Vampyr Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 In the ACBL, a 2NT response to a weak two bid is not alertable unless it is natural. I would not have believed this had I not looked it up and read it after reading the OP and seen it with my own two eyes. The problem with this approach is that there should really be just one non-alertable/announceable meaning for a bid. (In the EBU there are zero such for a 2♣ opening bid). I know that the ACBL do not agree with this, as evidenced by their regulations concerning doubles. If I were an ACBL player, I would feel really aggrieved the first time I was damaged because a 2NT response to a weak 2 was something other than an enquiry. Actually, it is probably right to play it as showing spades after a 2♥ opening, since using 2♠ as an enquiry leaves more room. Obviously not applicable to those who play 2♠ as non-forcing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 I would not have believed this had I not looked it up and read it after reading the OP and seen it with my own two eyes. The problem with this approach is that there should really be just one non-alertable/announceable meaning for a bid. (In the EBU there are zero such for a 2♣ opening bid). I know that the ACBL do not agree with this, as evidenced by their regulations concerning doubles. If I were an ACBL player, I would feel really aggrieved the first time I was damaged because a 2NT response to a weak 2 was something other than an enquiry. Actually, it is probably right to play it as showing spades after a 2♥ opening, since using 2♠ as an enquiry leaves more room. Obviously not applicable to those who play 2♠ as non-forcing. What the Alert Procedure actually says is that a 2NT response to a weak two is "not alertable if it asks for further clarification". So your 2NT showing spades, or 2NT "something other than an inquiry", would require an alert. Yes, I know, the Alert Chart says "Conventional 2NT responses to natural two level opening bids" do not require an alert. The Chart is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 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?As I understand it, that's the normal way that "feature ask" is played in ACBL territory, so it's the treatment that is rarely alerted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted February 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 As I understand it, that's the normal way that "feature ask" is played in ACBL territory, so it's the treatment that is rarely alerted.Interesting, I have never heard anyone explain a 3M rebid as a weak preempt OR no feature, but only as no feature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 From the ACBL Teacher's Manual, in the chapter on weak 2 bids:A 2NT response to a weak two-bid is artificial and forcing. It asks for a further description of opener’s hand:• With a minimum hand of 5 to 8 points, opener rebids the suit at the three level.• With a maximum hand of 9 to 11 points, opener rebids a new suit to show a feature — such as an ace or a king — or rebids 3NT with no outside feature. That said, they also generally recommend sound weak 2 bids (at least 3 of the top 5 honors in the suit). So if you have a minimum hand, you generally won't have an outside feature, since then your suit would have to be very poor. They give an example of 10x xx QJ10xxx Kxx as a borderline 2♦ hand, only the fact that you have the ♦10 making it good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 From the ACBL Teacher's Manual, in the chapter on weak 2 bids: That said, they also generally recommend sound weak 2 bids (at least 3 of the top 5 honors in the suit). Or three of the bottom five honors in the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted February 20, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 I'm not sure what the ACBL teachers book has to do with this? I've never read it and I suspect my partners haven't either or they have and ignored the advice.The player invloved here says "if I'm min I rebid my suit whether I have an outside feature or not" so I guess she hasn't read it either. The only certainty with these "standard" conventions is that there will be many ways to play it, isn't this why we have full disclosure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 I'm not sure what the ACBL teachers book has to do with this? The conventions we teach to beginners are assumed to be very standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 It should be "very standard" for teachers to know and explain that some of the conventions they teach are alertable or announceable, and that the general guide to alerting is whether there is an artificial or additional message conveyed in the bid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 2♥ (weak) 2N (feature)3♥ 2N is not alertable, is 3♥ alertable and if 'yes' is it because it falls under convention bids?It depends what it means. If it is artificial it is alertable, if not, then not. 