[Phil]

(1♠) - pass - (2♠) - 3N

Under what circumstances would you expect 3N to be an alertable call?

[Gerben42]

If and only if the bid does not suggest partner to pass with a nondescript hand.

[peachy]

Only if it is something other than "to play". In ACBL, unusual NT overcalls of 2NT or four level or higher are not alertable, but if 3NT is "unusual", that 3NT needs an alert.
http://www.acbl.org/...alertchart.html

[TylerE]

To be pedantic, the chart reads

Quote

Jumps to 2NT or any four-level or higher notrump bid that is unusual

No, I've never been screwed by an unalerted 2NT bid over a weak 2, and gotten no redress. Never.

[peachy]

TylerE, on Jun 20 2010, 09:15 PM, said:

To be pedantic, the chart reads

Quote

Jumps to 2NT or any four-level or higher notrump bid that is unusual

No, I've never been screwed by an unalerted 2NT bid over a weak 2, and gotten no redress. Never.

Yes, that is what the chart reas as Not Alerted.

Not sure what you are saying and how it is relevant.
2Nt over a weak two is a) natural and not a jump.

[Phil]

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

Perhaps the 1♠ opener expected a running minor and a spade stopper, which why he bid a sick vulnerable 4♠ on JT9xx AQxxx Ax x.

However, he didn't ask for redress, so this question never really came up.

[TylerE]

peachy, on Jun 20 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

TylerE, on Jun 20 2010, 09:15 PM, said:

To be pedantic, the chart reads

Quote

Jumps to 2NT or any four-level or higher notrump bid that is unusual

No, I've never been screwed by an unalerted 2NT bid over a weak 2, and gotten no redress. Never.

Yes, that is what the chart reas as Not Alerted.

Not sure what you are saying and how it is relevant.
2Nt over a weak two is a) natural and not a jump.

My point is that A: Some poor misguided souls actually play 2X-2NT as minors B: Don't bother to alert that an in fact become rather indignant when you call the director after the hand.

[jdonn]

Phil, on Jun 20 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

The point being...?

[Phil]

jdonn, on Jun 20 2010, 10:23 PM, said:

Phil, on Jun 20 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

The point being...?

That if the 4♠ was a bit more legitimate that they've been damage by the FTA?

[jdonn]

I still don't get it, sorry.

[peachy]

Phil, on Jun 20 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

Perhaps the 1♠ opener expected a running minor and a spade stopper, which why he bid a sick vulnerable 4♠ on JT9xx AQxxx Ax x.

However, he didn't ask for redress, so this question never really came up.

If the 3NT was *unusual*, it needed an alert. What the partner of the 3NT bidder is going to do, is irrelevant to the alertability of the 3NT, right?

[dburn]

peachy, on Jun 21 2010, 01:00 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 20 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

Perhaps the 1♠ opener expected a running minor and a spade stopper, which why he bid a sick vulnerable 4♠ on JT9xx AQxxx Ax x.

However, he didn't ask for redress, so this question never really came up.

If the 3NT was *unusual*, it needed an alert. What the partner of the 3NT bidder is going to do, is irrelevant to the alertability of the 3NT, right?

Not quite right. If 3NT was minors by agreement, then it needed an alert. But if it was not discussed, and partner happened to have ♠AKQx so that he knew it was not natural, he was under no obligation to alert it.

[pran]

dburn, on Jun 21 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

peachy, on Jun 21 2010, 01:00 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 20 2010, 10:06 PM, said:

This 3N was unusual, but it would be played there opposite AKQx Jxx Jxx 8xx

Perhaps the 1♠ opener expected a running minor and a spade stopper, which why he bid a sick vulnerable 4♠ on JT9xx AQxxx Ax x.

However, he didn't ask for redress, so this question never really came up.

If the 3NT was *unusual*, it needed an alert. What the partner of the 3NT bidder is going to do, is irrelevant to the alertability of the 3NT, right?

Not quite right. If 3NT was minors by agreement, then it needed an alert. But if it was not discussed, and partner happened to have ♠AKQx so that he knew it was not natural, he was under no obligation to alert it.

I have never liked this "undiscussed so it is not alertable" theory.

