1C-(1NT)-2NT alertable? Standard meaning?

[BudH]

Playing day 3 of an ACBL regional tournament with a very good partner (but the first time we've ever played together) in Round 3 of a top flight knockout event, white vs. red, I pass as dealer holding

 

♠10 ♥Jxx ♦AKJxx ♣T8xx

 

Pass - Pass - 1♣ - 1NT

2NT - Pass - Pass - Pass

 

Obviously I am not expecting partner to pass my 2NT bid as it was intended as showing the minors. Which of course was not explicitly discussed before we played but I thought was "expert standard".

 

The opponents ask my partner (who held ♠KJ9x ♥AQ10 ♦9x ♣J9xx) about the meaning of 2NT and he tells them "natural, to play".

 

Am I required to correct the explanation for something not discussed but might be considered as "expert standard"?

[weejonnie]

You would be required to call the director and, when asked, state that your 2NT call was 'undiscussed'. (RHO can take his last pass back if he wants, if he can show that it was influenced by the description, and LHO might have redress if he feels he was damaged by the misinformation)

 

(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his

partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity,

which is:

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.

(ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

 

You have no obligation to advise the opponents what you intended your 2NT call to mean.

[pescetom]

Playing day 3 of an ACBL regional tournament with a very good partner (but the first time we've ever played together) in Round 3 of a top flight knockout event, white vs. red, I pass as dealer holding

 

♠x ♥Jxx ♦AKJxx ♣T8xx

 

Pass - Pass - 1♣ - 1NT

2NT - Pass - Pass - Pass

 

Obviously I am not expecting partner to pass my 2NT bid as it was intended as showing the minors. Which of course was not explicitly discussed before we played but I thought was "expert standard".

 

The opponents ask my partner (who held ♠KJ9x ♥AQ10 ♦9x ♣J9xx) about the meaning of 2NT and he tells them "natural, to play".

 

Is 2NT both minors over partner's minor really "expert standard"?

It looks like a quick way to pick up a really bad score here, even white vs. red.

[blackshoe]

Interestingly, Weejonnie's interpretation of law (with which I agree) leads to the inference that you should call the director and inform him (and the opponents) that the meaning of 2NT was not discussed even if your intended meaning and the explanation given match. B-)

[steve2005]

Is 2NT both minors over partner's minor really "expert standard"?

It looks like a quick way to pick up a really bad score here, even white vs. red.

If you thought you can make 2NT surely you would simply double 1NT and get more points.

Having 2N as minors/scrambling/Lebensohl makes sense

 

I have no idea what is standard

 

Having 2N be alertable is just silly.

[johnu]

The opponents ask my partner (who held ♠KJ9x ♥AQ10 ♦9x ♣J9xx) about the meaning of 2NT and he tells them "natural, to play".

 

Partner obviously had a brain cramp. If you think you can make 8 tricks in NT, why wouldn't you want to defend against 1NT? The one thing 2NT isn't is natural.

 

Talking about brain cramps, I once had this auction

 

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1dp1s1n]133|100[/hv]

Opponents asked partner what 1NT meant and he answered "natural, maximum passed hand". Yikes :o

[johnu]

I have no idea what is standard

 

Having 2N be alertable is just silly.

 

I also don't know what 2NT means without discussion. It seems to me that if you have an (any) agreement (except natural) it would be alertable since it would be some conventional meaning.

[barmar]

Having 2N be alertable is just silly.

While there's some logic to the idea that a bid that obviously can't be natural should not need to be alerted, that's not how the ACBL Alert Procedures are written.

 

Not to mention that this case isn't so "obvious", since his partner thought it was natural.

 

BTW, I think I might have doubled with that hand. 9 HCP is often enough, and there's a fit with partner and a decent 5-card suit.

[steve2005]

While there's some logic to the idea that a bid that obviously can't be natural should not need to be alerted, that's not how the ACBL Alert Procedures are written.

 

Not to mention that this case isn't so "obvious", since his partner thought it was natural.

There is lots of precedence for 2N=minors not being alertable.

 

Partner had a brain fart to think 2N natural.

