[awm]

To return to the original question, what do you accomplish by bidding 2NT instead of a more standard 4♠. Consider some possible follow-ups:

(1) Partner passes 2NT. Oops. Surely spades is a better strain, and you may even be making 4♠.
(2) Partner bids 3NT, which presumably you correct to 4♠. You've shown your hand, but bidding a direct 4♠ also shows this hand (fit, game values, no singleton or void). You haven't gained any space for cuebidding.
(3) Partner makes some sort of checkback bid. You show spades. But as far as partner knows, you could have three spades on this sequence, when you actually have both better support and better playing strength. Bidding this way will not really assist your slam bidding.
(4) Partner bids gerber. Okay, you can show your aces, but partner won't know about the fit. There's a good chance partner chooses 6NT when 6♠ or 7♠ is better.
(5) Partner makes a quantitative call. You're getting to slam, but you're going to have a less scientific auction than you could've had by starting with a more descriptive fit-showing rebid, over which partner could've bid keycard or cuebid. You might get to slam off two quick heart tricks for example.
(6) Partner makes a slam try in a minor. It will be difficult to backtrack into spades at this point, since spade bids may well become cuebids for the minor. Partner (holding say 4♠+5♦ or 4/4 in the blacks) is unlikely to believe that spades is the right slam after the 2NT rebid.

[bid_em_up]

Jlall, on Sep 6 2007, 06:48 PM, said:

Then why do you post on an online internet forum?

Beats me, I sure don't enjoy this type of abuse.

Feel free to keep it up though. You can believe your position all you want to.

So far though, I have asked for proof that the 2N rebid is alertable, and nobody has managed to provide any. Instead, they simply give me their authoritative opinions which are nothing more than bullshit.

But hey, you're the star, along with mike, so I guess that makes your opinions the final authority.

I have one question for you though. Why do you (and others) seem to presume that is your place to tell anyone how to play something? I do not recall asking for your opinion, or Mike's, or Matt's or anyone elses. I have simply stated this is what we play. I think somewhere in all of this that I have stated that I did not necessarily agree with it, but for the time being, it is what we play. So why are you coming down on me?

You don't like it? Fine. You want to state you dont like it? Fine, nobody is asking you to agree with me (and I certainly wouldnt expect you too).

But that certainly gives you no right to attempt to mock me, ridicule me or the rest of the ***** that has gone on here.

[pbleighton]

Quote

So far though, I have asked for proof that the 2N rebid is alertable

That depends on whether it's forcing. You started out saaying yes, now it seems you say no, but rarely passed. In the first case it's alertable, since it's not the standard agreement, in the second it is not.

Peter

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on Sep 6 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

I have one question for you though. Why do you (and others) seem to presume that is your place to tell anyone how to play something? I do not recall asking for your opinion, or Mike's, or Matt's or anyone elses. I have simply stated this is what we play. I think somewhere in all of this that I have stated that I did not necessarily agree with it, but for the time being, it is what we play.

You are still over-reacting. The point is that you called someone who disagreed with you (and happened to be right in doing so) 'nuts', You claim, repeatedly, that a non-standard treatment is non-alertable. You make silly assertions such as that I would not pass 2N with AJ9xx xxx xxx xx... I and the majority of experts would pass.

We are not telling you what should bid: I expressly said that you could play 2N forcing in your methods, but when you post as you have done, you invite comment. I told you why I think your methods are poor, and, interestingly enough, it is clear that you think so as well, because you VIOLATED your own methods

So loosen up.

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Sep 6 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

But hey, you're the star, along with mike, so I guess that makes your opinions the final authority.

Actually, it's opinions of people like me who are the final authority. It makes life difficult for us TDs when we have to adjust a board because somebody heard on a forum somewhere that it was OK to not alert a bid.

On behalf of TD's everywhere, PLEASE don't go around telling people that some bid isn't alertable on the B/I forum unless you have actual, documented proof that it isn't alertable. Burden of proof is necessarily on the person who says a call is not alertable (I've never punished anybody for overalerting). If you really want a FINAL final authority, write to rulings@acbl.org and Mike Flader or Rick Beye will be happy to answer in a week or two.

Sorry for being so pompous.

[neilkaz]

This bid is most definately not standard and is passable. Would you bid 1♠ over 1♣ with AJ9x,xxx,xxxx,xx ? I would and when 2NT is rebid you have to pass.

