[Cyberyeti]

1♦-2♣

Innocent little unopposed Acol sequence.

The problem is that a decent part of the Acol playing population don't have a forcing diamond raise, so invent a 2♣ bid when they hold one without anything else to bid.

I've never seen anybody alert this, but should they ? It probably never occurs to them that other people do use 2♦ or 2N or 3♣ or 3N as a forcing diamond raise so 2♣ may well show 5 of them as it does for us.

[gordontd]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-February-02, 06:40, said:

1♦-2♣

Innocent little unopposed Acol sequence.

The problem is that a decent part of the Acol playing population don't have a forcing diamond raise, so invent a 2♣ bid when they hold one without anything else to bid.

Do they? I've never come across it.

[helene_t]

 gordontd, on 2016-February-02, 06:44, said:

Do they? I've never come across it.

Minor suit raises don't come up so often of course, it is more an issue with the major suits for pairs that don't have a forcing raise.

In Standard English Acol you are supposed to make a pudding raise or a splinter with 12-15 and to make a jump shift with more than that. But I don't think anyone plays the pudding raise of a minor, and in my experience very few people know that they are supposed to make a jump shift if they have primary support.

I wouldn't alert the simple shift described in the OP and I don't think those who play strictly according to Standard English alert their jump shifts either.

[Cyberyeti]

 gordontd, on 2016-February-02, 06:44, said:

Do they? I've never come across it.

What do you do if not playing any form of forcing raise with a 3343/3352 18 count ?

A lot of people playing really old school Acol (and Norfolk's full of them) will invent a 2♣ bid.

[helene_t]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-February-02, 08:48, said:

What do you do if not playing any form of forcing raise with a 3343/3352 18 count ?

A lot of people playing really old school Acol (and Norfolk's full of them) will invent a 2♣ bid.

The word "invent" suggests that it may not be based on an agreement.

Some will indeed bid 2♣. Some will bid 4♦. Some will underbid 3NT or even 3♦. Some will ask for aces. Some will splinter on a doubleton. In each of those groups, many won't have discussed it with partner.

I don't think there can be any doubt that it is in principle alertable if you have the agreement to bid 2♣ (or 3♣, as in Standard English) with that hand. But I wouldn't bother. It is hard to imagine that it can benefit opps to alert it (of course, if responder ends up declaring 3NT he should disclose the agreement before the opening lead), while it could easily harm some inexperienced opps if you do alert it (one ight think he can double 2♣ for the lead if it is potentially artificial, and his partner may think it is t/o, or vice versa).

[Cyberyeti]

 helene_t, on 2016-February-02, 08:57, said:

The word "invent" suggests that it may not be based on an agreement.

Some will indeed bid 2♣. Some will bid 4♦. Some will underbid 3NT or even 3♦. Some will ask for aces. Some will splinter on a doubleton. In each of those groups, many won't have discussed it with partner.

I don't think there can be any doubt that it is in principle alertable if you have the agreement to bid 2♣ (or 3♣, as in Standard English) with that hand. But I wouldn't bother. It is hard to imagine that it can benefit opps to alert it (of course, if responder ends up declaring 3NT he should disclose the agreement before the opening lead), while it could easily harm some inexperienced opps if you do alert it (one ight think he can double 2♣ for the lead if it is potentially artificial, and his partner may think it is t/o, or vice versa).

In the case in question, the auction proceeded 1♦-2♣-(2♦, 5+♥/4+♠)-4♣-5♦ and I assumed I was facing a bigger double fit than I actually was, so bid 5♥ which turned out to be a phantom when partner had more clubs than I was expecting.

I think both opps just assumed this was normal bridge so there was no need to alert.

[Vampyr]

I think that expecting a 2♣ response to show 5 cards is expecting too much. 2♣ with 4cards (or three if they are strong and a 4-card diamond suit us weak) is, after all, the normal way to start if you have an invitational raise with three cards in the major partner opened.

[WellSpyder]

I don't think this is specifically a feature of not playing inverted minor suit raises or whatever. What do you expect Acol bidders to respond to 1♠ when holding a 3433 13-count? I think it has always been recognised that bidding a 3-card club suit may occasionally be necessary, but I have never known an opener try to make allowances for this possibility or to alert a 2♣ response for this reason.

[campboy]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-February-02, 10:51, said:

I don't think this is specifically a feature of not playing inverted minor suit raises or whatever. What do you expect Acol bidders to respond to 1♠ when holding a 3433 13-count? I think it has always been recognised that bidding a 3-card club suit may occasionally be necessary, but I have never known an opener try to make allowances for this possibility or to alert a 2♣ response for this reason.

The EBU alert regulations used to specifically mention this auction (1S - 2C possibly being 3433) as not requiring an alert. (They don't seem to mention it any more, but I think that was removed just to make the regulation shorter, and wasn't intended to change whether it was alertable.) There was never such a provision for 1D - 2C.

[barmar]

 campboy, on 2016-February-02, 11:09, said:

The EBU alert regulations used to specifically mention this auction (1S - 2C possibly being 3433) as not requiring an alert. (They don't seem to mention it any more, but I think that was removed just to make the regulation shorter, and wasn't intended to change whether it was alertable.) There was never such a provision for 1D - 2C.