[BudH]

Note responder knows the opponents have at least an 8-card fit and often longer. Why make it easy for opponents? LHO is likely to transfer to spades over responder's call. It's actually very unlucky opener has ♠KJ9x.

 

Looks like a good candidate for a bidding poll on Bridgewinners.

[Cyberyeti]

I think pretty much any meaning is alertable, it can't be natural, it's one of several club raises for us, but we don't play short club. GBK says it's alertable, but not what it is. You should correct the explanation to undiscussed.

[weejonnie]

Interestingly, Weejonnie's interpretation of law (with which I agree) leads to the inference that you should call the director and inform him (and the opponents) that the meaning of 2NT was not discussed even if your intended meaning and the explanation given match. B-)

That is true - but it is not intuitive.

[blackshoe]

If you thought you can make 2NT surely you would simply double 1NT and get more points.

Having 2N as minors/scrambling/Lebensohl makes sense

 

I have no idea what is standard

 

Having 2N be alertable is just silly.

No, it's not. Just because you're used to "not alertable" doesn't mean that's the only reasonable way to construct the alerting regulations. After all, even in the ACBL the basic premise is that artificial bids require an alert. 2NT not being alertable is an exception.

[barmar]

Interestingly, Weejonnie's interpretation of law (with which I agree) leads to the inference that you should call the director and inform him (and the opponents) that the meaning of 2NT was not discussed even if your intended meaning and the explanation given match. B-)

It's not totally clear that this is true.

 

Law 20 refers to a "mistaken explanation". If the explanation accurately describes the kind of hand partner holds, can it really be said to be "mistaken".

 

And don't forget that partnership agreements include implicit agreements, which are inherently undiscussed. In this auction, if partner had correctly discerned the meaning of 2NT, I'd say that it was because it's an implicit agreement in "expert standard" (most NT calls that can't be natural are either Lebensohlish or 2-suiters). If asked for an explanation, something like "We haven't specifically discussed it, but it can't be natural and likely shows the minors" would be reasonable.

[pran]

It's not totally clear that this is true.

 

Law 20 refers to a "mistaken explanation". If the explanation accurately describes the kind of hand partner holds, can it really be said to be "mistaken".

 

And don't forget that partnership agreements include implicit agreements, which are inherently undiscussed. In this auction, if partner had correctly discerned the meaning of 2NT, I'd say that it was because it's an implicit agreement in "expert standard" (most NT calls that can't be natural are either Lebensohlish or 2-suiters). If asked for an explanation, something like "We haven't specifically discussed it, but it can't be natural and likely shows the minors" would be reasonable.

Law 20 is of absolutely no interest as far as the cards actually held by a player is concerned.

It concerns what is the actual agreement with the meaning of a call.

 

So an explanation is mistaken even when it accurately describes the hand held by the explainer's partner if the actual agreement is different or there is no agreement.

[blackshoe]

It's not totally clear that this is true.

 

Law 20 refers to a "mistaken explanation". If the explanation accurately describes the kind of hand partner holds, can it really be said to be "mistaken".

 

And don't forget that partnership agreements include implicit agreements, which are inherently undiscussed. In this auction, if partner had correctly discerned the meaning of 2NT, I'd say that it was because it's an implicit agreement in "expert standard" (most NT calls that can't be natural are either Lebensohlish or 2-suiters). If asked for an explanation, something like "We haven't specifically discussed it, but it can't be natural and likely shows the minors" would be reasonable.

The phrase "mistaken explanation" in the law book refers to a mistaken explanation in the context of the partnership's understanding.

 

An explanation such as you describe may or may not be reasonable, but is it legal? It seems to me that the "likely shows" bit might be seen as saying what you're taking it to mean — which I think you'll agree is improper.

 

Implicit agreements are tricky. They can arise through mutual experience or awareness, but I don't think you're talking about the former here. As for the latter, I think you'd have to be pretty sure that a mutual awareness exists before you base an explanation on it.

[sanst]

If asked for an explanation, something like "We haven't specifically discussed it, but it can't be natural and likely shows the minors" would be reasonable.

“We haven’t discussed it” is all you should say. The rest is your interpretation, which might help your opponents to understand your call, but is UI to partner. Besdes, it’s not allowed by Law 75D2.

