Is this alertable?

[StevenG]

[hv=pc=n&n=saq9732ha4dak752c&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1sp2cp2n]133|200[/hv]

2NT is 15-17. I was taken aback; my inexperienced partner completely baffled by the 2NT bid. While satisfying the point count and being "safe", because forcing, we would both expect a balanced hand.

It didn't make any difference to the play, but should it have been alerted as a potentially unexpected meaning? Or even treated as a psych?

[barmar]

Is their actual agreement "15-17 HCP, any shape"?

 

The Blue Book says:

4 B 1 Passes and bids

Unless it is announceable (see 4D, 4E, 4F and 4G), a pass or bid must be alerted if it:

(a) is not natural; or

(b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.

So the question arises as to whether this is natural.

4 C 1

(b) A bid of no trumps which shows a preparedness to play in no trumps, and which conveys

no unusual information about suit holdings; it must not be forcing unless a forcing

auction has already been created. Note that certain ostensibly natural no trump bids are

permitted to allow a shortage by agreement

Do we expect that someone with a 6-2-5-0 hand is really prepared to play in no trumps? If not, it's alertable.

 

Did 2♣ establish a forcing auction? If not, and 2NT is forcing, then it's alertable.

 

BTW, even though the void in partner's suit is a misfeature, that hand still looks like much more than 17 HCP, IMHO.

[wank]

it's alertable if systemic. that would be such a bizarre system though that's it more likely the person just did something ridiculous, in which case no reason to alert.

[barmar]

Yeah, kind of reminds me of the novice players who will bypass a 5-card major in order to make a 2/1 bid, just so they can establish a game force. They don't understand that "2/1 Game Forcing" doesn't mean that a 2/1 is the only way to get to game.

[Cyberyeti]

We would also bid 2N on this hand but we alert it, "GF not necessarily balanced", I think it's a potentially unexpected meaning as the world expects it to be "happy to play in NT given that partner holds clubs".

[steve2005]

it's alertable if systemic.

Systemic bids aren't necessarily alertable.

I have people alerting double playing Cap because its part of a system.

No the system meaning is the standard natural meaning.

 

Here if NT is being bid on a void it's alertable.

 

 

[blackshoe]

Whether it requires an alert under ACBL rules might be of interest to someone who runs across it in North America, but the OP is in England, so ACBL rules don't apply, EBU rules do. That said, if the bid is based on a partnership understanding, I believe it would require an alert under EBU rules. As wank points out, though, if this was just a bad bid, no alert would be required or expected.

 

It is not a psych unless there's a partnership understanding that the bid means something grossly different from the actual hand and the player bid it on purpose anyway. The OP describes the meaning as "15-17". If that's the extent of the agreement, it's not a psych. If the actual agreement is "15-17 balanced" then it meets the definition of a psych unless, as I said, it was just a bad bid.

[The_Badger]

It is alertable, as Cyberyeti says, and either you or your partner should have asked the TD to intervene, even after the board was played. Luckily, as you say, it made no difference to the play, but club professionals who use systemic bids that deviate miles from the 'norm' should at least get a rap across the knuckles for forgetting or being blasé about alerting.

 

Sadly, many years ago, I came across a degree of arrogance with a few experienced players who just used their systemic bids as some sort of Enigma code for their own benefit. Obviously as opponents, before playing a card, we had a right to know what every bid meant, yet a few looked down their noses patronisingly.

 

I remember one experienced older player - we were only in our teens - after a lengthy bidding sequence saying "For Pete's sake, lead a card!" not allowing either myself or my partner to discover the meanings of their later bids.

 

It is, sadly, that sort of attitude of taking lesser players for granted that perhaps drives inexperienced players away from clubs.

[helene_t]

Interesting that 2NT being forcing in itself makes it alertable, even if it is natural. Seems very natural (and more or less standard) to play it as forcing in a weak NT context.

 

A lot of pairs use the notrump bids primarily to show extra strength. I have rarely seen anything as extreme as this, but a 6421 with shortness in partner's suit comes. It is often a bid murky to what extent this is a partnership understanding.

[barmar]

Interesting that 2NT being forcing in itself makes it alertable, even if it is natural. Seems very natural (and more or less standard) to play it as forcing in a weak NT context.

The rule only applies if it's forcing when you're not already in a forcing auction.

 

If the 2/1 bid promises a rebid, then 2NT doesn't establish a force, but partner can't pass because he promised another bid. In this case, it's not alertable if it's natural.

[WellSpyder]

The rule only applies if it's forcing when you're not already in a forcing auction.

 

If the 2/1 bid promises a rebid, then 2NT doesn't establish a force, but partner can't pass because he promised another bid. In this case, it's not alertable if it's natural.

True (I think!). But 2/1 promising a rebid is a much more common agreement on your side of the Atlantic than ours, and I suspect is unlikely to have been the case here.

[barmar]

True (I think!). But 2/1 promising a rebid is a much more common agreement on your side of the Atlantic than ours, and I suspect is unlikely to have been the case here.

Good point. In fact, in my regular partnership we play that 2/1 is forcing to 2NT, so a 2NT rebid bid by opener would not be forcing.