddrankin Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 The alert chart does specifically state under the "No Alert" header: "Conventional and/or forcing 2NT responses", so I say no alert is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 If the chart and the procedure differ, which one governs? Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddrankin Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 If the chart and the procedure differ, which one governs? Why?My guess would be the procedures overrule the chart, and the chart is a simplification, if I can use that word when referring to the ACBL. But since the procedures don't specifcally address the bid, and the chart does specifically address it, and also does not conflict with the procedures, then it seems that 2NT does not require an alert unless natural and non-forcing. I'm not sure what the value of a natural and forcing, but not conventional, 2NT bid would be, though. Does anyone play that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 My guess would be the procedures overrule the chart, and the chart is a simplification, if I can use that word when referring to the ACBL. But since the procedures don't specifcally address the bid, and the chart does specifically address it, and also does not conflict with the procedures, then it seems that 2NT does not require an alert unless natural and non-forcing. I'm not sure what the value of a natural and forcing, but not conventional, 2NT bid would be, though. Does anyone play that? None that I've ever seen - which is why I would say it should be alerted, but under the more general "highly unusual and unexpected" clause rather than the specific "response to weak 2" clause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 None that I've ever seen - which is why I would say it should be alerted, but under the more general "highly unusual and unexpected" clause rather than the specific "response to weak 2" clause. Except that the chart specifically addresses not conventional and forcing and says that such a meaning does not require an alert. If you say that natural and forcing requires an alert can you give an example in this context of a non-conventional forcing 2NT bid that would not require an alert as directed by the alert chart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 I think it's just saying that if opener can pass the 2NT bid, it must be alerted. 4th hand needs to know this because it means he might not get another chance to bid. As long as it's forcing, he can wait a round, to get more information about the opponents' hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Except that the chart specifically addresses not conventional and forcing and says that such a meaning does not require an alert. If you say that natural and forcing requires an alert can you give an example in this context of a non-conventional forcing 2NT bid that would not require an alert as directed by the alert chart. First, the chart does not govern, the procedure governs. Second, either the "unusual and unexpected" provision is a general exception to specific "does not require" provisions, or it's meaningless. I do not think it's meaningless. To your second paragraph, I answer "no". So what? If a natural and forcing 2NT response to a weak two were not highly unusual, it would not require an alert. I already said that. The fact, however, is that it is highly unusual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Oops, guess it's time to read the pages again. I tend to ignore the Chart, as I always have to go to the procedures for what I need; occasionally that's a mistake. Thanks. Again, I don't know anyone who plays it that way, so probably irrelevant; but I've had to answer "is this incredibly insane and useless treatment Alertable" before, so I don't trust "nobody plays it". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.