[FrancesHinden]

hrothgar, on Sep 7 2007, 06:12 PM, said:

I'm guessing that there is a typo (lord knows I make enough of them)

Yes, there is a typo. Sorry.

[sceptic]

Quote

It is not about the points when you have such a good fit. It is mostly about controls, and the easiest way to count them is losers.

I based my statment on that hand, I just thought it was showing bidding for the hand in question

[cherdano]

Back to the original question, 2N is a bad bid. Just look at the auction that actually happened, responder bid 3C checkback, and opener rebid 4S to show his 4th spade. Now he had used the same space as a direct 4S bid, but had described his hand far worse (it is not balanced after all, and for slam that will matter).

Bid_em_up, if you would never jump to 6N over 2N, always go through checkback, then that is just another sign how you are treating the 2N rebid in a non-standard way. Let me add my vote that if 2N can systemically include 4 spades, alerting would be appropriate.

[han]

cherdano, on Sep 7 2007, 03:04 PM, said:

Let me add my vote that if 2N can systemically include 4 spades, alerting would be appropriate.

So???

That does not mean anything! What if everybody told Columbus that calling the earth round was alertable, what do you think the world would look like today, huh?

I'm with Bid_em_up on this. If he thinks 2NT is not alertable then he shouldn't alert it, even if all the other bridge players in the world plus all the written rule books say it is alertable. If it wasn't for people like him the world would still be flat!

[ralph23]

Hannie, on Sep 7 2007, 06:42 PM, said:

cherdano, on Sep 7 2007, 03:04 PM, said:

Let me add my vote that if 2N can systemically include 4 spades, alerting would be appropriate.

So???

That does not mean anything! What if everybody told Columbus that calling the earth round was alertable, what do you think the world would look like today, huh?

I'm with Bid_em_up on this. If he thinks 2NT is not alertable then he shouldn't alert it, even if all the other bridge players in the world plus all the written rule books say it is alertable. If it wasn't for people like him the world would still be flat!

Uh .... are you trying to say that it's NOT flat ????

[han]

You must be one of those flat alearthers!


(Did I really write that? That was horrible!)

[ralph23]

Hannie, on Sep 7 2007, 06:56 PM, said:

You must be one of those flat alearthers!


(Did I really write that? That was horrible!)

omg, han, that was theeeeeeee WORST !!!!!

[bid_em_up]

Without attempting to relight the fire under this issue, because enough people chose to insist that the 2N rebid is alertable due to the fact that it could contain a four card support, I did in fact email "rulings at acbl.org" asking the question if it is alertable or not. I also stated that the bid is rarely passed (it can be, it just isn't going to happen very often) and explained under what conditions it could be passed. The fact that it is rarely passed, does not change the limiting nature of the 2N rebid. It limits the hand specifically to 18-19 hcp, and balanced. I also asked if the fact that the bid is rarely passed makes it alertable.

The answer from Rick Beye (or one of his subordinates) is that NO ALERT is required in either case.

I will be happy to forward the email to anyone who wishes to see it.

Text of email and the repsonses imbedded follows:

Hi,

Due to a discussion on a BridgeBase Online forum thread, I am writing to find out if a couple of "treatments" that one of my partnerships uses are alertable or not.

The first one is a jump to 2N by opener in the sequence 1m-(p)-1M-(p)-2N (1 minor-pass-1major-pass-2N). We play the 2N rebid as 18-19 balanced (normally 4333, 4432, or 2335), and it may contain 4 card support for responders major suit (it also may not, could be 2 card, or 3 cards or it could also contain two four card majors). There are those on the forum boards who are claiming that because the 2N rebidder might have 4 card support, this makes the bid "non-standard" and alertable, because they think 4 card support for the major is unexpected.

No alert.


A second issue they have with the bid is that although the 2N rebid is not "forcing" in the pure sense of the word as NMF or 4SF would be (the bid specifically limits openers hand to a balanced 18-19 hcp hand), but due to other definitions and agreements (a flat balanced 6 count will pass the 2N rebid, we don't respond to 1m on balanced hands containing less than 6 hcp, if we respond on less than 6 hcp it will be a hand with a 6+ card suit that can escape into 3 of a major), the fact of the matter is that the 2N rebid is rarely passed. It is passable, but in reality, it rarely occurs. The fact that it is rarely passed has no bearing on the limiting aspect of the 2N rebid.

While bidding lessons are beyond the scope of this mailbox, we don't see a question in the above paragraph. (Edit: there was no question, that paragraph was for background purposes only.)


There are several people claiming because the bid is rarely passed, it is considered forcing and that it should be alerted because of this as well.

If this is the question, several people are wrong. This is standard bidding, no alert would be due.

My position is that:

1) The bid is natural,
2) It shows the approximate shape expected (the hand is STILL balanced, it just might have 4 card support for responders major),
3) The bid, by its very nature, is a limiting bid (18-19 hcp) therefore it is not "forcing" in the purest sense of the word. The fact it is rarely passed (due to agreements on when we do or do not bid over an opening 1 of a minor call) does not change the limiting aspect of the bid.

so the 2N rebid is not alertable.

