another alert question and an oops

[jillybean]

2♥ (weak) 2N (feature)

3♥

 

2N is not alertable, is 3♥ alertable and if 'yes' is it because it falls under convention bids?

 

Convention: A bid or call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not

necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of Pass, Double and Redouble, the

last denomination named. In addition a Pass which promises more than a specified strength,

or artificially promises or denies values other than the last suit named.

 

And the oops. Playing with new partner todeay, LHO openers 1N, partner doubles. I tap the alert card and say "alert - but I don't

know what it means". I find it normal to keep quiet when I know the meaning of a bid, not quite so easy when I don't know what it is.

[Vampyr]

I tap the alert card and say "alert - but I don't

know what it means".

 

Might get a PP for this, as the UI is deliberate rather than accidental.

[jillybean]

Might get a PP for this, as the UI is deliberate rather than accidental.

I agree I should, but it would never result in a PP here.

[aguahombre]

The responses to artificial asking bids such as 2NT are alertable, even if the response is a rebid of your suit. It carries a message other than "I have a weak 2-bid", which they already suspect.

[Trinidad]

2♥ (weak) 2N (feature)

3♥

 

2N is not alertable, is 3♥ alertable and if 'yes' is it because it falls under convention bids?

 

Convention: A bid or call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not

necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of Pass, Double and Redouble, the

last denomination named. In addition a Pass which promises more than a specified strength,

or artificially promises or denies values other than the last suit named.

I would say that 3♥ is alertable. But can you explain to me why 2NT is not alertable? It is clearly a convention. Or is there a specific exception for 2NT "asking for a feature"?

 

Rik

[tabaresort]

2♥ (weak) 2N (feature)

3♥

 

2N is not alertable, is 3♥ alertable and if 'yes' is it because it falls under convention bids?

 

Convention: A bid or call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not

necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of Pass, Double and Redouble, the

last denomination named. In addition a Pass which promises more than a specified strength,

or artificially promises or denies values other than the last suit named.

 

And the oops. Playing with new partner todeay, LHO openers 1N, partner doubles. I tap the alert card and say "alert - but I don't

know what it means". I find it normal to keep quiet when I know the meaning of a bid, not quite so easy when I don't know what it is.

In Acol 2NT is alterable if asking for strength of partners weak 2, as is the answer 3H.

It is better to alert even when you cannot remember the reason. Just say " I cannot remember", if then the opps want to know what it is you can volunteer to step away from the table and they can ask your partner. You should never say "I take it as ......". That could be UI.

[jillybean]

In Acol 2NT is alterable if asking for strength of partners weak 2, as is the answer 3H.

It is better to alert even when you cannot remember the reason. Just say " I cannot remember", if then the opps want to know what it is you can volunteer to step away from the table and they can ask your partner. You should never say "I take it as ......". That could be UI.

I must Alert, it is not correct to say " I cannot remember" until asked about the alert - that was my entire point.

 

2NT is not alertable (unless it is natural) simply because the ACBL alert chart says so.

Listed under no alert, Conventional 2NT responses to natural two-level opening bids

[aguahombre]

I would say that 3♥ is alertable. But can you explain to me why 2NT is not alertable? It is clearly a convention. Or is there a specific exception for 2NT "asking for a feature"?

 

Rik

It is not alertable because (aside from the fact that ACBL says so), it is part of the concept that the Alert can only help the side using it to remember their agreements. Explaining what partner is going to do is not a good thing.

 

The recent change in alertability of Puppet is another move in the right direction. Now, if we could only get rid of other disclosures which explain what will happen next.....

[tabaresort]

I must Alert, it is not correct to say " I cannot remember" until asked about the alert - that was my entire point.

 

2NT is not alertable (unless it is natural) simply because the ACBL alert chart says so.

Listed under no alert, Conventional 2NT responses to natural two-level opening bids

Sorry I was referring to ACOL. I must admit I do not know anything about the American systems.

[blackshoe]

What requires an alert has more to do with where you are than what you're playing, since alert regulations are promulgated by your Regulating Authority, which is usually your NBO. In particular, EBU and ACBL alert regulations differ in several particulars, this (whether 2NT in response to a weak two requires an alert) being one of them.

[LH2650]

If you play that 3♥ shows a minimum weak two bid with no inference as to holdings in outside suits, I think that you are using a treatment rather than a convention. A treatment is alertable only if the ACBL specifically states that it is, and that is not the case here.

[jillybean]

If you play that 3♥ shows a minimum weak two bid with no inference as to holdings in outside suits, I think that you are using a treatment rather than a convention. A treatment is alertable only if the ACBL specifically states that it is, and that is not the case here.

This reasoning is along the lines of the discussion I am having. They are saying 3M is not alertable here because " I think because 3 hearts is a natural bid, it is not alertable. A rebid of a suit is usually the weakest bid a player can make. Which is what it means in this case." I think the fact that it denies an outside control makes it alertable.

