Alerting 2/1 bids

[onoway]

THis may be a silly question but I have had several people weigh in on the discussion and they do not agree.

A pair states they are playing 2/1. These are not beginners, one claims to be an expert ( and possibly is) the other has had wins at the National Level. The bidding goes pass 1♥ pass 1NT pass. The opener then passes. They said that 1NT is NOT forcing which to my understanding , in that sequence, if playing 2/1, it is. If they play it as non forcing then it seems to me it ought to be alerted as most opps will be confused by openers pass and wonder if it is a misunderstanding or what did the opening bid show and are they playing 2/1 and at the very least be distracted and confused.

 

When discussing the bid, a kib chimed in and said that Fred plays it as nonforcing, so therefore it isn't. The implication was that he doesn't alert it which I strongly suspect is making an assumption that it isn't on a CC or alerted if not. In any case, none of these players are or ever will be at that level. Someone else suggested that it was semiforcing. The notes I have for Mike Lawrence says it absolutely is forcing, even if opener has only a 3 card minor he or she MUST bid something. SO what's the story? And what if any, should be the penalty?

 

I would assume if it was ALERTED as nonforcing it would be perfectly acceptable. If not alerted it seems to me to be on the edge of special partnership understanding, and therefore subject to penalty if that information is not made available to the opps. After all, the opps may well be assuming opener has to bid again so they will get another kick at the cat so to speak, so pass.. and then are left beached when opener passes .

 

One ACBL director told me it is not forcing, and another one told me it was.

 

This actually didn't happen in a tourney but at a table, but directly after a conversation with someone else entirely about how confusing it was to meet so many different versions of 2/1 in tourneys and how she never knew what was going on. Until this hand, I had never (knowingly) run into this. If it's turning up at the table it's only a matter of time before it shows up in a tourney.

 

I dislike this sort of issue coming up in tourneys and am thinking to specify in my own tourney rules that the default is that this sequence IS forcing and any deviation must be alerted. Feedback would be helpful.

[helene_t]

I don't think there are any jurisdictions in which a nonforcing 1nt response is alertable.

 

The fact that they play 2/1 doesn't imply that it is forcing. The fact that it wasn't alerted suggests that it is nonforcing since forcing 1nt is alertable in many jurisdictions.

[Zelandakh]

I don't think there are any jurisdictions in which a nonforcing 1nt response is alertable.

According to the ACBL alerting chart, a semi-forcing 1NT response should be announced as such with "forcing" the correct announcement for a F1NT. It would seem to me sensible to (at least) use similar terms for self-aelerts in an online environment. That the ACBL TDs do not know what is in line 6 of this document is fairly shocking.

[sfi]

Whether or not a bid is alertable is not influenced by the pair's bidding system. The alert rules often assume a "standard" system for the jurisdiction, but that's a different thing.

 

In this case, the unalerted meaning of 1H - 1NT would likely be something like 6-10, not 4 spades and not 3 hearts. There may be some variation, but the expected meaning is non-forcing. If you are playing it as forcing the alert rules are likely to require either an alert or an announcement, even if the opponents know you play 2/1.

 

That way the opponents don't need to be familiar with your system - they just need to know what is non-alertable where they are playing.

[wank]

you can play 2/1 with a forcing NT. you can play it without. perhaps in your area it's normal to play it as forcing, but in other areas it's not. the authorities dictate what's unusual for alerting purposes. in the acbl which seems to be your area, it's forcing.

 

 

online there's no such authority unless it's in one of those ACBL tournaments, so it's obviously a very grey area. if you run a tournament you could write your own rules or specify that ACBL alerting rules apply. without specific rules, you'll be often be in this position where one player's idea of what's normal, and perforce what should be alerted, is different to another's. of course as a director you must be sure not to let your own bridge cultural history bias your judgment.

[inquiry]

my understanding is there are 3 types of one notrump responses.

 

1. FORCING - Which can be very off-shape (non-balanced), and can include very good sipport (limit raise) or very weak hand with 3 card support and opener must bid again. This bid has to be announced (not alerted).

 

2. SEMI-FORCING. Which is similiar to forcing (some people will not have limit raise hands), except opener with minimum balanced doesn't. have to bid and if he does rebid a new minor it will be 4+ cards. This bid also has to be announced (not alerted)

 

3. NATURAL (Obviously not forcing) shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand with something like 6-10pts and denies support for openers major. This bid is not announced or alerted.

 

Of ĉourse 2/1 is extremely tricky to play with a natural 1NT response so "everyone" plays either Forcing or semi-forĉing and both need to be announced. Unless this pair has the highly unusual combination of 2/1 plus a natural 1NT response, they have violated ACBL requirements. ". Announcement requirements are printed in blue letters on current convention cards. Announcements, like Alerts, are made by the partner of the player making the call that is to be "announced". They are sometimes warnings that a call is a transfer to another suit, rather than an offer to play. Jacoby or Texas transfers are examples. A transfer announcement is the single word "Transfer". Another announcement is to advise opponents that a 1 NT bid is "forcing" or "semi-forcing". It occurs in response to a major suit opening and mean forcing or semi-forcing for one round.