And what South can or cannot see from his own cards is completely irrelevant in the question of whether a call is alertable or not. A player must alert partner's call that by agreement is artificial even if he from his own cards can see that partner must have forgotten agreements and made the call as a natural call.

Opponents are entitled to a complete and accurate description of a partnership's agreements.

A missing alert then literally means that this situation is discussed and the call is natural (or not alertable).

Consequently an udiscussed call should IMHO always be alerted and then (if asked) be described as undiscussed.

Remember that an alert means that the call may contain some unexpected meaning. A missing alert means that the call certainly not contains any meaning that should be artificial and/or unexpected.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Jun 21 2010, 08:21 AM, said:

A missing alert then literally means that this situation is discussed and the call is natural (or not alertable).

Consequently an udiscussed call should IMHO always be alerted and then (if asked) be described as undiscussed.

Remember that an alert means that the call may contain some unexpected meaning. A missing alert means that the call certainly not contains any meaning that should be artificial and/or unexpected.

Nonsense. You are required to explain agreements, not non-agreements. You are not required to disclose to your opponents that your partnership is in unfamiliar territory, unless they ask. You are not required to alert non-agreements. Not in the ACBL, anyway, and I can't see that it makes sense elsewhere unless you have a regulation that specifically says so.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on Jun 21 2010, 08:24 AM, said:

pran, on Jun 21 2010, 08:21 AM, said:

A missing alert then literally means that this situation is discussed and the call is natural (or not alertable).

Consequently an udiscussed call should IMHO always be alerted and then (if asked) be described as undiscussed.

Remember that an alert means that the call may contain some unexpected meaning. A missing alert means that the call certainly not contains any meaning that should be artificial and/or unexpected.

Nonsense. You are required to explain agreements, not non-agreements. You are not required to disclose to your opponents that your partnership is in unfamiliar territory, unless they ask. You are not required to alert non-agreements. Not in the ACBL, anyway, and I can't see that it makes sense elsewhere unless you have a regulation that specifically says so.

How can the opponents know to ask whether or not we are in 'unfamiliar territory' if they are not alerted?

AFIAC, if you were to ask this West player without looking at her hand, what is 3N? I don't know if she could give you a straight answer anyway.

[blackshoe]

Nobody is ever going to ask "are you in unfamiliar territory?" or "are you having a bidding mixup?" or the like. They might, in the unlikely event they understand and comply with Law 20, ask for an explanation of the auction. Or they might ask about a particular call, keeping in mind the UI implications of such a question.

Define "straight answer". Is "I don't know" not a straight answer? How about "we haven't discussed it"?

[peachy]

pran, on Jun 21 2010, 07:21 AM, said:

Opponents are entitled to a complete and accurate description of a partnership's agreements.

A missing alert then literally means that this situation is discussed and the call is natural (or not alertable).

Consequently an udiscussed call should IMHO always be alerted and then (if asked) be described as undiscussed.

Absolutely disagree. This to me makes no sense whatsoever and you even contradict yourself in the three statements.

[dburn]

pran, on Jun 21 2010, 07:21 AM, said:

Opponents are entitled to a complete and accurate description of a partnership's agreements.

A missing alert then literally means that this situation is discussed and the call is natural (or not alertable).

Consequently an udiscussed call should IMHO always be alerted and then (if asked) be described as undiscussed.

Remember that an alert means that the call may contain some unexpected meaning. A missing alert means that the call certainly not contains any meaning that should be artificial and/or unexpected.

The total number of possible legal bridge auctions is a rather imposing

128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557.

Now, suppose my partner and I have detailed agreements about a couple of million of these. Do you suggest that if any of the other

128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,120,697,557

arises at the table, we should alert?

[Pict]

Many auctions can be reduced to examples of agreements ('ideals'?).

But the attraction of Bridge is in part to be taken by surprise. Implementation of the Laws should not be designed to penalise surprise by assuming everything is predictable and can be decided in two seconds.

[zenko]

how about if you play with screens? is than OK to ask "do you have mix up? for example RHO (behind the screen) opens 1H you overcall 1S your screenmate LHO bids 3D (some kind of mix raise), then the tray comes back with 3H by your pard and 5D by RHO which looks very much like a diamond raise?