[dickiegera]

Playing at local game my partner opened 1C and RHO overcalls 2C , not alerted.
2C by their agreement showed an 18 Pt or more takeout double.
We missed a Spade contract playing in 4C doubled -800.

In ACBL land is this alertable?

Thank you

[TylerE]

No. Cuebids are generally not alertable in the ACBL. In fact, the only time the "cuebid" is alerted is if it isn't one, and is instead an offer to play in the suit.

[campboy]

Well, the alert procedure says:

Quote

Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert.

and also:

Quote

"Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

Since once upon a time this was quite a standard treatment (as is my understanding), it should not be alerted.

The alert procedure also gives some examples; if the cuebid had shown a two-suiter it would not be alertable no matter which two suits they are (unless one fo them is clubs); if it was natural then it would be alertable. However, it is not as simple as "cue-bids are only alertable if natural"; in the auction 1♠ 2♥ pass 2♠, the cue-bid is alertable if it is a transfer to clubs.

[peachy]

The alert chart is clear on this. If the direct cuebid of 2C is "natural, clubs" it requires an alert. Any other meaning is not alerted unless the meaning is very unusual or unexpected. I think this falls under "very unusual" in these days.

[blackshoe]

The chart does not govern, the regulation does. That said, since the chart refers to "highly unusual" meanings, it is in agreement with the regulation.

I doubt that the bit about "historical usage" is intended to refer to usages from the early days of bridge that haven't been seen at the table in the last 50 years.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Jun 24 2010, 03:06 PM, said:

The chart does not govern, the regulation does. That said, since the chart refers to "highly unusual" meanings, it is in agreement with the regulation.

I doubt that the bit about "historical usage" is intended to refer to usages from the early days of bridge that haven't been seen at the table in the last 50 years.

Now we are down to nitty gritty, but the chart actually does not say anything about unusual. I was making two references, what the chart says [Alert if played as "natural" in direct seat} and what the text of the regulation says [Alert if very unusual or unexpected]. In the end, agree with what you say.

[blackshoe]

Ah, well, then the chart makes an error of omission. That I have seen similar problems with it in other cases is why I made the comment I did. Basically, if the chart and the regulation disagree, the chart loses.

[vang]

why didn't you ask what is 2c before bidding?

[dickiegera]

I held a 6-3-4-Void with 1 pt.
Had no reason to bid nor to ask?

My partner and I play top & bottom cue bids and in that auction
1C-2C 2C would show Spades & Diamonds. We were taught that
this needed to be alerted and have always done so.

The 2C bidder's partner should alert and we should not have to ask.
This is and was my understanding.
Trying to verify.
Thank you

[RMB1]

I am surprised (1C)-2C = strong, takeout is alertable. You seem to be suggesting that only 2C = majors is not alertable, I can't believe that is right.

[aguahombre]

In ACBL, this is a recurring problem. The theme here is the same in other situations ---like a "negative double" which isn't one.

I would bet that at least half the players for whom 2C/1C is natural would have no clue that it is alertable; nor would a pair who use it as a very strong takeout know that it is highly unusual.

Once a pair becomes educated about the alert chart, they probably also become exposed to what cue's are commonly used for and what negative doubles are --and will switch. And again, (but, now properly) they will not be alerting the calls.

[blackshoe]

Top and Bottom Cue Bids do not require an alert in ACBL. If the cue is strong takeout, it does require an alert.

[RMB1]

So (1C)-2C = some two-suiters is not an alert: are there other non-alertable agreements?

[LH2650]

It is not alertable. As usual, go into ACBLscore and look at the Tech Files.

ALERTS.063 (PAGE 7)
___________________
4) CUEBIDS
Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a
very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert.
...
CUEBID COMPILATION
This collection of direct cuebids and alert requirements was compiled
by Rick Beye and Mike Flader in summer 2005.

...
1C - 2C = takeout, Alert only if for clubs

[peachy]

RMB1, on Jun 25 2010, 11:18 AM, said:

So (1C)-2C = some two-suiters is not an alert: are there other non-alertable agreements?

By the regulation, the ONLY alertable meaning for a DIRECT cuebid is "natural". No other meaning is alertable, incl. top-bottom, Michaels, etc two-suiters, unless the meaning is very unusual or unexpected (then alertable).

http://www.acbl.org/...alertchart.html
The tech Files are helpful interpretations. The regulation trumps the tech files in case at some point they are not identical.

[blackshoe]

Not that I'm aware.

[LH2650]

peachy, on Jun 25 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

By the regulation, the ONLY alertable meaning for a DIRECT cuebid is "natural".  No other meaning is alertable, incl. top-bottom, Michaels, etc two-suiters, unless the meaning is very unusual or unexpected (then alertable).

This statement is self-contradictory.

I can't prove that the Alert Chart, the Alert Procedures, or the Tech Files are "official". Perhaps someone can do better. However, a TD who wanted future assignments and promotions would probably think it well-advised to rule in the manner directed by Rick Beye and Mike Flader.

Just as an example, let me invent my own convention. My 1C - 2C cuebid will show a strong notrump. It is non-forcing and not defined as "takeout". I don't think that I will get an argument that my treatment "conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning", and it is not exempted by the writeup in the Tech Files. Therefore I think it is alertable.

[peachy]

LH2650, on Jun 25 2010, 08:24 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 25 2010, 12:55 PM, said:

By the regulation, the ONLY alertable meaning for a DIRECT cuebid is "natural".  No other meaning is alertable, incl. top-bottom, Michaels, etc two-suiters, unless the meaning is very unusual or unexpected (then alertable).

This statement is self-contradictory.

I can't prove that the Alert Chart, the Alert Procedures, or the Tech Files are "official". Perhaps someone can do better. However, a TD who wanted future assignments and promotions would probably think it well-advised to rule in the manner directed by Rick Beye and Mike Flader.

Just as an example, let me invent my own convention. My 1C - 2C cuebid will show a strong notrump. It is non-forcing and not defined as "takeout". I don't think that I will get an argument that my treatment "conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning", and it is not exempted by the writeup in the Tech Files. Therefore I think it is alertable.

I can't prove anything at all and not here to prove anything. You are correct to consult the source that is authorized to give a definitive answer. But people are only human, any advice should not be in conflict with the actual regulation, IMO.

The regulation is found here:
http://www.acbl.org/...procedures.html
Also see links at this page to the:
- Alert Chart
- Alert Definitions

[mycroft]

One thing that is a guide - not a guarantee, but a guide - to what is Alertable is the convention card itself. Strong T/O is not red - so likely not Alertable.

But in this case, we actually have something semi-official:Part 15 of "Filling out the Convention Card", from the Bulletin. It says, in part:

Quote

Strong T/O (Takeout)
In the early days of contract bridge, a direct cuebid was used to show a very powerful hand, something resembling a strong two-bid. Some players still prefer to use the direct cuebid to show a strong one-, two- or three-suiter. If you play this way, check the appropriate box. No Alert is required.
Note that this treatment is also rarely encountered in club and tournament play.

Emphasis added. So, no argument on whether it is Alertable - it isn't. Whether it should be, on the other hand...