[mycroft]

A reminder (not for the OP, but for anyone that plays ACBL games) - if your 1♣ opening could include any hand with 2 or fewer clubs that *isn't* exactly 4=4=3=2, you are playing a non-Natural opener (whether Quasi-Natural or Artificial depends). That means you must pre-Alert your system, every round, same as the Precision/Polish Club players and the Natural, but Forcing players and the Romex 1NT players, and...

It is critical you do so, because your opponents are allowed to play more aggressive defences against it (and it's becoming more common). And in fact, at least arguably, if you do not do so, and announce 1♣ "could be 2", they are entitled to assume "...if 4=4=3=2" and if they're damaged by playing for that when it's wrong, they are to be protected. Yes, even failure to make this "technical-only, not actually relevant to Real Bridge Play" Alert.

And given the issue I have had (when I have played different systems after a non-Natural 1m opener) finding out this information, this is a good thing.

(and yes, I do find it odd that I need not Pre-Alert either my "K/S, Keri/NT and NT O/C for T/O" or my EHAA systems. And so, at least when playing new to me players, I do. But I don't have to. In the case of EHAA, provided we "modernise" just a little bit and take the 12-counts out of our 2 bids, we don't even have to Alert anything (except 2C NAT PRE and 1NT 10-12).)

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2021-January-29, 12:08, said:

And in fact, at least arguably, if you do not do so, and announce 1♣ "could be 2", they are entitled to assume "...if 4=4=3=2" and if they're damaged by playing for that when it's wrong, they are to be protected.

Hang on a minute. The relevant part of the alert regulation says to announce "The minimum length of any Non-Forcing minor suit Opening that could be fewer than 3 cards. Use the form, “Could be X” where X is the minimum length of the suit as the announcement." I don't see anything anywhere in the regulation that says, or even implies, that opponents are entitled to assume anything other than that the suit could be (but also might not be) short.

I don't know what directors are actually doing with this situation, as I'm neither playing nor directing lately. I wouldn't be surprised if in fact they are doing what you say, but I don't believe anyone should be reading into the laws and regulations governing the game things that are not there.

[mycroft]

If you snip the relevant part of the reply, it's not surprising that it doesn't make sense.

Of course, you only say "could be 2" at the time. And if you didn't Pre-Alert your system, I am allowed to assume it's the Natural "could be 2" (that is, 4=4=3=2 only), because otherwise you would have Pre-Alerted your system.

In fact I asked about this specifically because I've had this issue in the last Alert regs. That was the response, it's deliberately set up that way. I used "arguably" in the previous post because it's new, people aren't used to it yet, and they don't know why (so they don't know why they should have to). So for the near future, people that assume this don't get automatically protected if they didn't ask. But eventually, it will either be "just something that happens" (at which point, if there's no Pre-Alert and the opponents are damaged, a ruling in their favour will mean that it will happen from then on), or a "why do we have to Announce 15-17?" fight for 20 years (at which point, if there's no Pre-Alert and the opponents are damaged, there need not be sympathy when giving a ruling in their favour).

[morecharac]

mycroft, on 2021-January-30, 10:03, said:

"[...] or a "why do we have to Announce 15-17?" fight for 20 years [...]

I think this requirement should appear at the start of the ACBL Bridge Bulletin letter column every six months. There's an entire club in this province where nobody announces because the director tells them it's not required anymore.

It was soooo much fun correcting any of our players who visited there; sometimes it took months to find out they'd believed him.

[mycroft]

Warning: this is not official guidance. It isn't what should be done, either. Especially deliberately.

There is a great defence to unAnnounced 15-17 NTs. It works just as well as it did in 2000 when the Announcement rule was "if your NT range is not completely in 15-18, Announce range" (where the argument was "it makes a difference if it's 15-17, 16-18, or 15-18". Now it's "I need to know if they just forgot to Announce, or if it is 15-17"), and only slightly less well than it did between 1995 and 2000, when the rule was "If not in 15-18, Alert". The best part of the defence is that it works even if you don't know you're playing it - in fact it likely works better!

When they finally figure it out and complain to the TD, if the TD's response is "well, if you'd announced like you were supposed to, they wouldn't have been able to ask, no? So your infraction is what caused the issue, not the UI or use thereof. Next hand, please, and remember to Announce your NT range", I wonder what would happen?