[pescetom]

Interestingly, Weejonnie's interpretation of law (with which I agree) leads to the inference that you should call the director and inform him (and the opponents) that the meaning of 2NT was not discussed even if your intended meaning and the explanation given match. B-)

 

I too find this very interesting and I follow your rebut of Barmar's arguments.

But in that case should one not have alerted 2NT?

I remain surprised that 2NT over partner's minor as showing both minors is considered expert standard and doubtful that both partners would arrive at this conclusion undiscussed.

[lamford]

I too find this very interesting and I follow your rebut of Barmar's arguments.

But in that case should one not have alerted 2NT?

I remain surprised that 2NT over partner's minor as showing both minors is considered expert standard and doubtful that both partners would arrive at this conclusion undiscussed.

Most would play that 2NT was a good raise to 3C, with 3C being a weak raise. If you have diamonds you bid them.

[blackshoe]

Whether a call the meaning of which has not been discussed by the partnership depends on the regulations in force in the jurisdiction. In the ACBL, so far as I know, there is no regulation requiring an alert for such a call.

[BudH]

I too find this very interesting and I follow your rebut of Barmar's arguments.

But in that case should one not have alerted 2NT?

I remain surprised that 2NT over partner's minor as showing both minors is considered expert standard and doubtful that both partners would arrive at this conclusion undiscussed.

 

In my opinion, if I sat down with a random very good expert, and I held this 1=3=5=4 hand on this auction, I would bid 2NT and I think my partner would work it out. The only thing that makes sense is 4 clubs and 5+ diamonds, OR both red suits (with minors much more likely).

[Tramticket]

I am not in the ACBL. Under EBU alerting regulations, this call would be not require an alert if natural and would require an alert if the partnership has agreed that it is artificial or if you believe that it may be artificial, but cannot explain the call (Blue Book: 4 A 5). You might think that it may be artificial because you have forgotten the agreement or because you don't have an agreement about a specific sequence, but believe that it is similar to a situation where you do have agreement, or you believe that a natural meaning is simply impossible (it might be argued that this applies here). But whatever the reason for thinking it may be artificial, you should alert, which I think is pretty clear.

 

But reading this thread, I have no idea what I should assume in ACBL land if there is no alert of an opponents's 2NT bid. Do I assume natural? Do I assume artificial? Do I assume that they have no idea what they are doing? It all seems a bit unclear!

[VixTD]

Most would play that 2NT was a good raise to 3C, with 3C being a weak raise. If you have diamonds you bid them.

I would have thought it would show an extreme two-suiter (any two suits), unsuited to a penalty double, rather like a 2NT overcall of a natural 1NT opener, but I defer to Lamford's greater experience.

[barmar]

The phrase "mistaken explanation" in the law book refers to a mistaken explanation in the context of the partnership's understanding.

 

An explanation such as you describe may or may not be reasonable, but is it legal? It seems to me that the "likely shows" bit might be seen as saying what you're taking it to mean — which I think you'll agree is improper.

 

Implicit agreements are tricky. They can arise through mutual experience or awareness, but I don't think you're talking about the former here. As for the latter, I think you'd have to be pretty sure that a mutual awareness exists before you base an explanation on it.

I agree it's tricky, but I stick with my statement.

 

If I make an undiscussed bid, I usually do it on the assumption that partner is familiar with the same "expert standard" that I am -- that's the "mutual awareness" you refer to, right? And I think they're justified in explaining it similarly.

 

Also, there are some well known meta-agreements, like NT calls in competition that are unlikely be natural are usually 2-suiters. If I expect partner to work it out, I think it's reasonable for them to explain it that way.

[blackshoe]

IIf I make an undiscussed bid, I usually do it on the assumption that partner is familiar with the same "expert standard" that I am -- that's the "mutual awareness" you refer to, right? And I think they're justified in explaining it similarly.

Yes, and if that's the case, I agree that explanation is justified.

 

Also, there are some well known meta-agreements, like NT calls in competition that are unlikely be natural are usually 2-suiters. If I expect partner to work it out, I think it's reasonable for them to explain it that way.

Perhaps my opinion is colored by the fact that most of my partners will have no clue what "expert standard" — or "meta-agreement" — means.