[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-05, 08:10, said:

in this case if you give a PP but no adjustment you will appear to give the players conflicting messages. "It's an infraction, so a PP, but it shouldn't be an infraction, so no adjustment" just doesn't work.

Not so. It is possible to have an infraction but no damage (or no damage that wasn't selfl-inflicted).

[AlexJonson]

I don't see how you avoid a logical contradiction on this hand.

If 2nt is well known in this milieu, then how come 3 players at the table didn't know.

If it's not well known, there is no infraction when the inventive bidder's partner has never heard of it.

[aguahombre]

Barmar has it right. I would only alert this 2NT as a patronizing courtesy to a pair whom I really considered too inexperienced to comprehend that 2NT cannot be natural.

To whomever suggested that absent discussion beforehand we should alert something we figured out at the table and had no agreement about, I can only say "???????????"

[blackshoe]

Whether this 2NT bid requires an alert depends on the alert regulation in Iceland. Since we don't know what that says, it's kind of difficult to say whether there's been an infraction. Still, if West thinks 2NT is natural, and they actually have no agreement, perhaps there's been no infraction.

It might be interesting to hear East's answer to "what does your partner's double show?"

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-05, 17:21, said:

It might be interesting to hear East's answer to "what does your partner's double show?"

Yes, it would be. If asked during the hand, East would undoubtedly have said "penalty". If asked afterward, East probably would have said something unkind about the double.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure "penalty" is full disclosure.

[aguahombre]

Perhaps not, but if I explained "It shows a desire to defend 3H doubled, in light of the fact that I have shown to the entire free world that I have 4 diamonds and six clubs", then I would feel I was overdoing it a bit...insulting South and West at the same time. and also giving West UI, since he couldn't figure it out for himself.

[CSGibson]

so I wanted an authorative 2nd opinion on this in ACBL land, and wrote to rulings@acbl.org. This was the text of my e-mail:

My partner and I frequently use 2N in competitive auctions as two places to play. This encompasses both balancing situations as well as in response to a take-out double when we wouldn't want to use lebensohl. For example, we'd use 2N as competitive in these auctions

(1H)-2C-(2H)-P,
(P)-2N

Which would typically be 6+ clubs & 4+ diamonds, or

(1H)-P-(2H)-P,
(P)-X-(P)-2N

Which would typically be pick-a-minor, or even

1N-(2S)-X-(P),
2N

Which would typically be two places to play (usually both minors).

I have never alerted these bids, or heard other people alert these bids when they come up in games, believing it to be general bridge knowledge, (though I do explain the inferences available after the auction if our side is declaring), but recently I've started to wonder if I've been doing my opponents a disservice.

Are any of these bids alertable (assuming my partner and I have an agreement), or was I correct in assuming that they are general bridge knowledge?

Thank you,
Chris Gibson
Portland, OR


And the reply I just received:

Good morning Chris,

This is an interesting one. I have thought on it for over a week. I believe that your reasoning is perfectly logical. That said, I am still thinking that many players may not grasp your logic on this one; it is conceivable that some players would believe that your call is too play in some cases. I suggest you alert this call. I am polling some other senior TDs to get their take on the issue. If the result is different I will write back.

Thanks for you patience,

Richard Beye


From the tone of his e-mail, I believe that this is not clear cut either way as to whether 2N should be alerted WHEN THERE IS AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE. I certainly think that there should be no penalty for this case when there is no agreement (and yes, I know this is not the ACBL, but I still hope that some of the logic and regulations are helpful).

[gnasher]

As far as the ACBL rules go, the ACBL alert procedures read:

Quote

A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named.
...
ALMOST ALL CONVENTIONS MUST BE ALERTED.
[followed by a list of exceptions such as Stayman and a strong 2[CL} opener]
...
Non-jump unusual notrump bids below 4NT, except those made by a passed hand, must be Alerted.

So far as I can see, it's irrelevant whether the meaning of a bid is "general bridge knowledge" or not.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2012-February-13, 12:39, said:

So far as I can see, it's irrelevant whether the meaning of a bid is "general bridge knowledge" or not.

The definition of a convention which you quoted doesn't get me to your conclusion. It doesn't seem to cover mere agreement that a bid cannot be natural (GBK) but no agreement as to what it does convey.

[barmar]

Are you saying that since you haven't agreed what it means it doesn't "convey a meaning", and therefore it can't "convey a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named"? Even though the little you know about it is that he probably isn't expecting you to pass it.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-February-13, 13:26, said:

Are you saying that since you haven't agreed what it means it doesn't "convey a meaning", and therefore it can't "convey a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named"? Even though the little you know about it is that he probably isn't expecting you to pass it.

Yes, my contention is that in order to convey a meaning, there must be a sender and a receiver on the same frequency. Perhaps, that is not the intent of the word as written in the rules.

[barmar]

I think their intent was to categorize calls into natural and conventional, with the latter generally requiring alerts. Not into 3 categories: natural, conventional, and no agreement.

[gnasher]

My previous post was intended to address CSGibson's belief that "this is not clear cut either way as to whether 2N should be alerted WHEN THERE IS AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE".