[ArtK78]

Had this auction in an online ACBL pair game last night:

1♠ - (P) - 2♠ -(2NT)*
x - All Pass

* no alert.

It turns out that the 2NT bid was natural.

It struck me that this is normally an unusual notrump situation, and that any other meaning would be highly unusual. Please let me know if you agree or disagree.

P.S. Interestingly, the partner of the 2NT bidder held 5-5 in the red suits and passed throughout. 2NTx made because declarer was able to run one of dummy's red suits.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2013-June-10, 10:45, said:

It struck me that this is normally an unusual notrump situation, and that any other meaning would be highly unusual. Please let me know if you agree or disagree.

Sure it's unusual. Whether it is alertable or not depends on whether the jurisdiction in question has decided that the non-alertable meaning is UNT. This seems unlikely, but I would not be shocked if the ACBL had such a regulation.

[bixby]

This article by Alfred Sheinwold on the ACBL website:

http://www.acbl.org/...ntion=sheinwold

gives the exact auction you had (up to the 2NT bid) about halfway down and concludes that the 2NT bid is the UNT and says that "the chances are that no expert would ever make the bid for the natural purpose." However, the discussion suggests that some thinking is required to work this out, so perhaps it's not completely clear.

And it's not totally clear whether the natural use is alertable. The alert chart says that a natural jump to 2NT is alertable, but doesn't discuss the situation you're asking about. You'd have to rely on the general requirement that natural bids should be alerted if they show "Unusual strength, shape, etc."

[nige1]

ArtK78, on 2013-June-10, 10:45, said:

Had this auction in an online ACBL pair game last night:
1♠ - (P) - 2♠ -(2NT)*
x - All Pass
* no alert.
It turns out that the 2NT bid was natural. It struck me that this is normally an unusual notrump situation, and that any other meaning would be highly unusual. Please let me know if you agree or disagree. P.S. Interestingly, the partner of the 2NT bidder held 5-5 in the red suits and passed throughout. 2NTx made because declarer was able to run one of dummy's red suits.

Unalerted, "natural" seems normal to me (but as Vampyr implies, the ACBL is a law unto itself -- literally).

[ArtK78]

nige1, on 2013-June-10, 11:26, said:

Unalerted, "natural" seems normal to me (but as Vampyr implies, the ACBL is a law unto itself -- literally).

Perhaps I didn't phrase the question very well.

If you had this auction and the opponent bid 2NT, what would you assume the meaning of the 2NT call to be in the absence of an alert?

If it turned out to be natural, would that surprise you?

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2013-June-10, 11:44, said:

Perhaps I didn't phrase the question very well.

If you had this auction and the opponent bid 2NT, what would you assume the meaning of the 2NT call to be in the absence of an alert?

If it turned out to be natural, would that surprise you?

With no alert I would assume it was natural. I would be surprised that the pair were using this method.

[FrancesHinden]

ArtK78, on 2013-June-10, 11:44, said:

Perhaps I didn't phrase the question very well.

If you had this auction and the opponent bid 2NT, what would you assume the meaning of the 2NT call to be in the absence of an alert?

If it turned out to be natural, would that surprise you?

I would assume it was natural in the absence of an alert.

Whether or not it surprised me might depend on the opponents. I know some very strong players who think this should be natural (much like a 2NT overcall of a natural weak 2S opening).
Certainly I play 1C P 2H (WJS) 2NT as natural and this auction doesn't advertise any more HCP between the opponents (although it decreases the chance that you want to bid a natural 2NT having two spade stops)

Overall I would be a little surprised but not hugely so.

[gnasher]

The ACBL alert rules are quite clear:

ACBL Alert Chart said:

No Alert
Conventional NT overcalls by a passed hand
Jumps to 2NT or any four-level or higher NT bid that shows minors or the two lowest unbid suits

Alert
Natural NT overcalls with an expected lower limit of less than 14 HCP and/or upper limit of more than 19 HCP
Conventional NT overcalls except those specifically not requiring an Alert
Natural Jumps to 2NT, except in balancing seat

If I encountered this situation, I'd assume that either it was natural with an upper limit of less than 20, or the opponents didn't know the rules. Against most opponents I'd probably ask rather than assuming the former.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-June-10, 15:21

[Phil]

I used to play all competitive calls over 1M - p - 2M the same as if they opened 2M. So, Leaping Michaels, Western Q, and a Natural 2N overcall.

In retrospect, it was a dumb agreement, but it did have the advantage of simplicity.

I don't think either meaning needs to be alerted.

[Vampyr]

Phil, on 2013-June-10, 20:02, said:

I don't think either meaning needs to be alerted.

If that is true, then the philosophy behind the alert regulations is faulty.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-10, 20:10, said:

If that is true, then the philosophy behind the alert regulations is faulty.

What makes you think there's a philosophy behind any ACBL regulation?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-10, 20:15, said:

What makes you think there's a philosophy behind any ACBL regulation?

Actually, I had sort of suspected that the alert regulations were like the systems regulations -- cobbled together from things being chucked in willy-nilly from time to time.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-10, 20:24, said:

Actually, I had sort of suspected that the alert regulations were like the systems regulations -- cobbled together from things being chucked in willy-nilly from time to time.

Another thing on which we agree!

[Phil]

Vampyr, on 2013-June-10, 20:10, said:

If that is true, then the philosophy behind the alert regulations is faulty.

What philosophy? Is there some deeper meaning I'm not aware of, or perhaps an oracle that is consulted to develop the alert charts?

[Vampyr]

Phil, on 2013-June-10, 21:48, said:

What philosophy? Is there some deeper meaning I'm not aware of, or perhaps an oracle that is consulted to develop the alert charts?

Clearly not! The EBU used to practise a little of the ACBL's piecemeal approach -- when people like gnasher or bluejak invented a clever method they lobbied the L&E and had it put in as specifically allowed. However, the book was later revamped and the systems regulations and alert regulations were rationalised -- now they do have fairly sensible (or at least consistent) philosophical underpinnings.

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2013-June-10, 21:48, said:

What philosophy? Is there some deeper meaning I'm not aware of, or perhaps an oracle that is consulted to develop the alert charts?

I think it would be an unreasonable waste of the oracle's time, since nobody in the ACBL actually reads the Alert Charts.

[barmar]

I give ACBL a little more credit than we as a group generally do. The alert procedures does have a general philosophy, IMHO: alert things that many players would find unusual and should ask about, don't alert ubiquitous conventions, and announce things in between. There are some quirks because they're very conservative about changing the regulations, so they tend to be based on what people expected 5-10 years ago. So even though transfers over NT are taught to beginners these days, we still announce them because it hasn't been long enough. And where the population is split (e.g. weak vs strong jump shifts in uncontested auctions), they tend to stick with history -- as a result, half the okayers think the rule is wrong and ACBL is out of step.

BTW, the BoD made two changes to the Alert Procedures in St Louis: weak jump shifts by advancer are not alertable, and 2♦ responses to strong 2♣ are not alertable regardless of meaning. These take effect at the beginning of 2014.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-June-11, 12:34, said:

BTW, the BoD made two changes to the Alert Procedures in St Louis: weak jump shifts by advancer are not alertable, and 2♦ responses to strong 2♣ are not alertable regardless of meaning. These take effect at the beginning of 2014.

Interesting that they should do that, since Part VIII already states that (natural) jump shifts in competitive auctions do not require an alert, regardless of strength.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps it indicates that our rule makers don't know their own rules.

[barmar]

Good point. I've just written to rulings@acbl.org asking if they understand what's going on. And I wrote to my district chairman (who happens also to be the BoD chairman).