Alerting after a forcing NT

[el mister]

Playing 2/1, after a forcing NT you might sometimes bid 2m holding just 3 - say a weakish 5332 opener. Does pard need to alert this bid as 'might be 3' or some such?

This is playing in Acol clubland where most people don't play a forcing NT (if that makes any diff).

[barmar]

I presume "Acol clubland" implies EBU jurisdiction.

 

The phrase "forcing 1NT" (or anything like it) doesn't appear in the Blue Book. The only mention I can find that seems to be relevant is 4H2(h):

Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:

...

A 1NT response to a 1♥ or 1♠ opening which might show up to 12 HCP.

I couldn't find any mention of opener's rebids after the 1NT bid.

[gnasher]

If it promises three cards, it's not alertable in the EBU.

 

4 C 1 The following are considered 'natural' for the purposes of alerting and regulation of partnership understandings (see also 3E1):

(a) A bid of a suit which shows that suit (3+ cards) and does not show any other suit ...

But if your opponents are likely to be unfamiliar with this style, why not tell them anyway? You could either ignore the rules and alert the bids, or not alert but tell them at the end of the hand.

[WellSpyder]

But if your opponents are likely to be unfamiliar with this style, why not tell them anyway? You could either ignore the rules and alert the bids, .....

When I play a forcing NT in England (usually in a Precision-style context) then this is what I tend to do, precisely because the style is unfamiliar to a large number of players over here.

[helene_t]

If it promises three cards, it's not alertable in the EBU.

 

4 C 1 The following are considered 'natural' for the purposes of alerting and regulation of partnership understandings (see also 3E1):

(a) A bid of a suit which shows that suit (3+ cards) and does not show any other suit ...

But if your opponents are likely to be unfamiliar with this style, why not tell them anyway? You could either ignore the rules and alert the bids, or not alert but tell them at the end of the hand.

That it is considered natural for alerting purposes does not necessarily mean that it is not alertable. Natural calls with an unexpected meaning are alertable.

 

A natural bid which may "on occasion" be done on a 3-card suit is not alertable. But is this 2m rebid made on a 3-card suit too frequently to count as "on occasion"?

[el mister]

Thanks. It sounds like it won't hurt to alert then.

 

I think it would come up reasonably frequently, bidding 2C or 2D with 3. On rare occasion it could be 2 cards - a minimum opening 4-5-2-2 hand could have the sequence 1H - 1NT - 2C, as we don't play a 2 major showing opening bid atm. So I guess in light of the above then it definitely needs alerting.

[paulg]

In club land I think it is fine to alert the bid, but I would not alert it in a tournament as it is more common (and breaking the rules is more harshly adjudicated).

[barmar]

FYI, in ACBLland, where 2/1 is more common and most players are familiar with forcing 1NT, none of these rebids are alertable. The ACBL Alert Procedure specifically addresses them, including the possibility of 4=5=2=2 shape having to bid a 2-card club suit.

[gnasher]

That it is considered natural for alerting purposes does not necessarily mean that it is not alertable. Natural calls with an unexpected meaning are alertable.

Yes, that's true, or in fact the wording is "potentially unexpected". What is "potentially unexpected" varies according to the opponents, so we can probably use this to justify alerting in El Mister's local club but not in a national event.

 

A natural bid which may "on occasion" be done on a 3-card suit is not alertable. But is this 2m rebid made on a 3-card suit too frequently to count as "on occasion"?

You write "on occasion" as though quoting from the rules, but I can't find that anywhere in the EBU alerting regulations. I don't think frequency matters - the test is whether it might be unexpected.

[helene_t]

You write "on occasion" as though quoting from the rules, but I can't find that anywhere in the EBU alerting regulations. I don't think frequency matters - the test is whether it might be unexpected.

OB 5 G 3 h: Players should not alert ..... An ostensibly natural new suit rebid that may on occasion only contain three

cards

 

Or am I reading an outdated version? I just took the top hit on Google :) http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/orange-book/orange-book.pdf

[aguahombre]

FYI, in ACBLland, where 2/1 is more common and most players are familiar with forcing 1NT, none of these rebids are alertable. The ACBL Alert Procedure specifically addresses them, including the possibility of 4=5=2=2 shape having to bid a 2-card club suit.

The ACBL Alert Procedure indeed specifically adderesses the 4=5=2=2 situation, and then blows it by saying 3-cards in (clubs) is "expected". I don't believe in the auction:

 

1H-1N(F)

2C...our expectation is nothing other than 2 or more clubs...so, we alert it.

[jallerton]

OB 5 G 3 h: Players should not alert ..... An ostensibly natural new suit rebid that may on occasion only contain three

cards

 

Or am I reading an outdated version? I just took the top hit on Google :) http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/orange-book/orange-book.pdf

 

What did you type into your search engine? Maybe typing "EBU Blue Book" gets "showing results for EBU Orange Book"!

 

I interpret OB 5G3h as referring to sequences like (uncontested) 1♦-1♠-2♥ and 1♦-1♥-2♦-2♠, in which many players might bid a 3-card suit even if undiscussed.

 

On the other hand, after a forcing 1NT response, there is a partnership agreement that Opener has to rebid a 3-card minor on a 5332 shape. The opponents might not be aware of this quirk of the system, so it is a "potentially unexpected meaning" and should be alerted in EBU-land.

[barmar]

The ACBL Alert Procedure indeed specifically adderesses the 4=5=2=2 situation, and then blows it by saying 3-cards in (clubs) is "expected". I don't believe in the auction:

 

1H-1N(F)

2C...our expectation is nothing other than 2 or more clubs...so, we alert it.

