After a reverse liebenshol 2NT

[dickiegera]

[hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1cp1hp2dp2n]133|100[/hv]

 

2NT is a negative used after a reverse asking opener to bid 3♣ so that responder can place contract.

I guess it is a liebenshol type of bid

 

Is the 2NT bid alertable?

[blackshoe]

It's not natural, so yes, it requires an alert.

[TylerE]

It's not natural, so yes, it requires an alert.

 

Danger danger WIll Robinson.

[aguahombre]

Clearly alertable, but the wording of the disclosure should be much more careful than described in the OP.

 

The opponents should not be led to believe opener will be bidding 3C. With a stronger hand not content to be dropped in 3C, opener will do something else.

 

Our explanation is something like "artificial, usually showing less than 9 HCP --various hand patterns." Then the 3C bid is alerted as willing to be dropped there.

[Vampyr]

Danger danger WIll Robinson.

 

I instantly regretted upvoting this, as I realised I was ageing myself!

[ggwhiz]

In my partnership 2nt forces 3♣ (well strongly advised) for signoffs but we can bid 3nt over this to show doubt over 3nt vs 5 of a minor with a game force. Not only alertable but requires a full explanation.

[barmar]

AFAIK, there's only one artificial 2NT that does not require an alert in ACBL: Unusual 2NT, which is a jump overcall to 2NT that shows the minors or the two lower unbid.

[jeffford76]

AFAIK, there's only one artificial 2NT that does not require an alert in ACBL: Unusual 2NT, which is a jump overcall to 2NT that shows the minors or the two lower unbid.

 

There's also any forcing 2NT response to a weak-2.

[kevperk]

It's not natural, so yes, it requires an alert.

 

 

Danger danger WIll Robinson.

 

What's wrong with this? Much better than just "yes".

[TylerE]

Many calls which are natural require an alert, and many that ARE NOT natural do not. So, "is it natural?" is a very poor test in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

 

One of my favorite examples is that, at least in ACBLand, my 2♣ (playing a strong club system), which promises 6+ ♣ has to be alerted, but your "standard american" 2♣, which doesn't promise clubs at all, and can be just about whatever you define "strong" as, doesn't.

[Vampyr]

Many calls which are natural require an alert, and many that ARE NOT natural do not. So, "is it natural?" is a very poor test in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

 

One of my favorite examples is that, at least in ACBLand, my 2♣ (playing a strong club system), which promises 6+ ♣ has to be alerted, but your "standard american" 2♣, which doesn't promise clubs at all, and can be just about whatever you define "strong" as, doesn't.

 

That is strange, but of course the ACBL rules are based on what is more common and traditional. The EBU approach, of late, has been to base both system regulations and alert/announcement rules on a logical and consistent framework, which I think we all prefer; but of course there are cultural differences, so YMMV.

[blackshoe]

In this particular case, it is IMO the fact that this 2NT is not natural that makes it alertable. This has nothing to do with whether other 2NT bids, or indeed any other bids at all, are or are not alertable. When I said what I said, I wasn't talking about any other case, I was talking about this one. Robby the Robot may want to warn me to be careful about applying the principle to other situations, but since I was never going to do that anyway, he's wasting his electronic breath.