Worst 2 level overcall

[kenrexford]

Not sure what you disagree with. Sounds like you are mixing up my post with Ken's.

 

My p passed because he didn't have a natural 1NT bid available, not because he found the hand unsuitable for a natural 1NT bid.

 

Of course it is just bridge that when partner passes over opps opening he is likely to have some length in opps' suit if he has decent values. In Ken's system, the pass virtually guarantees length in their suit. I don't think that is GBK.

 

If the convention card indicates that 1NT shows 0+ with any three suits, and if the overcall range is stated as 0+, don't you now have general bridge knowledge that the pass implies length in Opener's suit? Granted, not everyone reads the convention cards. But, shouldn't the opponent in your scenario have known that 1NT overcalls can be used as artificial bids and have checked the convention card, or asked?

 

The question to me is not whether GBK gives you an automatic answer to every nuanced question. The question is whether the specific disclosure tool of an alert is always the required avenue for disclosure. The two alternative means of disclosure are the convention card and answers to inquiries.

 

The alert is not a means of disclosure, when you think about it. Rather, an alert is a tool of economy. Without alerts, auctions would be silly, with everyone asking what every bid means. You see that sometimes anyway. Alerts serve the function of saving time in some situations by eliminating the need to ask questions when questions would be likely.

 

Consider the negative double. Without alerts, you would always be able to ask what these doubles show. That would be annoying. So, we started out alerting the negative double, to eliminate the need for too many questions. Only the nuanced question would need an inquiry, and those being rare. We then decided to alert penalty doubles, instead, because "Alert" all the time became annoying and because the Alert potentially lulled the opponents into apathy when the double might be really weird. There was the idea of a "special alert" for a while, to combat this issue. But, imagine alerts for every nuance available and how annoying that would become.

 

When you realize that alerts are NOT the disclosure but rather a tool for eliminating out too many dumb questions, you then realize, IMO, that the ACBL policy about negative inferences makes sense.

 

 

 

[manudude03]

I think disclosure wise, you should only alert the opponents if it might affect their bidding or play. In Helene's 1NT post, I don't think pass should be alerted. After all, suppose you play 1NT as natural, but partner elected not to make the call for whatever reason, does the meaning of the pass change? I don't think so. However, playing RUNT, partner's range of hands for passing is rather dramatically changed. I also hope the cuebid is alerted if it is natural but known to be a 3 card suit on occasion.

[blackshoe]

"A strange game. The only way to win is not to play." -- "Joshua", aka "The WOPR", in "War Games", ca. 1983.