late "alert"

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1n(11-13)2n(Hearts%20%26%20clubs...)4h(Transer%20to%20spades)ppp]133|100[/hv]

 

So here's the situation - 4 people, all friendly at the table. 1N is alerted as 11-13. 2N is conventionally clubs and hearts, but E doesn't remember, so he thinks for about 3 seconds, then says "That's not natural" in a low but audible voice. Neither opponent asks follow-ups, and they have an accident because one of them thinks 4♥ is a transfer, and the other thinks 4♥ is to play.

 

N-S have been playing for about 7-8 years, and are young, improving players who, in your experience, ask about alerts before bidding - in fact, N-S claimed that they did not ask because they did not recognize "that's not natural" as an alert, and when it was asked in the play of the hand, E actually indicated that 2N was for the minors. 4♠ makes on normal play, and 4♥ went down 6. The misinformation in the play did not materially change the result of the hand.

 

Your ruling?

 

Edited to make explanation match the diagram, referenced wrong directions in the explanation originally

Edited October 21, 2013 by CSGibson

[billw55]

Is the diagram wrong? Otherwise why is north explaining 2NT (bid by west)?

[campboy]

What meanings of 2NT would require an alert here? If all conventional meanings would require an alert I don't see how you can interpret "that's not natural" as meaning anything different to "that's alertable". If the actual meaning requires an alert but "both minors" would not, then it seems NOS have been damaged by OS's failure to make it clear that the meaning was alertable.

[akhare]

Seems like E-W declared 4♥ after East opened 1N (11-13), right?

 

In other words, the auction starting with East as the dealer was:

 

1N (11-13) - (2N)* - 4♥ (intended to be a transfer to ♠) - AP

 

*: Actually ♥+♣. North labeled it "not natural" and later thought that it showed the minors. However, the meaning wasn't established during the auction because E-W chose not to ask

[CSGibson]

The auction is right, changing the directions in the explanation to match the diagram.

[jeffford76]

2NT requires an alert. The alert chart says to alert, "Conventional NT overcalls except those specifically not

requiring an Alert". The things specifically not requiring alerts are passed-hand NT bids, jumps to 2NT showing lowest unbid suits or minors, and 4-level or higher bids showing the same.

 

That said, if everyone heard "that's not natural", while it's not the correct form of alert, there is no damage from that error. The damage is from north/south not knowing their methods over an artificial 2NT (or knowing, but not asking and assuming the wrong thing about what 2NT showed). I would warn east to alert correctly the next time, but I'm not changing the score.

[aguahombre]

2NT requires an alert. The alert chart says to alert, "Conventional NT overcalls except those specifically not

requiring an Alert". The things specifically not requiring alerts are passed-hand NT bids, jumps to 2NT showing lowest unbid suits or minors, and 4-level or higher bids showing the same.

Those are examples of alertable NT bids. They are not exhaustive, and they don't mean 2nt/1nt as an overcall should be alerted unless it is something other than the obvious minors. (1NT) 2NT is not a NT overcall per se. If anyone thinks it should be natural they have been smoking their sox. It is an overcall of a 1NT opening.

[CSGibson]

Those are examples of alertable NT bids. They are not exhaustive, and they don't mean 2nt/1nt as an overcall should be alerted unless it is something other than the obvious minors. (1NT) 2NT is not a NT overcall per se. If anyone thinks it should be natural they have been smoking their sox. It is an overcall of a 1NT opening.

 

In one partnership, over a weak NT, we play 2N over 1N as natural, 18-20. I don't necessarily think that's best, but its a partnership that placed in the only national event that we ever played together, so its not like its a partnership of complete idiots.

[jeffford76]

Those are examples of alertable NT bids. They are not exhaustive, and they don't mean 2nt/1nt as an overcall should be alerted unless it is something other than the obvious minors. (1NT) 2NT is not a NT overcall per se. If anyone thinks it should be natural they have been smoking their sox. It is an overcall of a 1NT opening.

 

I don't know where you're coming up with this. The ACBL Alert Chart is very clear that there is a specific list of non-alertable NT overcalls, and that anything else conventional is alertable. There's not an exhaustive list of alertable NT overcalls, but rather an exhaustive list of conventional, but not alertable NT overcalls.

 

It's also fairly normal in my area to play 2NT as natural (19-21 or so) over a weak 1NT.

[aguahombre]

I don't know where you're coming up with this. The ACBL Alert Chart is very clear that there is a specific list of non-alertable NT overcalls, and that anything else conventional is alertable. There's not an exhaustive list of alertable NT overcalls, but rather an exhaustive list of conventional, but not alertable NT overcalls.

 

It's also fairly normal in my area to play 2NT as natural (19-21 or so) over a weak 1NT.

Again it is not a NT overcall, it is an overcall of 1NT. And the players who can't just double 1NT with a 20+pt NT are truly strange. Bidding 2NT naturally over a weak NT is sacrificial.

[blackshoe]

You're playing word games. It's a NT bid. It's an overcall of 1NT. If it's conventional, and not on the list of bids that don't require an alert, it requires an alert.

[GreenMan]

Again it is not a NT overcall, it is an overcall of 1NT.

 

The alert chart says it is a NT overcall. What's your basis for arguing otherwise?

[aguahombre]

The alert chart says it is a NT overcall. What's your basis for arguing otherwise?

My mistaken basis was that "NT overcalls" seem to be in a section way above the competition and interference section and I (also mistakenly) assumed that 2NT/1NT as unusual for the minors was such an obvious treatment that the framers just forgot to explicitly include it among the other obvious non-jump overcalls ---treating it as a "cuebid".

 

Even though I still believe that to be true, Pard and I will be alerting it in the future just in case there might be someone who actually plays it as natural and would be confused. I have learned something here.

 

Perhaps, instead of fixing this oversight, the ACBL should require an alert of (1H) - 2H, etc., when not natural...catering to the throngs to play it as such.

[mycroft]

Red on white, I want to double 11-13NT (presumably for penalties, ostensibly partner passes with anything that doesn't obviously want to play somewhere else) with a balanced 20? How much do I expect to take this for? 100 will be great; 300 isn't any better; 500 is really bad; 800 is highly unlikely (as I'll be endplayed at trick 1 and all tricks thereafter).

 

And now they run, and partner has to figure out what to do with their balanced 6 opposite my (expected) strong NT. What's my double? What's his?

 

I don't play 2NT as natural, but I don't see what's wrong with it, especially vulnerable. if 3NT makes, we lose if we don't have a call that will get us to game; playing for 800 in their runout is possible, but not long run profitable. If it doesn't - but how often does 3NT not make when I have a 2NT opener, and all the finesses (that we can get to the board, or endplay opener, to take) are on?