You are correct on all counts.

Their position is that:

1) Most players would not have 4 card major suit support, therefore it is an unexpected treatment (they choose to rebid 4M when holding a balanced 18-19 hcp hand with 4 card support for the major),
2) A lot of players are much less disciplined in their responses to one of minor openings than our partnership is, therefore they will pass the 2N rebid more frequently than we do, so the bid is not as "limiting" as they think it should be or we are not passing it frequently enough and so it should be considered forcing.
Please give an appropriate ruling on whether or not this 2N rebid is alertable or not.

They are incorrect on each count.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
End of email text.

Hopefully, that puts the issue to rest on whether or not an alert is required.

To be fair to the posters here, I will admit I did (erroneously) state the bid was "forcing" in my earliest posts. It is NOT forcing in terms of an absolute (like NMF/4SF would be), it is limiting to 18-19 hcp. Responder is not required to take another call, but in fact will the majority of the time. The fact of the matter is that it is rarely passed, not because 2N is forcing, but because there are very few hand types we could actually hold that WOULD pass a 2N rebid. I was mistaken in my wording. It is my sentiment that the bid is "forcing" in the sense that it will rarely be passed (at least in our partnership), but by its very nature, it is a limiting bid.

I do not like or agree with my partners 2N rebid on this particular hand. I also think it is a bad call. I think if it got passed, he would deserve the bad result we would have gotten.

But, according to "rulings at acbl" it still isn't alertable, no matter how much the rest of the forum posters attempt to insist that it is.

And Hannie, next time, try citing a source or rule book that makes the bid alertable, the ACBL Alert chart makes it fairly clear that the bid is not alertable:

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

It wasn't just what I thought. It was my (evidently correct) reading/interpretation of the alert chart itself. Trying to mock me for my interpretation of this is completely immature. The whole point of the Columbus example elsewhere was that just because everyone thinks so & so, doesn't necessarily make something true. I hope you can understand the correlation now.

[hrothgar]

bid_em_up, on Sep 12 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

Without attempting to relight the fire under this issue, because enough people chose to insist that the 2N rebid is alertable due to the fact that it could contain a four card support, I did in fact email "rulings at acbl.org" asking the question if it is alertable or not.  I also stated that the bid is rarely passed (it can be, it just isn't going to happen very often) and explained under what conditions it could be passed.  The fact that it is rarely passed, does not change the limiting nature of the 2N rebid.  It limits the hand specifically to 18-19 hcp, and balanced.  I also asked if the fact that the bid is rarely passed makes it alertable.

Quite honestly, I think that the description of your bid to "Rulings@ACBL.org" is piss poor. Simply put, if you ask a leading question, you'll get the answer that you want to hear.

I'd be much more interested if you asked them about a 2NT rebid that

1. Is absolutely forcing

(What were your earlier comments?

Quote

Let me guess, you believe 2N is passable also, don't you?

Quote

Since I happen to be responder, I know for a fact that we cannot pass 2N after a response to 1C, which makes 2N just fine. It is not going all pass.

Quote

How can it not be considered forcing?

)

2. Shows either a balanced hand or a Spade raise

It's ridiculous to describe a 4 loser 4=2=2=5 hand with the AKQxx in Clubs as a balanced 18 - 20 count.

[Trumpace]

bid_em_up, on Sep 12 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

There are several people claiming because the bid is rarely passed, it is considered forcing and that it should be alerted because of this as well.

If this is the question, several people are wrong. This is standard bidding, no alert would be due.

I think most people said that if the bid is forcing by partnership agreement (which you claimed it was) then it is alertable! What you asked Rick Beye is totally different.

If it can be passed even 0.0000000001% of the time, it is not forcing. No one said that it must be forcing if it is rarely passed.

Instead of looking for the truth it seems like you were looking to just reinforce your beliefs. In a way, you are behaving like a result merchant.

Your comment about "Columbus" prompted me to respond. You are showing signs of what I described in the other thread.. Instead of looking for the truth you try very hard to look for evidence to reinforce your beliefs. The mail you sent (to ACBL) and the responses you got does not prove anything in support of what you said. Like hrothgar said, that mail was "piss poor".

I won't respond to responses to this comment.

[FrancesHinden]

Be fair to the poor guy.

Quote

The first one is a jump to 2N by opener in the sequence 1m-(p)-1M-(p)-2N (1 minor-pass-1major-pass-2N). We play the 2N rebid as 18-19 balanced (normally 4333, 4432, or 2335), and it may contain 4 card support for responders major suit (it also may not, could be 2 card, or 3 cards or it could also contain two four card majors). There are those on the forum boards who are claiming that because the 2N rebidder might have 4 card support, this makes the bid "non-standard" and alertable, because they think 4 card support for the major is unexpected.

