[cencio]

---

Is it better a 2♣ open?
Is it 4♦alerted a visual of slam?

[mw64ahw]

you need to ask the alerter

[bluenikki]

Useful meaning is this hand. Confirming hearts, game value, long strong diamonds.

[pescetom]

--

[pescetom]

 bluenikki, on 2026-October-09, 06:16, said:

Useful meaning is this hand. Confirming hearts, game value, long strong diamonds.

Wouldn't it be more useful to bid 3♠ confirming hearts, singleton/void in spades, slam interest, do you have clubs control?

[pescetom]

 cencio, on 2026-October-09, 04:01, said:

---

Is 4♦alerted a visual of slam?

In most countries it should not be alerted face to face without screens whatever the meaning, as it is neither in first round nor below four level.
On BBO I would alert any meaning, it's a fairly unusual bid.
As to what it means, who knows, although probably fit and long strong diamonds.

cencio, on 2026-October-09, 04:01, said:

Is it better a 2♣ open?

No, it's a tricky hand to bid after 2♣ and you have little risk of being passed out after a natural 1♦.

[mw64ahw]

Not sure why its alerted as its the 2nd round of bidding above 3N

[mike777]

-

[mike777]

Had no idea this would be alertable

Seems normal for ever. Decades
Standard bridge .

I would like a bit better diamonds

[mycroft]

I would (delayed, FtF) Alert this probably anywhere, as it is "natural, but" because by agreement it is a fit bid (in the ACBL, it is clear. "Natural, Alert, Always: 1. A Natural bid which also shows Length or values in another suit.") And it might be "just bridge", but we can clearly see just from this thread that this idea, which has been around for decades (I believe from Roth's "Picture Bidding"), that it is clearly not "knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players" (40B5a, what used to be "general bridge knowledge", but that phrase was so abused as to require a rewriting in 2017).

And here I think the "suit of quality and trick-taking ability" is likely to be more important for partner to visualize 12 tricks than "zero or one losers in Spades" (like Mike, would like "a bit better" diamonds. But a singleton honour, or small doubleton, should guarantee 5 diamond tricks with a chance at 6. For slam, partner's hand is likely to be "I can see only one quick loser, but I have no idea if we have enough winners" - and 4♦ answers that question for her (and the fact that her "one loser" is actually zero will probably come out via ace-ask, so if 13 is on...)

And I can't think of a worse hand to "upgrade" into 2♣. Two-suiters are hard, hands with primary diamonds are hard, handling potential spade interference is hard, the best-scoring game - if game is all - will have to be bid "to show the suit" rather than "to limit hand" so partner will have an unenviable guess; Kit in "Matchpoints" talks about the Second Flaw when discussing making an imperfect call. Here, "where you see one man, I see 4." ("C4?" <Boom>)

[pescetom]

You owe us the North hand

[apollo1201]

 bluenikki, on 2026-October-09, 06:16, said:

Useful meaning is this hand. Confirming hearts, game value, long strong diamonds.

Usually a bit weaker. If partner bids 4H we will not be so pleased and want to continue. The hand is also too strong for a splinter I would say.

Not alerted where I play as it is very standard and most people would know it. I would facing more novice opps who might not know the bid to attract their attention to the fact that they will not know it shows a fit.

[pescetom]

apollo1201, on 2026-October-09, 10:43, said:

Usually a bit weaker. If partner bids 4H we will not be so pleased and want to continue. The hand is also too strong for a splinter I would say.

My thought too, as partner I would not expect ♥AK and a black suit which could have splintered more economically.

apollo1201, on 2026-October-09, 10:43, said:

Not alerted where I play as it is very standard and most people would know it. I would facing more novice opps who might not know the bid to attract their attention to the fact that they will not know it shows a fit.

As I and others already pointed out, it should not be alerted f2f without screens in most RAs simply because it is at level 4 and outside the first round of bidding.
Behind screens or on BBO I would feel obliged to alert any meaning to any level of opponents, it costs me nothing and the bid is infrequent and unlikely to be truly natural.

[mycroft]

I'm sorry, pescetom, but I will reiterate, mostly because players hear what they want to hear; "should not be alerted F2F" is ONLY true (at least in the ACBL(1)) if you continue "at the time of the bid. However, it remains Alertable, and Must Be Alerted (/explained, if you're declaring) during the Clarification Period."

7 years, and I'm still being told X is "not Alertable", where X is, frankly, anything to do with slam auctions the declarers don't feel like mentioning. Especially good are the ones who complain when defenders ask, either before leading or after partner leads, because "that passes information to your partner".(2)

It is an unexpressable joy in my life when I get called to the table after one of those discussions: "Well, if you had explained your Delayed Alerts as required by regulation without being asked, they wouldn't have been able to pass any information, would they?"

Which is almost invariably responded to by "but it's not Alertable." Because statements like yours aren't qualified properly, or apply to other RAs, or whatever - and as I said, "players hear (only) what they want to hear".

Sorry.

(1) other RAs have other ideas, but at least when declaring, most encourage, or at least not prohibit, disclosure before the opening lead.
(2) I do have two people who Just Can't Stop themselves from "I'm going to pass, but what does..." When partner is on lead. And when called on it, do Everything In Their Power to get that question answered (or at least raised in their partner's brain) during the director call and before the opening lead. In both cases, I think they have a fundamental confusion that their right to ask goes away after the auction does (despite the fact that I have explained the correct and legal pattern at least twice, to both; as have others). In both cases, it's really hard, despite my knowledge of them as players, to get rid of the thought that they really do intend to guide their partner. But The Rest of the Club just not understanding "Delayed Alerts" == "explain your looking-for-slam auctions" doesn't help.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2026-October-10, 13:09, said:

I'm sorry, pescetom, but I will reiterate, mostly because players hear what they want to hear; "should not be alerted F2F" is ONLY true (at least in the ACBL(1)) if you continue "at the time of the bid. However, it remains Alertable, and Must Be Alerted (/explained, if you're declaring) during the Clarification Period."
...

(1) other RAs have other ideas, but at least when declaring, most encourage, or at least not prohibit, disclosure before the opening lead.

well I did say "most RAs", which I think is both exact and correctly qualified, although I acknowledge that ACBL is significant when in minority (and applaud its choice to require alert during the Clarification Period).

mycroft, on 2026-October-10, 13:09, said:

(2) I do have two people who Just Can't Stop themselves from "I'm going to pass, but what does..." When partner is on lead. And when called on it, do Everything In Their Power to get that question answered (or at least raised in their partner's brain) during the director call and before the opening lead. In both cases, I think they have a fundamental confusion that their right to ask goes away after the auction does (despite the fact that I have explained the correct and legal pattern at least twice, to both; as have others). In both cases, it's really hard, despite my knowledge of them as players, to get rid of the thought that they really do intend to guide their partner.

Yeah. These are the same people who have understood that they can only ask at their turn of play and so feel obliged to do so in case partner does not.

[jillybean]

The clarification period is a well kept secret.