[blackshoe]

That "nobody" follows the rules doesn't mean the rules aren't there. The Alert Procedure is pretty clear on this: a 2NT response to a weak two bid does not require an alert if it asks for further information from opener. It does require an alert if it's natural and non-forcing. There is no specific rule regarding opener's rebids after a 2NT inquiry, so if such bids are conventional, and they do not fall under the exceptions in Part II of the Alert Procedure, they require an alert. The responses to a 2NT "feature ask" are all conventional (including 3M, because it denies an outside feature), therefore they all require an alert. Same for the responses to a 2NT "Ogust ask". In fact, I can't think of a response structure of which I'm aware which has any bids which don't require an alert.

[barmar]

There are de jure rules and de facto rules.

ACBL's alerting regulations are extremely poorly specified. Some things that aren't specified have become widely known by tradition and word of mouth.

I estimate 99% of players learn what to alert simply by following what everyone else does, they've never read the alerting regulations, so these traditions become entrenched, and that's how de facto rules are established. Eventually the ACBL may see fit to record them in the regulations, but I think they mostly view it as "if it ain't broke, there's no need to fix it".

[blackshoe]

If the director never gets involved, "de facto rules" are fine. If he does get involved, he is required to rule according to the regulation, not according to what "everybody does". That said, there's a good chance in the ACBL, particularly in clubs, that he won't. That's not "the rules are what everybody thinks they are", that's director incompetence.

The other day, I asked somebody involved with an upcoming Unit-level event (a Swiss Teams, but given by a local organization within the unit - he's on the board of the local organization) what conditions of contest apply, what regulations will be in force, and so on. His rather quizzical response was "it's just a normal Swiss Teams".

[jillybean]

There's another twist to this, the 2N feature ask isn't exactly a feature ask.

"I play that a weak 2 is 5-10 HCP and that 2NT asks if I'm min or max - if I'm min I rebid my suit whether I have an outside feature or not. If I'm max I bid another suit to show where my values are. From my perspective this doesnt convey "a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named".

Still alertable?

[aguahombre]

Yes, it conveys information such as "either no feature, or a feature but a bad 2M opening." My opinion about this agreement is probably best kept to myself; but, those who don't concern themselves with suit quality appropriate to the colors should probably not use "feature" as their toy.

We decided to use disciplined weak 2's with feature, except at favorable ---where we shift to our own variation of responses to 2NT...starting with "I was making a joke when I opened 2M", to "textbook", to "on-line typical with everything but my suit", up to "good suit and an outside prime"

[Vampyr]

kevperk, on 2012-February-18, 21:57, said:

In the ACBL, a 2NT response to a weak two bid is not alertable unless it is natural.

I would not have believed this had I not looked it up and read it after reading the OP and seen it with my own two eyes.

The problem with this approach is that there should really be just one non-alertable/announceable meaning for a bid. (In the EBU there are zero such for a 2♣ opening bid). I know that the ACBL do not agree with this, as evidenced by their regulations concerning doubles.

If I were an ACBL player, I would feel really aggrieved the first time I was damaged because a 2NT response to a weak 2 was something other than an enquiry. Actually, it is probably right to play it as showing spades after a 2♥ opening, since using 2♠ as an enquiry leaves more room. Obviously not applicable to those who play 2♠ as non-forcing.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-19, 14:28, said:

I would not have believed this had I not looked it up and read it after reading the OP and seen it with my own two eyes.

The problem with this approach is that there should really be just one non-alertable/announceable meaning for a bid. (In the EBU there are zero such for a 2♣ opening bid). I know that the ACBL do not agree with this, as evidenced by their regulations concerning doubles.

If I were an ACBL player, I would feel really aggrieved the first time I was damaged because a 2NT response to a weak 2 was something other than an enquiry. Actually, it is probably right to play it as showing spades after a 2♥ opening, since using 2♠ as an enquiry leaves more room. Obviously not applicable to those who play 2♠ as non-forcing.

What the Alert Procedure actually says is that a 2NT response to a weak two is "not alertable if it asks for further clarification". So your 2NT showing spades, or 2NT "something other than an inquiry", would require an alert. Yes, I know, the Alert Chart says "Conventional 2NT responses to natural two level opening bids" do not require an alert. The Chart is wrong.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2012-February-19, 14:07, said:

There's another twist to this, the 2N feature ask isn't exactly a feature ask.

"I play that a weak 2 is 5-10 HCP and that 2NT asks if I'm min or max - if I'm min I rebid my suit whether I have an outside feature or not. If I'm max I bid another suit to show where my values are. From my perspective this doesnt convey "a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named".

Still alertable?

As I understand it, that's the normal way that "feature ask" is played in ACBL territory, so it's the treatment that is rarely alerted.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2012-February-19, 23:48, said:

As I understand it, that's the normal way that "feature ask" is played in ACBL territory, so it's the treatment that is rarely alerted.

Interesting, I have never heard anyone explain a 3M rebid as a weak preempt OR no feature, but only as no feature.