Maybe because systems where this is necessary are so unusual, while the 1♠-2♣ case is common and needed to be addressed.

[Vampyr]

 campboy, on 2016-February-02, 11:09, said:

The EBU alert regulations used to specifically mention this auction (1S - 2C possibly being 3433) as not requiring an alert. (They don't seem to mention it any more, but I think that was removed just to make the regulation shorter, and wasn't intended to change whether it was alertable.) There was never such a provision for 1D - 2C.

BB4C1(a) is pretty unambiguous, though. In neither case is the bid alertable.

[jallerton]

 gordontd, on 2016-February-02, 06:44, said:

Do they? I've never come across it.

This is a problem playing Basic Acol (no inverted minor suit raises). If you have a game forcing minor suit raise, what do you do? 3m is a limit raise so NF. 4m takes you past 3NT. 3NT is natural but may be the wrong contract, and partner won't know when to pull. 3M is natural and pre-emptive.

The solution recommended in the Basis Acol books I read is to invent a new suit. The books explain that it's normally safer to 'invent' the other minor suit, as partner will not usually raise too high.
If I were playing in a Simple Systems event, I would probably follow the suggested approach.

[Vampyr]

 jallerton, on 2016-February-02, 11:32, said:

This is a problem playing Basic Acol (no inverted minor suit raises). If you have a game forcing minor suit raise, what do you do? 3m is a limit raise so NF. 4m takes you past 3NT. 3NT is natural but may be the wrong contract, and partner won't know when to pull. 3M is natural and pre-emptive.

The solution recommended in the Basis Acol books I read is to invent a new suit. The books explain that it's normally safer to 'invent' the other minor suit, as partner will not usually raise too high.
If I were playing in a Simple Systems event, I would probably follow the suggested approach.

Is there nothing alertable in Basic Acol/Simple Systems then?

[Cyberyeti]

 WellSpyder, on 2016-February-02, 10:51, said:

I don't think this is specifically a feature of not playing inverted minor suit raises or whatever. What do you expect Acol bidders to respond to 1♠ when holding a 3433 13-count? I think it has always been recognised that bidding a 3-card club suit may occasionally be necessary, but I have never known an opener try to make allowances for this possibility or to alert a 2♣ response for this reason.

3 card suit is not so much of a problem, it's when they start doing it on 3352s that I think it should be alerted. Not sure if the same rules apply, but game tries that are 3+ cards are not alertable.

[campboy]

 Vampyr, on 2016-February-02, 11:26, said:

BB4C1(a) is pretty unambiguous, though. In neither case is the bid alertable.

It's certainly unambiguous, but that's not what it says. Both bids are definitely natural for the purpose of 4B1, but there is still the question of whether they have a potentially unexpected meaning.

[steve2005]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-February-02, 12:50, said:

3 card suit is not so much of a problem, it's when they start doing it on 3352s that I think it should be alerted. Not sure if the same rules apply, but game tries that are 3+ cards are not alertable.

what about 3-3-6-1 still no raise and unless you have a splinter no bid with a gf

[Vampyr]

 campboy, on 2016-February-02, 13:04, said:

It's certainly unambiguous, but that's not what it says. Both bids are definitely natural for the purpose of 4B1, but there is still the question of whether they have a potentially unexpected meaning.

4H2 seems to cover that area.

I think that "natural for the purposes of alerting" means non-alertable, but what do I know,

[campboy]

 Vampyr, on 2016-February-02, 20:13, said:

4H2 seems to cover that area.

I think that "natural for the purposes of alerting" means non-alertable, but what do I know,

I can't see why you would think that, when 4B1 clearly says that to be non-alertable this bid has to be natural and not have a potentially unexpected meaning. "Natural for the purposes of alerting" simply means that it passes the first of those criteria.

The whole point of 4H2 is that it gives examples of things which fail the second criterion, so are alertable by 4B1. Almost all* of these are "natural for the purposes of alerting". It is not an exhaustive list, just some examples. As it says at the start of 4H, "the following are interpretations and examples of the above directives."

* the exceptions are the two passes, which don't seem to meet the definition of natural either, but then for passes "natural" and "no unexpected meaning" are basically the same thing according to the BB.

[helene_t]

 Vampyr, on 2016-February-02, 12:13, said:

Is there nothing alertable in Basic Acol/Simple Systems then?

The 2♣ opening, FSF, that sort of things.

Anyway, I think there is a substantial difference between 1♠-2♣ which promises a 3-card suit, is 4+ unless specifically 3433, and is played almost universally that way among "natural" bidders, and then the fake minor suit response in question which could be a doubleton, covers a wider range of hands, and is less common albeit not rare.

[Cyberyeti]

 helene_t, on 2016-February-03, 07:29, said:

The 2♣ opening, FSF, that sort of things.

Anyway, I think there is a substantial difference between 1♠-2♣ which promises a 3-card suit, is 4+ unless specifically 3433, and is played almost universally that way among "natural" bidders, and then the fake minor suit response in question which could be a doubleton, covers a wider range of hands, and is less common albeit not rare.

This coincides with my view.

For me the "potentially unexpected meaning" is there to cover the REALLY obvious sort of thing like 1♥-1♠ which would otherwise be alertable as a possible canape with a weak hand and a longer minor. It's not there for more obscure stuff.