I believe the idea is that you "expect" 3 clubs if you bid as if partner had them. If responder's shape is 3=1=5=4 with minimum values, I expect he'll normally pass 2♣. Once in a great while this might be a 4-2 fit, but he expects that it will usually be a 7 or 8 card fit, better than the probable 5-1 fit in hearts.

 

On a similar note, do you alert whenever opener reverses or jump shifts? Sometimes it's necessary to do these into 3-card suits, to get a force going (e.g. the MSC death hands). While I know it's possible, I always treat the bid as natural until some later action cancels this assumption.

[aguahombre]

On a similar note, do you alert whenever opener reverses or jump shifts? Sometimes it's necessary to do these into 3-card suits, to get a force going (e.g. the MSC death hands). While I know it's possible, I always treat the bid as natural until some later action cancels this assumption.

No, we believe and expect as you do in those cases. Allowing for a 2-card suit having been bid "as an offer to play" in that strain (using the wording of the Alert procedure) is different from allowing for a reverse or J.S. on 3 cards to have been manufactured out of necessity, IMO.

[mycroft]

I believe if you worry enough about the 4=5=2=2 hand to treat 2♣ as if it were 2+, then yes, you should Alert it. I don't, and so I don't (per the Alert Procedure). I think you should *also* put more 2+ hands into the 2♣ call so that your worry has some teeth and your non-2♣ auctions are better.

 

I will *explain* my 2♣ call, when asked (with or without the TD present, depending on when I was asked), as "3+, could be a Flannery 4=5=2=2".

[barmar]

No, we believe and expect as you do in those cases. Allowing for a 2-card suit having been bid "as an offer to play" in that strain (using the wording of the Alert procedure) is different from allowing for a reverse or J.S. on 3 cards to have been manufactured out of necessity, IMO.

But the logic is the same. When you have a minimum 4=5=2=2 hand, you have to manufacture a rebid out of necessity.

 

The differences may be which auctions the opponents are likely to want to come into. If you have to manufacture a reverse or jump shift, the opponents probably wouldn't be bidding anyway, so the lie probably doesn't get in their way. But if you manufacture a 2♣ bid when opener and responder are both near minimums, that could easily be a suit the opponents would have competed in. So it would help them to know that it might not be a real suit.

 

I wonder what the actual chance is that 2♣ is bid on a 2-card suit. Can someone do a simulation of 1♥-1NT(f)-2♣ to see the percentage that are 4=5=2=2? The conditions for opener and responder's hands are pretty straightforward, but you also have to constrain the opponents so they don't interfere.

[aguahombre]

But the logic is the same. When you have a minimum 4=5=2=2 hand, you have to manufacture a rebid out of necessity.

 

The differences may be which auctions the opponents are likely to want to come into. If you have to manufacture a reverse or jump shift, the opponents probably wouldn't be bidding anyway, so the lie probably doesn't get in their way. But if you manufacture a 2♣ bid when opener and responder are both near minimums, that could easily be a suit the opponents would have competed in. So it would help them to know that it might not be a real suit.

Hence, we feel we should alert 2C.

[jallerton]

But the logic is the same. When you have a minimum 4=5=2=2 hand, you have to manufacture a rebid out of necessity.

 

Not necessarily. Isn't there a convention whose name begins with F popular in the USA?

[barmar]

Not necessarily. Isn't there a convention whose name begins with F popular in the USA?

Yes, but if you're not F'ing, you have to manufacture a bid.

[jallerton]

Indeed. The opponents might not be aware that you might bid a 2-card suit here, an implication of your partnership agreements to play a forcing NT combined with not playing F****** , and the way to draw this to their attention is to alert!

[mycroft]

...Except that explicitly, in ACBL world, this is not Alertable. By inference, the opponents are deemed to be aware of this fact.

 

I don't agree or disagree with this part of the Procedure, but it is what it is.

[nige1]

Indeed. The opponents might not be aware that you might bid a 2-card suit here, an implication of your partnership agreements to play a forcing NT combined with not playing F****** , and the way to draw this to their attention is to alert!

...Except that explicitly, in ACBL world, this is not Alertable. By inference, the opponents are deemed to be aware of this fact. I don't agree or disagree with this part of the Procedure, but it is what it is.

In principle, jallerton seems right about alerting. I think local alerting rules are an enigma. They're complex, arbitrary, inconsistent, and designed to conceal local idiosyncrasies from those who most need to know about them -- beginners, strangers and foreigners. Nevertheless, in practice, mycroft is right. We must learn to endure them.

[barmar]

I think ACBL's rule is based on the fact that F******* is not very common.

[jallerton]

It seems to be quite common in the USA from what I have seen on Vugraph, but perhaps it is less popular amongst intermediate players.

[aguahombre]

I think ACBL's rule is based on the fact that F******* is not very common.

It seems to be quite common in the USA from what I have seen on Vugraph, but perhaps it is less popular amongst intermediate players.

 

There are too many variables to determine how common Flannery is among ACBL tournament players of any level; also, the issue is not really how many pairs use or don't use it ---rather how likely the opponents are to be familiar with Flannery and its inferences.

 

We cannot just look at the CC's of record for the ACBL top players you see on Vugraph; these cards are mostly modified for USBF qualification events and for international play, and many have gone to 2♦ Multi which they won't be using in most ACBL tourneys. Strong Club pairs, who might have chosen Flannery if playing a natural system, use 2♦ for a different system plug.

 

The real basis for the (sloppily constructed) rule is to spell out an exception to their definition of "natural" for opening bids and rebids. I just believe they were wrong to do so; Forcing NT non-Flannery pairs with 4-5-2-2 might be compelled by necessity to rebid 2♣, but that does not make the bid natural or expected by the opponents (nor unexpected by partner) IMO.