Legal

[dickiegera]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk85hkq87dq95ck93&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp2c]133|200[/hv]

 

 

The pair play 2/1 .

Is this bid legal?

 

Must it be alerted? South says they 2/1 and wished to show game forcing values with his 2 bid

 

They also play Montreal relay.

Must 1♣ opener be alerted or is it enough to announce as could be short?

I was once told that all bids must be alerted with montreal relay ,diamond response, Major response etc.

 

Thank you

[Mbodell]

The 1♣ opener, if it could be as few as two (or less) but is non-forcing, should be announced (a kind of alert) as non-forcing.

If the 1♦ opener either 100% denies a 4 card major or promises at least 5 diamonds, I believe it should be alerted.

If the 2♣ response is game forcing and "natural" (at least 3+), then it doesn't need an alert. The fact that they skipped a 4 card heart suit could be systemic, or could just be judgement. I believe this could be like a player who is 4234 bidding 2♣ 2/1 GF over a partners 1♥ bid and skipping the spade suit (either because they play flannery or because they like to get into the GF quickly).

[billw55]

Yes, 2♣ is legal.

 

They must alert it if they bid this way by agreement, either explicitly or by accumulated occurrences.

[1eyedjack]

Yes, 2♣ is legal.

 

They must alert it if they bid this way by agreement, either explicitly or by accumulated occurrences.

 

They should also alert their 1M responses if they deny GF hands

[wank]

clueless players don't have agreements in the same way as good players. theirs tend to be very fuzzy. you can't expect someone to tell you what their partner's showing so clearly when they don't particularly know themselves.

[mycroft]

I would bet that this is neither non-standard (though minority) nor Alertable. I'm quite certain the negative inference about the 1M hands is not Alertable, given the strength the ACBL has put into "negative inferences are not Alertable". There are many, many who play "bypass a 4cM to set a game force in a minor, we can find out about it later"; and there's nothing wrong or "unnatural" (GCC definition) about responding in a 3cm.

 

If I decided to do this (which I wouldn't, I don't like the style, even 1♦-2♦ could have a 4cM), I would just say "I have an aceless 3333 13-count. Even if we have a 4-4 heart fit, I want to play in 3NT. So, best lie." (Okay, with all the kings, I'd want to bid whichever NT shows 13-15, but I hate that bid (especially if it's 3NT), and maybe I'd decide not to this time).

 

Montreal Relay, at least the way they play it here, is 1♣ "could be short", as they'll bid it with 4342 and it's passable. Some will bid it with 4441, too. 1♣-1♦ "deny a 5-card major" (and a few other things) is definitely Alertable. I'd tend to Alert the 1M responses as well; not so sure of the exact requirement for it. I'd also Alert 1♦ "minimum 5 (or 4=4=4=1, as appropriate)", but not 100% sure of that (it's just that there's no space on the card for 5+).

 

Putting the two together, though: if 2♣ was a GF *diamond raise* (which it could be if 1♦ promises 5), then it's Alertable. If it showed clubs, I don't think so.

 

[Edit after seeing Vampyr: Yes, if it's artificial GF, then it's Alertable again. But if he chose to bid his 3333 with a 2/1 in a "natural" 3-card suit, then it's a deviation.]

[Vampyr]

From the explanation given in the OP, it sounds like the pair play 2♣ as an artificial,GF. Definitely alertable. But I would have said this about a system where a longer major is bypassed too.

[Mbodell]

From the explanation given in the OP, it sounds like the pair play 2♣ as an artificial,GF. Definitely alertable. But I would have said this about a system where a longer major is bypassed too.

 

I didn't get that from the OP. I got the "wanted to GF quickly" which I think is like a 4=2=3=4 person bidding 2♣ over 1♥ opener. As long as the 2♣ bid is 3+ and GF, then this should not need an alert. If they'd bid 2♣ with 4=4=3=2, or other hands with 2 or fewer clubs, then this does need an alert as it is artificial.

[campboy]

I didn't get that from the OP. I got the "wanted to GF quickly" which I think is like a 4=2=3=4 person bidding 2♣ over 1♥ opener. As long as the 2♣ bid is 3+ and GF, then this should not need an alert. If they'd bid 2♣ with 4=4=3=2, or other hands with 2 or fewer clubs, then this does need an alert as it is artificial.

I think skipping a major to bid a shorter suit is sufficiently unusual that it should be alerted, even though it is still (by regulation) natural. There seems to me to be a big difference between this and the case you give of skipping a major to bid another suit of equal length.

[Vampyr]

I think skipping a major to bid a shorter suit is sufficiently unusual that it should be alerted, even though it is still (by regulation) natural. There seems to me to be a big difference between this and the case you give of skipping a major to bid another suit of equal length.

 

Even this seems weird to me. Having the strength to bid 2/1, whether GF or ordinary, meant that you could afford to bid your shape naturally. Distorting your shape(barring sophisticated artificial methods) in order to bid 2/1 seems like a backwards step.

[nige1]

An agreement to respond 2♣ to 1♦ with a 3433 shape and 13 HCP would be expected by few opponents. If it's not alertable, under that rule, then the regulations need revision.

[blackshoe]

The OP specified ACBL. What's unusual or unexpected in North America is not necessarily the same as what's unusual or unexpected in the rest of the world.

[barmar]

I think the real question here is whether the pair really has an agreement to bid like this, or South is just clueless and thinks he needs to bid this way to force to game. I've run into plenty of the latter.

 

Misbidding is legal and doesn't need to be alerted.

[mycroft]

Okay. I know for a fact that this is pretty standard (warped) C-strat thinking, at least around here; once they learn "2/1 GF" from someone who knows all the tricks but doesn't explain them, and then they guess what to do. It's just like the people (playing standard) who will regularly bid 1M-4M on a flat 13 because "I have game. Oh partner could have 20? Well, she should go on then. And if I have the 5-and-5? Then it's her fault for bidding on." Hopefully they'll play with someone solid enough in 2/1 soon to explain why this is (in general) a bad idea.

 

Just because *you'd* never do it, and *I'd* never do it, doesn't necessarily make it Alertable. And what would happen if I, who knows better, gave the "come on, it's an aceless 3333, you know it, I know it. I just decided to 'put a heart in my diamonds'." Is it Alertable then? What if I actually have the (implied, because it's happened once or twice) agreement that we can hide a crappy major and bid a *natural* minor to set the game force? What if I play 4cM EHAA-style (so if partner has 4 hearts, he's got better than 4 diamonds)? I can certainly see myself bidding 1NT with the same hand off a couple cards, in that case. Sure this pair is playing MR, but do we Alert HUorU based on everybody playing 5cM, 2♣ strong?

 

Note: some of these questions are real questions; some are more rhetorical. Yeah, I sometimes don't mind being confusing.