[jillybean]

Dealer: South Vul: EW Scoring: IMP

♠ A763 ♥ QT32 ♦ 63 ♣ KQ7

West North East South

 -     -     -     Pass
pass    1♠    Pass  2♣
 Pass  2♥    Pass  3♠
 Pass  4♠    Pass  Pass
 Pass  


The 2♣ bid here by South is common to allow 2nd bid to show strong support for openers major. By definition (sayc) it promises 5♣ so this use is both conventional and a partnership agreement.

I can’t ever remember seeing this bid alerted as ‘could be short’.

Playing against people using various systems, should it be pre-alerted ?

tyia

[inquiry]

Drury 100% alert required

[luke warm]

absolutely... alert as drury, which says nothing at all about clubs

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, the decision whether to alert 2♣ depends on meaning.

1. Many players use a 3rd/4th seat 2♣ advance over a 1M opening as a conventional bid showing a limit raise in support of opener's major. If 2♣ is "Drury" it is most certainly alertable.

2. Playing SAYC or some such, responder is occasionally forced to make a 2/1 response on a 3 card suit. Typically, this happens when parter has a limit raise+ and wants to show a feature. On occasion this happens when responder has a NT oriented hand with invitational strength. This treatment is not alertable.

On this hand, I can easily see responder advancing 2♣ opposite a first or second seat 1♠ opening.

In short, the decision regarding whether or not to alert depends on definied meaning. I don't think that you can assume that this is necessarily Drury.

[the hog]

Agree with Hrothgar. Why do you think this is necessarily Drury? If it is, then "yes" it requires an alert, if it isn't then "no" it doesn't require an alert.

[jillybean]

hrothgar, on Jul 14 2005, 05:47 PM, said:

1.  Many players use a 3rd/4th seat 2♣ advance over a 1M opening as a conventional bid showing a limit raise in support of opener's major.  If 2♣ is "Drury"  it is most certainly alertable.

2. Playing SAYC or some such, responder is occasionally forced to make a 2/1 response on a 3 card suit.  Typically, this happens when parter has a limit raise+ and wants to show a feature.  On occasion this happens when responder has a NT oriented hand with invitational strength.  This treatment is not alertable.

On this hand, I can easily see responder advancing 2♣ opposite a first or second seat 1♠ opening.

In short, the decision regarding whether or not to alert depends on definied meaning.  I don't think that you can assume that this is necessarily Drury.

I wasn't thinking of this as drury - why isn't it alerted in 2?

[the hog]

Because it is natural Katherine.

[FrancesHinden]

As an example, in England the specific case of responding 2C to 1S with good spade support, three clubs, and neither 5 hearts nor 4 diamonds, is defined as not alertable.

There isn't a great deal of logic behind this, but the idea is that once you

- aren't playing any sort of forcing raise
- play that a 2H response to 1S promises a 5-card suit

then there must be hands like this on which you have to bid a 3-card suit

If you get to the point where you play some sort of system over 2C where opener "asks" for hand type, then it becomes alertable I think because opener will stop treating it as a natural call.

[helene_t]

By an unpassed hand, this is almost certainly a natural bid so there is not need to alert it.

With a passed hand, it might still be natural but looks more like Drury. So it's alertable.

[coyot]

Drury must be alerted as it says nothing about clubs.

If the 2♣ bid by partnership agreement neither promises nor denies spade support (and only denies 5♥) and is systematically bid on 4+♣, there is no reason to alert.

If it promises spade support or conveys any other special meaning, it should be alerted.

[hotShot]

Many bidding systems have precise point ranges for raises.
If your hand does not fit one of these you need to find a "waiting bid".
Bidding a 3 card minor is as natural as a 1♣/1♦ opening and there is no need to alert this.
So if 2♥ would show a 5 card suit, 3♣ is a perfectly normal bid.
No need to alert if it does not contain any other agreement.

Think about the "delayed game rise" which is invitational to slam, or all those times you need to find a bid over a forcing NT in a 2over1 system.

[jillybean]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 15 2005, 12:48 AM, said:

As an example, in England the specific case of responding 2C to 1S with good spade support, three clubs, and neither 5 hearts nor 4 diamonds, is defined as not alertable.

There isn't a great deal of logic behind this, but the idea is that once you

- aren't playing any sort of forcing raise
- play that a 2H response to 1S promises a 5-card suit

then there must be hands like this on which you have to bid a 3-card suit

If you get to the point where you play some sort of system over 2C where opener "asks" for hand type, then it becomes alertable I think because opener will stop treating it as a natural call.

Thanks, this is exactly the hand type I was trying to explain

I am still not completely clear ....

When playing on BBO against players using different systems could the opps be disadvantaged by not knowing this may be a 3 card suit, delayed support for ♠?

[hrothgar]

jillybean2, on Jul 15 2005, 06:31 PM, said:

When playing on BBO against players using different systems could the opps be disadvantaged by not knowing this may be a 3 card suit, delayed support for ♠?

I think that you're asking the wrong question: Yes, it is possible that someone could be disadvantaged if they didn't know about this treatment.

However, players are expected to be familiar with relatively "standard" treatments.
Bridge is a game of skill. If you are unskilled, you're occasionally going to get some bad boards.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Jul 15 2005, 12:06 PM, said:

If you are unskilled, you're occasionally going to get some bad boards.

Really? I would think if you were unskilled you were going to VERY OFTEN get some bad scores.

[luis]

Agree with Richard and The_Hog.
If this was Drury it's alertable.
If it is just a natural SAYC 2♣ then it is not, if both 2♦ and 2♥ show 5 cards it's common to use clubs as a "wildcard" suit so there's nothing to alert since you may or may not have clubs and that is accepted as very standard.

[jillybean]

Perhaps "experts" are expected to be familiar with standard treatments but unrealistic to expect everyone to be, is that disadvantage acceptable?

SAYC is not everyones standard.

[hrothgar]

It is rare that I hold out the ACBL as an exemplar, however, on occasion they do get things right. Back in the day when I chose to attend ACBL events, the regulatory structure included a provision that players were expected to be familiar with a wide variety of methods used in the playing environment. Note that the burden was placed on PLAYERS, not EXPERTS.

While I agree that "SAYC" is not everyone's standard, it probably the most common system in use on BBO. If it is not the most comment, than it is certainly on of the 2-3 top systems in use.

I think that it is perfectly reasonable to expect players to know the basics... On occasion, a player might get a bad board. With luk, they will treat it as a learning experience.

[jillybean]

If this type of bid does not need pre-alerting, what information should be given if the bid is queried?
On this particular auction the information given was ‘cue’.

The ACBL code of ethics state that all information available to the partnership should be made available to the opponents.
“Principle of Full Disclosure
The philosophy of active ethics tells us that winners should be determined solely by skill, flair and normal playing luck. Actively ethical partnerships take pains to ensure that their opponents are fully informed. “

http://www.acbl.org/...tiveEthics.html

Is Full Disclosure solely an ACBL initiative or is the rest of the bridge world adopting this approach?

edit...oh never mind I see there is a debate going on about this in another thread !

[luke warm]

just my opinion, but full disclosure is absolutely necessary at any level