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.Tut tut. :( 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.That's a fairly silly approach. Alerts are for opponents' sake. Misinforming opponents to stop cheats who will just cheat in other ways seems pretty pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 That's a fairly silly approach. Alerts are for opponents' sake. Misinforming opponents to stop cheats who will just cheat in other ways seems pretty pointless.Cheating was not the issue. Unneccesarily disclosing what is going to happen, rather than what has happened is the issue. We are talking about during the auction, not about pre-alerts which disclose what might happen without reference to a hand in progress. If 2NT is asked about, anyway -- though not alertable, the answer should be, "Asking for further description". The answer should not be "Feature", or whatever the continuation is going to show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LH2650 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 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.In the standard ACBL approach (see Commonly Used Conventions on their website), the 3♥ rebid shows only a minimum weak two bid, and does not deny an outside feature. As an aside, a response to 2N that shows a feature also seems to qualify as a treatment, and therefore is not alertable. See the definition of "treatment" on the Alert Chart. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevperk Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 You made that up just to annoy us? Conventional responses to the 2NT asking bid are alertable.Bidding a feature in this instance is similar to bidding stoppers, or controls. In the ACBL, these are not alertable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 The Chart is wrong. Where can the full regulations be found? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Cheating was not the issue. Unneccesarily disclosing what is going to happen, rather than what has happened is the issue. We are talking about during the auction, not about pre-alerts which disclose what might happen without reference to a hand in progress. If 2NT is asked about, anyway -- though not alertable, the answer should be, "Asking for further description". The answer should not be "Feature", or whatever the continuation is going to show.That's MI. Keeping secrets from opponents deliberately is cheating. This is a Full disclosure game. If you play RKCB, for example, and are asked what you play, answering "Blackwood" is deliberate misinformation, and answering "asking for aces" is prevarication with intent to deceive. If you are asked what 2NT is in response to a weak two you should say whether it is Ogust or a feature ask or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevperk Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 That's MI. Keeping secrets from opponents deliberately is cheating. This is a Full disclosure game. If you play RKCB, for example, and are asked what you play, answering "Blackwood" is deliberate misinformation, and answering "asking for aces" is prevarication with intent to deceive. If you are asked what 2NT is in response to a weak two you should say whether it is Ogust or a feature ask or whatever.If one were to reply "keycard asking", that would not be MI. If you play Ogust responses, and reply "asks for clarification", how is that MI?If you play feature responses, and reply "asks for clarification", how is that MI?If you are not sure what responses, and reply "asks for clarification", doesn't that avoid problems?If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "Ogust", hasn't that helped your side?If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "feature", hasn't that helped your side? Avoiding giving UI to partner is a good thing, as long as it doesn't interfere with full disclosure or not giving opps MI.I fail to see how it can be helpful to the opponents what the responses are to these bids, but even if it could, it seems better for them to only ask follow ups when needed. As an opponent in this situation, I would much rather it be this way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Where can the full regulations be found? Alert Procedure. At the top of that page are three links, one to the Chart, one to "Alert Definitions", and one "view as pdf", which allows you to download the definitions and procedure sections as one pdf file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 If one were to reply "keycard asking", that would not be MI. If you play Ogust responses, and reply "asks for clarification", how is that MI?If you play feature responses, and reply "asks for clarification", how is that MI?If you are not sure what responses, and reply "asks for clarification", doesn't that avoid problems?If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "Ogust", hasn't that helped your side?If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "feature", hasn't that helped your side? Avoiding giving UI to partner is a good thing, as long as it doesn't interfere with full disclosure or not giving opps MI.I fail to see how it can be helpful to the opponents what the responses are to these bids, but even if it could, it seems better for them to only ask follow ups when needed. As an opponent in this situation, I would much rather it be this way.Whether it is MI or not, attempts to hide what you are playing are seriously unethical, and the excuse of giving UI is awful. As the ACBL points out, it does not matter how the question is phrased, a full and complete answer is required, and your method of not answering in full is against the Laws and ethics of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Well, as seems to be common, barmar, let me introduce you to someone who Alerts Feature Responses. Or Ogust Responses. Or 3♣ showing a 5-card preempt. Or shortness responses. Because the Alert Procedures say so, and the concept of "default treatment" doesn't actually exist. However, please note my self-selected title. Yes, there are some cases where the convention or convention group is "so standard that we've chosen to make it not Alertable"; but they're itemised - and much smaller than most people think. I would Alert the feature response, and explain it as "non-minimum weak 2, with a [suit] A or K." and "no outside A or K, or minimum weak 2" as appropriate. I