 

What recourse is available would be up to a director (I am assuming no UI for them).

 

 

 

[steve2005]

Play 2/1 without having a forcing or semi-forcing 1N is theoretically unplayable. Otherwise there is no way to show 11 point hands.

I suspect the pair was playing 1N semi-forcing which in ACBLland anyways needs to be announced. Semi-forcing 1N can be passed by a balanced minimum,

The only other explanation wold be if the 1N bidder was a passed hand then most play 1N as non-forcing.

[nige1]

Semi-forcing is a peculiar term. IMO ...

• A call can be forcing or non-forcing.
• A non-forcing call can be sign-off or invitational

When I play a system that we call 2/1, I pass a 1N reply on lots of minimum hands e.g.

• ♠ A x x x x ♥ K Q x ♦ Q J x ♣ J x
• ♠ J x x x x ♥ A K J ♦ A ♣ x x x x

 

[sfi]

Semi-forcing is a peculiar term. IMO ...

• A call can be forcing or non-forcing.
• A non-forcing call can be sign-off or invitational

 

That's the nature of language - it's imprecise and here it describes a convention rather than simply the generic english language usage of the term.

 

We all know what semi-forcing means in this context, but it's neither specifically sign-off nor invitational. In fact, a semi-forcing 1NT can be either, while the Standard American version of it is not invitational.

[helene_t]

my understanding is there are 3 types of one notrump responses.

 

1. FORCING - Which can be very off-shape (non-balanced), and can include very good sipport (limit raise) or very weak hand with 3 card support and opener must bid again. This bid has to be announced (not alerted).

 

2. SEMI-FORCING. Which is similiar to forcing (some people will not have limit raise hands), except opener with minimum balanced doesn't. have to bid and if he does rebid a new minor it will be 4+ cards. This bid also has to be announced (not alerted)

 

3. NATURAL (Obviously not forcing) shows a balanced or semi-balanced hand with something like 6-10pts and denies support for openers major. This bid is not announced or alerted.

"Natural" does not exist except in perculiar systems like Vienna that have non-forcing 2/1 bids.

 

Otherwise, 1NT shows some point range with some negative inference like "not 7-10 with 3-card support" or w/e.

 

Semi-forcing just means that the upper bound is half a point more than in "standard". Or maybe it doesn't mean anything at all. I don't think it makes sense to make semi-forcing alertable if non-forcing is not, since it is basically just two words for the same.

[1eyedjack]

Whether or not a bid is alertable is not influenced by the pair's bidding system.

Maybe in Oz. I wouldn't know. Possibly some logic to it, I don't deny. Not in EBU-land, though.

[wank]

Maybe in Oz. I wouldn't know. Possibly some logic to it, I don't deny. Not in EBU-land, though.

 

you're mistaken. ebu regulations pertain to individual bids or, at most, pairs of bids, e.g. stayman and the 2D response to stayman. there's, rightly, no concept of system.

[1eyedjack]

you're mistaken. ebu regulations pertain to individual bids or, at most, pairs of bids, e.g. stayman and the 2D response to stayman. there's, rightly, no concept of system.

I think we are in agreement and you misinterpreted my post. Not to worry.

[barmar]

The bidding system determines the meaning of the bid, and the meaning of the bid + alert regulations determines whether it's alertable. So the bidding system indirectly determines whether a bid is forcing.

[barmar]

Semi-forcing is a peculiar term. IMO ...

Bridge Winners just had a long tangent in one of their threads about this term. Let's not rehash it here.

[RMB1]

I don't think there are any jurisdictions in which a nonforcing 1nt response is alertable.

Sorry to disappoint, but in the EBU a 6-12 NF 1NT response is alertable.

 

4 H 2 Because they have a potentially unexpected meaning, players must alert:

(h) A 1NT response to a 1♥ or 1♠ opening which might show more than 10 HCP

[steve2005]

"Natural" does not exist except in perculiar systems like Vienna that have non-forcing 2/1 bids.

 

Otherwise, 1NT shows some point range with some negative inference like "not 7-10 with 3-card support" or w/e.

 

Semi-forcing just means that the upper bound is half a point more than in "standard". Or maybe it doesn't mean anything at all. I don't think it makes sense to make semi-forcing alertable if non-forcing is not, since it is basically just two words for the same.

In ACBL semi-forcing you have to announce it, which essentially has same effect as an alert.

I think it should be: 1) odds are good the auction isn't going to end so you might get another chance to bid and 1N sounds like that may be it.

2) responder could have 11 hcp some even 12 hcp which makes overcalls more dangerous than a 6-9 or 6-10 1N

[sfi]

Sorry to disappoint, but in the EBU a 6-12 NF 1NT response is alertable.

 

That's the semi-forcing NT being talked about in the section you quoted.