What about Jxxxx,Kxx,Qxx,xx This is a 1♠ bid but you don't want to Wolff s/off that junkie suit, and opposite a 18-19 2NT, 3NT seems anti-percentage so I'd pass again.

The direct jump to game takes lots of room and this hand has a very fine 21 support points and loads of potential for slam if you can avoid 2 quick red losers. For that reason, some players play 2NT as artificial GF, and use other methods to show 18-19 balanced.

However, in standard one is forced to bid 4♠ to show 4 card support and GF and if PD has some extras, he can try for slam.

Note that I tried a false reverse on a 21 HCP hand like this with a stiff and PD was totally confused with the subsequent bidding but at least her failure to use lebensohl, established a GF. However, I ended up just having to blast to 6♠.

.. neilkaz ..

[bid_em_up]

Well, lets see:

I have stated that it is considered forcing until the 2N responder found out otherwise, he normally expects to hear another call.

I have stated that since we tend not to respond on less than 6 counts (it is possible to do so, but it is a hand that will normally be able to get out in 3M after a 2N response). We don't usually bid, just because we think we can improve the contract (i.e. Jxxxx xxx Qxxx x will pass, QJxxxxx xxx xx x will bid but can get out in 3M if need be).

If anyone accused you of being unethical, would you necessarily be calm about it? Then don't expect me to either.

By posting on an internet forum, you are free to discuss. So far, I have read a bunch of attacks towards both me and the method, but very little real discussion.

I make claims of "hey you're the star", because whether you realize it or not, many of your posts towards me come across as condescending and I am simply returning the favor. Yes, mine are the same way sometimes, but at least I am aware of this fact and work hard on not being so. If a mod could read what I originally write 1/2 the time, I would be banned altogether.

I ask for proof, because it is widely believed that 2C Stayman as not containing a four card major is alertable (it may even be so now, but it didn't used to be and as far as I know, it still isn't). I'm claiming this is simply a similar case. The 2N bidder does not know whether or not the bid is going to be passed. I think I have clearly stated that it IS passable, but the odds of it actually occuring are highly unlikely to happen since we have already made a 1/1 response. As far as I am concerned, that is effectively considered to be forcing at the time the call is made. Call this "changing my position" all you wish. I call it clarification of the original statement. You are certainly entitled to feel that it is alertable. Let me ask you, since when is a natural call (which the 2N rebid is), which is exactly the same as anyone would expect it to be (18-19 balanced), ever alertable? I do not for one minute believe that just because we treat it as mainly forcing, makes it alertable.

You are free to disagree, but then the burden is on you to offer proof. Not me. I didn't start the argument. As far as I am concerned it does not require an alert and its up to you to prove otherwise. Gnome, you and the others all claim it MUST require an alert simply because it is a treatement different than you are used to. I say I don't believe you. Prove me wrong. So far, you have failed to do so. You have simply proffered your opinion.

It has no meaning other than the standard meaning of 18-19 balanced. That in and of itself makes the bid not alertable. The bid is completely natural. I have also stated that IF ASKED, I would say, it could be passed but highly improbable that it will be. Isn't that full disclosure? Full disclosure does NOT require you to automatically alert every partnership nuance or tendency, the last time I checked. It does to require you to provide that information if asked. The bid is natural, with a "normal" expectation of what the call should represent. It does not have an unusual or strange meaning. Strange meaning as in it shows a running 8 card club suit or it always shows a good spade raise. Then it would be alertable. Just because we treat it as forcing and you don't, doesn't make it require an alert, imo. The hand equals exactly what the opponents are expecting.

I never said I agreed with my partners 2N bid. I happen to not like it as well. But it was the call he chose to make.

I told gnome he was fucking nuts (which was edited out shortly thereafter) because I was pretty irritated regarding being told that I was being unethical (my interpretation of what gnome said, not his actual wording). Feel free to say you think the bid should be alerted, but dont make deragotory statements such as the one that was made. Especially when I was not the person failing to alert either bid. I have subsequently acknowledged that partner should be alerting the 1C bid all the time, and that I cannot control his actions. I have asked (told) him again to always alert it, and I announce it 100% of the time we start to play.

I think passing AJ9xx xxx xxx xx after a 2N rebid is nuts also. I have asked mike via email to run a simulation on this. The only constraints I asked him to apply is that the 2N rebid contain 18-19 hcp and 2-4 spades. I will be happy to admit I am wrong should the simulation prove pass to be correct.

I suspect most of you would pass the 2N rebid, because you would not expect the 2N hand to possibly contain 4 trumps in support. Is he supposed to alert the 2N rebid as "may contain 4 card support" as well?