can see that it is arguably a non-Alertable treatment, but that people who want to argue that "their odd treatment" shouldn't be Alertable come in two flavours: those that are of the "why should we have to do this? Everybody plays it" school, and those that would like to discourage questions about their bidding for whatever reason. I have sympathy for the first school - but don't really think it applies here (as opposed to the 15-17 NTers, who I have sympathy for, and it does apply, but the problems with not Announcing it are well-proven). My opinion of the second school (which I'm sure none of the people in this thread are in, but they sure do exist) is unprintable. And I will join the "tut-tut"ers over the unasked explanation. Having said that, I had the auction a while back:[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n(12-14)p2d(transfer)p2hp2n(GF%2C%205+H%20and%204m)p3c]133|100[/hv]where 3♣, after a *long* pause, was Alerted with "Alert, but I don't know what it means." The opponents, rightly, got on partner's case about it; but one would suggest that the UI transmitted had already been transmitted... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 3♣, after a *long* pause, was Alerted with "Alert, but I don't know what it means." Wow. Silly me, assuming that the case in the OP was the only time this ever happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "Ogust", hasn't that helped your side?If your partner is not sure what responses, and you reply "feature", hasn't that helped your side?No, I've damaged my side by giving my partner UI, thereby constraining his actions. Whether it is MI or not, attempts to hide what you are playing are seriously unethical, and the excuse of giving UI is awful. As the ACBL points out, it does not matter how the question is phrased, a full and complete answer is required, and your method of not answering in full is against the Laws and ethics of the game.I don't think Kevperk's examples are an attempt to hide what he is playing. They appear to be an attempt to answer the question that was asked, and not some other question. The opponents asked the meaning of 2NT, so he tells them the meaning of 2NT. They didn't ask him to explain what subsequent actions will mean; if they want to know, no doubt they will ask. If I play 1♥-2NT as a game-forcing raise with four-card support, I describe it as "game-forcing with four-card support". I don't say "Game-forcing with four-card support, and asking me to bid 3♣ with any minimum, 3♦ with a balanced non-minimum, 3♥ with a non-minimum and short clubs, 3♠ with ..." Similarly, if I play 2♥-2NT as an invitational or better hand, asking for more information, it seems entirely proper to describe it as "an invitational or better hand, asking for more information". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 If you play Ogust in response to a weak two, saying it is an asking bid is merely trying to avoid giving full information. 2NT in response to 1M is not an ask, so it is not comparable. But if you play an asking bid your opponents have a right to know what sort of asking bid and refusing to tell them is unethical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 If you play Ogust in response to a weak two, saying it is an asking bid is merely trying to avoid giving full information. 2NT in response to 1M is not an ask, so it is not comparable. But if you play an asking bid your opponents have a right to know what sort of asking bid and refusing to tell them is unethical. It seems to me the correct explanation of 2NT, playing Ogust, is something like "asks me to further describe the strength of my hand and suit". I do not think it is correct to say anything about what future bids (e.g., 3 of a suit by me) will mean. Do you disagree? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 22, 2012 Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Bluejack has been on record before on this issue. His definition of full disclosure includes that which will happen on subsequent rounds of bidding; we believe that it applies to what has happened (and even what other bids not made would have meant). I don't remember his opinions extending to "unethical" and "cheating" before, when debating the matter; but, we aren't going to change his mind. In all cases such as the 2NT ask, the 4NT ask, Leben, good-bad, etc, the opponents are entitled to know what kinds of hands are being shown by the bidder who is doing the asking (if there are in-fact a set of hands described by the conventional bid). The opponents have no need to know, and nothing good can come of telling them (and reminding partner) what the continuations will mean before the continations occur. My opinion of my own ethics is that I go beyond what appears to be the minimum disclosure required. I draw the line here. I will not freely disclose what might happen next; I will disclose fully what has happened. If, in the only situation I can imagine where an opponent would like to know what will happen **, I do not provide that information, I consider that a good thing. **Opponent might want to know that if he makes a risky bid in the middle of our conventional asking sequence we have or don't have a way of penalizing him. Poor baby will just have to find out when he tries it, and I will be happy to disclose that partner's double is penalty after she doubles. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted February 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2012 Wow. Silly me, assuming that the case in the OP was the only time this ever happened.Nope, just me silly enough to post my great mistakes. 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.