News:

January 2024
The ABDA has relaunched this forum with upgraded software, appearance and features. All the old content remains. Users should log in and update their membership profile.
Only financial members of the ABDA can register to be part of this forum. Non-members can browse the open sections of the forum and post questions to "Ask a Director" and "Online Directing" without registration.

Main Menu

Modify message

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 128 KB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Confirm you are a bridge player by entering the score for 1NT making 7 tricks?:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Chris
 - 07 January, 2010, 04:01 PM
Peter and I have been around this Mulberry bush a few times - it started when a pair in our Region suddenly decided to start playing 2C natural after partner's 1NT opening !!  Peter is quite right when he says that the ABF Alerting Regulations state quite clearly - ANY 2C response to a 1NT opening is self-alerting and SHOULD NOT BE ALERTED.  We came to an agreement that this natural bid should be pre-alerted - 3.1.2 This is the stage where you should draw the opponents' attention to any unusual agreements you have which might surprise them ... etc. Perhaps playing 1NT with a 5-card major might come into that category?
Posted by bluejak
 - 03 January, 2010, 10:40 AM
Even if 2C is self alerting, the fact is that it was alerted, and that tells the opponents that it was not regular Stayman.  Once you know it is 5-card Stayman, then you only need to alert 2H if it shows some unusual strength or distribution - and showing five cards in response to 5-card Stayman is not unusual.

Hero member?  Ye gods!  ::)
Posted by pwg
 - 30 December, 2009, 09:34 AM
Paul,

Just my view, but I disagree on a couple of your points:

The original post asked "should the 2H be alerted?", so I don't think I'm going off topic.  What I was asserting was that (as the alert regulations say) *any* 2C response to a 1NT opening in an uncontested auction is self-alerting. The additional alert (of an already alerted bid) adds no information for the opponents.  So, the requirement to alert the 2H bid (showing distribution) is not affected.

Cheers & Happy New Year to everyone.
Peter.
Posted by Paul Sherman
 - 29 December, 2009, 12:00 PM
Peter, several points here. First, the original question stated that the 2C was alerted. This is what the topic is about, we should stay on the topic. Second, and I quote Matthew above, "if there is anything which they may not reasonably expect, then it should be alerted". The 2C was specifically alerted to alert the opponents that it was an enquiry for a five card major. I'm not sure that all 2C-s are self-alerting but surely it should be here. Suppose you don't play Stayman and 2C is weak takeout! Almost nobody plays that (and therefore would not be expecting that) and an alert would be in order as 100% of players would assume it's some sort of Stayman. Imagine the faces around the table if it goes 2C - P - P - P!

The only reason you could be alerting the 2C bid (which you say is self-alerting) would be to draw attention to the fact that there is something unusual going on, out of the ordinary. And that can only be either: 1) 5-card stayman; 2) weak takeout; 3) transfer to diamonds or something the opponents would just not be expecting. There was their chance to find out that it was 5-card Stayman. If they didn't ask, especially if a self-alerted bid was nevertheless alerted, they shouldn't be surprised when dummy goes down. Just my view but there are mediators and heroes to put me in my place if I wuz wrong  :D
Posted by pwg
 - 29 December, 2009, 11:35 AM
Quote from: Paul Sherman on 29 December, 2009, 09:10 AM
Nope. 2H shows hearts, so it's natural. As for it being a 5-card suit, that could have been discovered one bid earlier. That is why the 2C was alerted. If the opps didn't ask about the alert, it's their loss. No need to alert the same thing twice.
The 2C was, in any case, self alerting, so I don't think the 2C alert is meaningful.  My interpretation of the regulations is:
2C response to INT is self alerting and should not be alerted.
The only responses to Stayman which should not be alerted are 2H or 2S to *simple* Stayman.
see also the thread "Are systematic responses to 2C (Stayman) alertable?"  earlier in this forum.

Peter.
Posted by Paul Sherman
 - 29 December, 2009, 09:10 AM
QuoteABF alerting regs require that  "natural responses [to Stayman] which convey a message about strength or special distribution" be alerted.  It seems to me then that  the 2H should be alerted as 5 card.

Nope. 2H shows hearts, so it's natural. As for it being a 5-card suit, that could have been discovered one bid earlier. That is why the 2C was alerted. If the opps didn't ask about the alert, it's their loss. No need to alert the same thing twice.
Posted by pwg
 - 29 December, 2009, 08:53 AM
Quote from: bluejak on 26 December, 2009, 01:07 AM
Once 2C was alerted there seems no need to to alert 2H which is a perfectly natural bid. . .

ABF alerting regs require that  "natural responses [to Stayman] which convey a message about strength or special distribution" be alerted.  It seems to me then that  the 2H should be alerted as 5 card.
Posted by bluejak
 - 26 December, 2009, 01:07 AM
Once 2C was alerted there seems no need to to alert 2H which is a perfectly natural bid.  More importantly, how can it affect the opponents?  If they needed to know what was going on they could [and should] have asked the alerted calls, and would have been told that 2C was 5-card Stayman.
Posted by Matthew McManus
 - 15 September, 2006, 06:28 PM
The question of whether one should alert a 1NT opening with a five card major can be a vexed one. The purpose of alerts is to give your opponents the same information that you and your partner have in terms of your agreements. Therefore, if there is anything which they may not reasonably expect, then it should be alerted. The question of course then is: would the opponents expect that a 1NT opening may contain a five card major? This often depends on what is
Posted by Gary Wilson
 - 15 September, 2006, 03:56 PM
A discussion arose at our club about whether a bid should be alerted or not.

The bidding went (no interference):

1NT* - 2C**
2H - 4H
all pass.

After the alert of the 1NT, but before the 2C bid, it was asked why 1NT was alerted. The answer was, that their 1NT could contain a 5card major, that it was balanced and that it had 15 to 18 HCPs.

Then the 2C bid was alerted, no questions asked.
The 2H bid was not alerted.

Dummy's hand is opened up, and dummy has 3 Hearts.

In the post mortem we ask how dummy knew that declarer had 5 Hearts (which she had). We were told that they play 5card major Stayman, so a response of 2 in a major shows a 5card suit in that major, not a 4card.

We of course, should have asked which version of Stayman they were playing. Not that it mattered much, because the contract was cold.

But:

- should 1NT (as used in this way) be alerted?
- should the 2H bid be alerted?