[barmar]

From the ACBL Teacher's Manual, in the chapter on weak 2 bids:

Quote

A 2NT response to a weak two-bid is artificial and forcing. It asks for a
further description of opener’s hand:
• With a minimum hand of 5 to 8 points, opener rebids the suit at the three
level.
• With a maximum hand of 9 to 11 points, opener rebids a new suit to show
a feature — such as an ace or a king — or rebids 3NT with no outside
feature.

That said, they also generally recommend sound weak 2 bids (at least 3 of the top 5 honors in the suit). So if you have a minimum hand, you generally won't have an outside feature, since then your suit would have to be very poor. They give an example of 10x xx QJ10xxx Kxx as a borderline 2♦ hand, only the fact that you have the ♦10 making it good enough.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-February-20, 00:22, said:

From the ACBL Teacher's Manual, in the chapter on weak 2 bids:


That said, they also generally recommend sound weak 2 bids (at least 3 of the top 5 honors in the suit).

Or three of the bottom five honors in the suit.

[jillybean]

I'm not sure what the ACBL teachers book has to do with this? I've never read it and I suspect my partners haven't either or they have and ignored the advice.
The player invloved here says "if I'm min I rebid my suit whether I have an outside feature or not" so I guess she hasn't read it either.

The only certainty with these "standard" conventions is that there will be many ways to play it, isn't this why we have full disclosure?

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2012-February-20, 00:37, said:

I'm not sure what the ACBL teachers book has to do with this?

The conventions we teach to beginners are assumed to be very standard.

[aguahombre]

It should be "very standard" for teachers to know and explain that some of the conventions they teach are alertable or announceable, and that the general guide to alerting is whether there is an artificial or additional message conveyed in the bid.

[bluejak]

jillybean, on 2012-February-17, 20:05, said:

2♥ (weak) 2N (feature)
3♥

2N is not alertable, is 3♥ alertable and if 'yes' is it because it falls under convention bids?

It depends what it means. If it is artificial it is alertable, if not, then not.

jillybean, on 2012-February-17, 20:05, said:

And the oops. Playing with new partner todeay, LHO openers 1N, partner doubles. I tap the alert card and say "alert - but I don't know what it means". I find it normal to keep quiet when I know the meaning of a bid, not quite so easy when I don't know what it is.

Tut tut.

aguahombre, on 2012-February-18, 10:34, said:

It is not alertable because (aside from the fact that ACBL says so), it is part of the concept that the Alert can only help the side using it to remember their agreements. Explaining what partner is going to do is not a good thing.

That's a fairly silly approach. Alerts are for opponents' sake. Misinforming opponents to stop cheats who will just cheat in other ways seems pretty pointless.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-February-21, 09:39, said:

That's a fairly silly approach. Alerts are for opponents' sake. Misinforming opponents to stop cheats who will just cheat in other ways seems pretty pointless.

Cheating was not the issue. Unneccesarily disclosing what is going to happen, rather than what has happened is the issue.

We are talking about during the auction, not about pre-alerts which disclose what might happen without reference to a hand in progress.

If 2NT is asked about, anyway -- though not alertable, the answer should be, "Asking for further description". The answer should not be "Feature", or whatever the continuation is going to show.

[LH2650]

jillybean, on 2012-February-18, 21:50, said:

This reasoning is along the lines of the discussion I am having. They are saying 3M is not alertable here because " I think because 3 hearts is a natural bid, it is not alertable. A rebid of a suit is usually the weakest bid a player can make. Which is what it means in this case." I think the fact that it denies an outside control makes it alertable.

In the standard ACBL approach (see Commonly Used Conventions on their website), the 3♥ rebid shows only a minimum weak two bid, and does not deny an outside feature. As an aside, a response to 2N that shows a feature also seems to qualify as a treatment, and therefore is not alertable. See the definition of "treatment" on the Alert Chart.

[kevperk]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-18, 22:08, said:

You made that up just to annoy us? Conventional responses to the 2NT asking bid are alertable.

Bidding a feature in this instance is similar to bidding stoppers, or controls. In the ACBL, these are not alertable.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-February-19, 15:36, said:

The Chart is wrong.

Where can the full regulations be found?

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-21, 10:19, said:

Cheating was not the issue. Unneccesarily disclosing what is going to happen, rather than what has happened is the issue.

We are talking about during the auction, not about pre-alerts which disclose what might happen without reference to a hand in progress.

If 2NT is asked about, anyway -- though not alertable, the answer should be, "Asking for further description". The answer should not be "Feature", or whatever the continuation is going to show.

That's MI. Keeping secrets from opponents deliberately is cheating. This is a Full disclosure game. If you play RKCB, for example, and are asked what you play, answering "Blackwood" is deliberate misinformation, and answering "asking for aces" is prevarication with intent to deceive.

If you are asked what 2NT is in response to a weak two you should say whether it is Ogust or a feature ask or whatever.