As long as we're discussing it, we also happen to play major suit limit raises through a 1N forcing structure, including one that may possibly raise 2x to 4M (1M- 1N-2x-4M). This could be considered a "non-standard" treatment as well, with so many people playing Bergen and such. Are we also required to disclose that a 1N forcing bid may contain this particular hand type, each and every time we bid 1N forcing? If you say yes, again, I ask why? It is responders next call that clarifies what hand type he has, at which point it would be alerted and explained.

[neilkaz]

Regarding self alerts on BBO. It is so easy to self alert or at least send an explanation with your bid. When you think your opps may have some doubt and have to ask a question, your quicky explanation reduces their need to ask questions and thereby slow the game or passing UI to his PD.

ie when opening 1♣ just type "2+", I play Bergen so when I respond 3♦ I alert and type "limit raise".

We were playing to ACOLers the other night. So when I opened 1NT I typed "15-17" and I typed "xfer" when I transfered. I opened 2♠ and then a couple seconds later realized that typing "weak" might be a good idea.

Whether the rules say it should be alerted or not, one gets to play a smoother game with fewer questions if you briefly explain any bid the opps may fail to understand as standard.

Just my opinion .. neilkaz ..

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Sep 6 2007, 10:34 PM, said:

I ask for proof, because it is widely believed that 2C Stayman as not containing a four card major is alertable

Gah.

http://web2.acbl.org...t/alertpamp.htm

You realize this is not some weird esoteric whatever, right?

That you can do real, honest-to-God actual harm by telling beginners that something is legal when it isn't, right? And that the reverse isn't true, that telling them that something is alertable when it isn't won't hurt anybody?

Just making sure.

Neil- I also direct FTF events where that isn't an option. Online, it's not a big deal.

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on Sep 6 2007, 11:21 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Sep 6 2007, 10:34 PM, said:

I ask for proof, because it is widely believed that 2C Stayman as not containing a four card major is alertable

Gah.

http://web2.acbl.org...t/alertpamp.htm

You realize this is not some weird esoteric whatever, right?

That you can do real, honest-to-God actual harm by telling beginners that something is legal when it isn't, right? And that the reverse isn't true, that telling them that something is alertable when it isn't won't hurt anybody?

Just making sure.

Neil- I also direct FTF events where that isn't an option. Online, it's not a big deal.

What part of this:

PART I: NATURAL CALLS
Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted.

do you not understand?

Or this, for that matter:

1) STAYMAN

No Alert is required for any bid of 2 over partner's 1NT opening or 3 over a 2NT opening if it requests opener to bid a four-card major, regardless of whether the Stayman bidder promises a four-card major. Likewise, a 2 response to Stayman (or a 3 response after 2NT-P-3 ) is not Alterable if it denies a four-card major.



It does not show unusual strength, nor does it show unusual shape. It is a perfectly natural balanced 18-19 and is EXACTLY what any player would expect it to be.

You realize this is not some weird esoteric whatever, right?

Just making sure.

Next time, try to find a document that actually supports your position, please. Instead, all I see is information that says exactly the same things i have been maintaining.

[the hog]

"As long as we're discussing it, we also happen to play major suit limit raises through a 1N forcing structure, including one that may possibly raise 2x to 4M (1M- 1N-2x-4M). This could be considered a "non-standard" treatment as well, with so many people playing Bergen and such. Are we also required to disclose that a 1N forcing bid may contain this particular hand type, each and every time we bid 1N forcing? If you say yes, again, I ask why? It is responders next call that clarifies what hand type he has, at which point it would be alerted and explained."


Amusingly enough, depending on where you play Stayman is alertable. It has to be alerted in Australia.

I certainly believe that the 2NT bid should be alerted here and also the fact that it can contain 4 card support.

Yes, your non standard 1NT bid has to be alerted as well. You ask "why". Because it contains various types of strong supporting hands. Regardless of whether the follow up bid shows this or not, it is the opponents' RIGHT to know this information at the time they take a call. Whether you think this wouldn't alter their call in any way, is NOT YOUR decision to make; it is the opponents alone.

"nor does it show unusual shape"
If it can have 4 card support it DOES show unusual shape. I hesitate to be as rude as you were in your last post, but what part of THAT do YOU not understand?