[JonnyQuest]

The bidding goes pass 1♥ pass 1NT pass. The opener then passes. They said that 1NT is NOT forcing which to my understanding , in that sequence, if playing 2/1, it is. If they play it as non forcing then it seems to me it ought to be alerted as most opps will be confused by openers pass and wonder if it is a misunderstanding or what did the opening bid show and are they playing 2/1 and at the very least be distracted and confused.

 

Mike Lawrence says it absolutely is forcing . . . . SO what's the story?

 

One ACBL director told me it is not forcing, and another one told me it was.

 

I . . . am thinking to specify in my own tourney rules that the default is that this sequence IS forcing and any deviation must be alerted.

 

You seem to hold the misconception that playing 2/1 "requires" a pair to play a forcing no-trump. (It doesn't) Some play it non-forcing (aka semi-forcing). For example, Larry Cohen prefers a semi-forcing no-trump when he plays 2/1. That Mike Lawrence teaches, in his preferred style of 2/1, that he plays a forcing no-trump does not mean that I must, or you.

 

As to whether 1NT should be alerted. No. But in ACBL land (where you reside) it should be announced. See the quote below from the ACBL Alert Chart:

 

"State “Forcing” if a 1NT response to a major is simply forcing State “Semi-forcing” if a 1NT response to a major is simply forcing except when opener has a balanced minimum."

 

Anticipating your next question, Can a pair play a forcing no-trump (announcing it as such) and, when partner responds 1NT to their major opening, PASS? Of course. However, it would not be a good way to engender partnership trust. And if they make a habit of it, well . . . then, they are really not play a forcing no-trump are they? At this point their alerts should reflect their methods and they should state, "semi-forcing."

 

My guess is that the pair you witnessed were not regular partners but a pickup partnership? Playing a vanilla 2/1, they both assumed a forcing no-trump and one partner, using a little judgment, decided his opening was a bit thin. So he passed. Sounds like a good partner if he passed with a balanced 11-12.

[helene_t]

Suppose we play stone age Goren and we play the very common style that 1♠-(pass)-1NT

is passed only with a balanced minimum (OK, a "minimum" could be 14 points but that is a minimum in a conservative style).

 

Should we announce the 1NT response in ACBL? Sounds like almost everyone plays semi-forcing according to the ACBL definition.

[fromageGB]

Play 2/1 without having a forcing or semi-forcing 1N is theoretically unplayable. Otherwise there is no way to show 11 point hands.

Surely a natural jump bid is theoretically playable, and does not violate the idea of 2/1 GF? I don't think the phrase "2/1" has any bearing on the use of 1NT. Whether that bid should be alerted or announced is up to event organisers, but I don't believe the national authorities are doing a good job here.

[RMB1]

That's the semi-forcing NT being talked about in the section you quoted.

 

OK. Sorry, I mistakenly assumed that "nonforcing" (in helen_t's "a nonforcing 1nt response is alertable") meant not forcing.

[onoway]

Perhaps it is pertinent to remember that few of the players in IAC are experts and many are not even advanced. So by far the majority will be making assumptions about what a bid means. As far as that goes, anyone who has played more than 3 hands anywhere on BBO knows that few people alert many bids, even if they are required to do so, so players are often going on assumptions. Certainly at least in this club, if a pair claims to be playing 2/1 then if an auction goes pass 1♥(♠) pass 1N pass or 1♥ (♠) pass 1N pass, by far the majority of the opponents will absolutely be expecting opener to bid again.

 

It seems to me then, if that is not necessarilly the case, then the bid must be alerted or announced or else it is a special agreement that the opps are not aware of. The pair were not players unknown to each other, in fact the conversation suggested this was a deliberate strategy, and that's what caused me concern. They can bid whatever they want, but the opps MUST be able to understand what their bids mean or it's all code and presumably alerts or announcements are designed to prevent that being the case.

 

We are trying to get more people playing not drive them away with deliberately misleading bidding. Few things are as effective at making bridge players feel abused and indignant.

 

We generally follow the ACBL guidelines as most of the regular players are from North America, with a few twists.. I allow psyches and multi in my tourneys as does one of our two ACBL directors,the other does not. (Neither of them were the directors I asked, as neither happened to be around at the time) We have some players who play multi but it seldom comes up, and both times this year a player has tried to psyche he got punished by the opps rather severely so I doubt psyches will come up again in a hurry.

 

Thank you all for your input, much appreciated.

[scarletv]

Don't you think it is better not to judge too much from your own view? There is more than ACBL in the bridge world and even within ACBL there is more but forcing NT the way you expect it.

 

As member of the IAC I don't like it to be condemned when playing a different system then you do yourself. What about when I expect from you that you alert your bids the French way not matter if you know their system or not? Do you really think it is good to make IAC a place where players from other countries or bridge background are no longer welcomed?

[barmar]

Every club or tournament organizer has to pick their alert rules, and adopting on an existing organization's rules simplifies this. It's not possible to have rules that will be familiar to people from all the different areas around the world.