[kevperk]

In the ACBL, a 2NT response to a weak two bid is not alertable unless it is natural. Also, responses showing a feature and repeat of ones suit without a feature are not alertable. Artificial responses, such as Ogust, are alertable.

[aguahombre]

In the ACBL, a 2NT response to a weak two bid is not alertable unless it is natural. Also, responses showing a feature and repeat of ones suit without a feature are not alertable. Artificial responses, such as Ogust, are alertable.

You made that up just to annoy us? Conventional responses to the 2NT asking bid are alertable.

[barmar]

You made that up just to annoy us? Conventional responses to the 2NT asking bid are alertable.

I've never heard of anyone being required to alert feature responses in ACBL. It's the assumed default set of responses to 2NT. Any OTHER type of response would be alertable.

 

I can't find any justification of this in the Alert Procedures, but it's the way everyone has always done it. Maybe it's because bidding a suit with a feature is considered natural? But I think you would show a doubleton honor, and that's not a natural suit.

[jillybean]

I see there is much confusion

 

and I love this

I can't find any justification of this in the Alert Procedures, but it's the way everyone has always done it.

[aguahombre]

Not even close to granting the hyperbole about "no one does it". The alert procedures are clear about bids which convey or deny something about that suit or another suit, and when the suit being bid is not being bid naturally.

 

KX in a side suit does not meet the definition of "natural", which requires 3+ cards in a minor or 4+ in a major. There is no confusion.

 

There is also no confusion about the rules which state a natural bid which carries information about some other suit(s) is alertable. That would be the case when the rebid of the weak two suit denies an outside feature.

 

Perhaps nobody has followed the rules in someone's experience; but that does not make it the correct procedure. No competent pair I have ever run across has failed to alert the feature or lack-of-feature responses to 2NT.

[barmar]

I've been playing tournament bridge in ACBL for about 20 years. I can't recall anyone ever alerting a feature response. And it's not just a local thing, I go to an average of 2 NABCs a year.

[aguahombre]

I recommend that each authority's rules be preceeded by a general clause which states:

 

"Any procedure herein, which in the player's experience is not adhered to by the majority of players, is not a requirement."

[jillybean]

And then who is feeling left out? The lovely secretary birds. Let's just toss the law book.

 

http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/5816/1024pxsecratarybirdstru.jpg

[blackshoe]

That "nobody" follows the rules doesn't mean the rules aren't there. The Alert Procedure is pretty clear on this: a 2NT response to a weak two bid does not require an alert if it asks for further information from opener. It does require an alert if it's natural and non-forcing. There is no specific rule regarding opener's rebids after a 2NT inquiry, so if such bids are conventional, and they do not fall under the exceptions in Part II of the Alert Procedure, they require an alert. The responses to a 2NT "feature ask" are all conventional (including 3M, because it denies an outside feature), therefore they all require an alert. Same for the responses to a 2NT "Ogust ask". In fact, I can't think of a response structure of which I'm aware which has any bids which don't require an alert.

[barmar]

There are de jure rules and de facto rules.

 

ACBL's alerting regulations are extremely poorly specified. Some things that aren't specified have become widely known by tradition and word of mouth.

 

I estimate 99% of players learn what to alert simply by following what everyone else does, they've never read the alerting regulations, so these traditions become entrenched, and that's how de facto rules are established. Eventually the ACBL may see fit to record them in the regulations, but I think they mostly view it as "if it ain't broke, there's no need to fix it".

[blackshoe]

If the director never gets involved, "de facto rules" are fine. If he does get involved, he is required to rule according to the regulation, not according to what "everybody does". That said, there's a good chance in the ACBL, particularly in clubs, that he won't. That's not "the rules are what everybody thinks they are", that's director incompetence.

 

The other day, I asked somebody involved with an upcoming Unit-level event (a Swiss Teams, but given by a local organization within the unit - he's on the board of the local organization) what conditions of contest apply, what regulations will be in force, and so on. His rather quizzical response was "it's just a normal Swiss Teams". :blink: :blink: :lol:

[jillybean]

There's another twist to this, the 2N feature ask isn't exactly a feature ask.

 

"I play that a weak 2 is 5-10 HCP and that 2NT asks if I'm min or max - if I'm min I rebid my suit whether I have an outside feature or not. If I'm max I bid another suit to show where my values are. From my perspective this doesnt convey "a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named".

 

Still alertable?

[aguahombre]

Yes, it conveys information such as "either no feature, or a feature but a bad 2M opening." My opinion about this agreement is probably best kept to myself; but, those who don't concern themselves with suit quality appropriate to the colors should probably not use "feature" as their toy.

 

We decided to use disciplined weak 2's with feature, except at favorable ---where we shift to our own variation of responses to 2NT...starting with "I was making a joke when I opened 2M", to "textbook", to "on-line typical with everything but my suit", up to "good suit and an outside prime"