[bid_em_up]

The_Hog, on Sep 7 2007, 12:24 AM, said:

"nor does it show unusual shape"
If it can have 4 card support it DOES show unusual shape. I hesitate to be as rude as you were in your last post, but what part of THAT do YOU not understand?

If you choose to claim this is "unusual", be my guest.

My understanding of "unusual" would be something like 4-1-2-6 which is NOT something the opponents would be expecting (not that I would ever expect to see this treatment, but purposes of example). That would require an alert.

A 18-19 balanced hand with 4-3-3-3 or 4432 is still natural, still balanced, and by its own very definition, not unusual. Just because you wouldn't expect it, you still have a reasonable enough idea of what the 2N rebidders hand is going to look like.

In this case, I refer you to Part I also, where it specifically says:

If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary.

Just because the hand may contain 4 card support does not change the fact the bid is natural and balanced.

But then again, maybe my reading comprehesion skills are as bad as my bridge.

[awm]

One can argue endlessly about ACBL alert regulations, especially since they are apparently deliberately vague. However, I think most directors will agree that a bid early in an auction which is played as forcing when virtually everyone plays it as not forcing, or vice versa, should be alertable even if the strength promised by the call is not very different.

[jdonn]

bid_em_up, on Sep 7 2007, 12:22 AM, said:

What part of this:

PART I: NATURAL CALLS
Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary. Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted.

do you not understand?

Or this, for that matter:

1) STAYMAN

No Alert is required for any bid of 2 over partner's 1NT opening or 3 over a 2NT opening if it requests opener to bid a four-card major, regardless of whether the Stayman bidder promises a four-card major.  Likewise, a 2 response to Stayman (or a 3 response after 2NT-P-3 ) is not Alterable if it denies a four-card major.



It does not show unusual strength, nor does it show unusual shape.  It is a perfectly natural balanced 18-19 and is EXACTLY what any player would expect it to be.

You realize this is not some weird esoteric whatever, right?

Just making sure.

Next time, try to find a document that actually supports your position, please.  Instead, all I see is information that says exactly the same things i have been maintaining.

How about from the same link

The objective of the Alert system is for both pairs at the table to have equal access to all information contained in any auction.

A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization. [note that it says "meaning", so not simply limited to shape and strength]

In all Alert situations, Tournament Directors should rule with the spirit of the Alert procedure in mind and not simply by the letter of the law. [combined with the first sentence I quoted, just think about it]

[helene_t]

2N as forcing is very common here in NL, maybe due to influence from (I think it was) Ed Hoogenkamp hoe recomends this style to intermediates.

Nice to know that I would have to alert this in the US. Will I also have to alert in next week in Croatia? Nobody alerts it over here. You might as well alert a non-forcing 2NT.

[gwnn]

I think the crux of the argument is this: if a bid can be passed, but in practice will be passed only once in 100 times it has been made, can it be considered forcing? bid_em_up seems to say that in a certain practical way it can be. Others, I think the rest of the posters, or the vast majority of the rest of the posters, seem to disagree, and furthermore, they state that 2NT is a bad bid primarily because of this: 2NT risks to be passed out when the expected score of 4♠ will heavily outweigh the one of 2NT. If we think game has to be reached, we need to make sure we get to game, not making any bids that have any chances (even those that are accepted to be very low) of being passed out.

For what it's worth, I think any call that can be passed is non-forcing and do not like drawing an arbitrary line based on the likeliness of it being passed out (1NT-3NT is passed out 99.999%, that's non forcing, etc, 1M-1NT-2x is passed out quite rarely, like 25%, but ok, let's say it's non forcing, 1m-1M-2NT will be passed out 1%, that has to be forcing. [I know the percentages are approximate] where's the line? 10%? 5%? 2.5%? who is to measure it? et cetera.). Simplest would be applying word "forcing" only when the bid is not allowed to be passed out ever ever ever.

[ochinko]

sceptic, on Sep 6 2007, 09:49 PM, said:

I am wondering why 1m 1M 4M is not used showing 19 hcp  unless 2NT has a special meaning with a fit and no stopper in one suit

It is not about the points when you have such a good fit. It is mostly about controls, and the easiest way to count them is losers.

1♣ - 1♠ - 4♠ is ok with me if the opener shows exactly 5 loser hand. AKT2-T2-K5-AKQ83 has only 4 losers plus a promising source of tricks in clubs, so you shouldn't bid it in the same way as a 5 loser hand.

It's nice to be able to distinguish it from say AJxx-KQ-KQ-Axxxx which has the same ponts and distribution but much less slam potential.