No alert.

This is actually fairly clear.

I can't be bothered to go all that way back through the thread, but I think he said he disagreed with the 2NT bid on the actual 4225 anyway.

Quote

Hopefully, that puts the issue to rest on whether or not an alert is required.

....in the ACBL. I stand by my claim that it's alertable in England (about which I imagine you care less than nothing).

[bid_em_up]

hrothgar, on Sep 12 2007, 01:25 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Sep 12 2007, 08:58 PM, said:

Without attempting to relight the fire under this issue, because enough people chose to insist that the 2N rebid is alertable due to the fact that it could contain a four card support, I did in fact email "rulings at acbl.org" asking the question if it is alertable or not.  I also stated that the bid is rarely passed (it can be, it just isn't going to happen very often) and explained under what conditions it could be passed.  The fact that it is rarely passed, does not change the limiting nature of the 2N rebid.  It limits the hand specifically to 18-19 hcp, and balanced.  I also asked if the fact that the bid is rarely passed makes it alertable.

Quite honestly, I think that the description of your bid to "Rulings@ACBL.org" is piss poor. Simply put, if you ask a leading question, you'll get the answer that you want to hear.

I'd be much more interested if you asked them about a 2NT rebid that

1. Is absolutely forcing

(What were your earlier comments?

Quote

Let me guess, you believe 2N is passable also, don't you?

Quote

Since I happen to be responder, I know for a fact that we cannot pass 2N after a response to 1C, which makes 2N just fine. It is not going all pass.

Quote

How can it not be considered forcing?

)

Richard, if anything, my earlier comments were piss-poor in this thread, and I have done my best to both acknowledge that and explain it elsewhere in this thread. "Forcing" was a poor choice of wording on my part. Thats all I can say.
The description sent to the ACBL is an accurate description of how we play the 2N rebid.

It is 18-19 balanced.
It may contain 4 card support for responders major.
That the bid while not 100% forcing, is rarely passed. It can be passed, it just doesn't happen very often.

That is exactly what we play it as.

I, at least, somewhat understood (but didn't agree with) how some people could claim that the bid might contain 4 card support for the major suit (in a balanced definition) could possibly make the bid alertable. This is what prompted me to inquire of the ACBL whether or not that fact made the bid alertable, in order to have a proper ruling on whether it needs one or not. Evidently, it does not.

Quote

2.  Shows either a balanced hand or a Spade raise

It's ridiculous to describe a 4 loser 4=2=2=5 hand with the AKQxx in Clubs as a balanced 18 - 20 count

It is not "or a spade raise". I never would have expected this particular hand and am clueless why my partner chose the 2N rebid with this hand. His correct call in our system is 4C, showing good 4 card support and 5+ good clubs. You'd have to ask him why he chose to rebid 2N instead because I do not know. Note I have said he is supposed to be 4432, 4333 or 5332. I have never said he could be 5-2-2-4 and I had no reason to expect this. This is why I did not include this particular hand in my question to the ACBL, he simply isn't supposed to have this. Since there was no agreement that the hand could contain this particular hand type, there is still no reason to alert it. It was as unexpected to me as it would be the opponents.

[blackshoe]

Actually, whether it's alertable in the ACBL is also irrelevant - unless ACBL alert regulations were established by the SO for the game in which this occurred.

Hint: the Laws give SOs the power to make supplementary regulations, and to "publish or announce" them. If they don't do either of the latter, then there are no regulations in place.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Sep 12 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

Hint: the Laws give SOs the power to make supplementary regulations, and to "publish or announce" them. If they don't do either of the latter, then there are no regulations in place.

Not true. If they don't publish or announce supplementaty regulations, then there are no supplementary regularions in place. Which means you're back to the default regulations.

[blackshoe]

jtfanclub, on Sep 12 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Sep 12 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

Hint: the Laws give SOs the power to make supplementary regulations, and to "publish or announce" them. If they don't do either of the latter, then there are no regulations in place.

Not true. If they don't publish or announce supplementaty regulations, then there are no supplementary regularions in place. Which means you're back to the default regulations.

What "default regulations"?

If the SO publishes or announces that some default set of regulations applies unless the SO puts out something different, fine. If there is a "co-SO" of some sort who has said that, fine*. But if by "default regulations" you mean something else, not fine.

The Laws would be the only place where, absent a publication or announcement by an SO, there might be "default regulations" - and there are no such in the Laws.

*I'm thinking here of an organization like the ACBL, which may have done that for "games in which ACBL masterpoints are awarded" - meaning club or online games, not ACBL sponsored tournaments. I do not think BBO falls into that category, since my understanding is that BBO has disavowed SO standing in most, if not all, games held here.

[jtfanclub]

blackshoe, on Sep 12 2007, 02:43 PM, said:

*I'm thinking here of an organization like the ACBL, which may have done that for "games in which ACBL masterpoints are awarded" - meaning club or online games, not ACBL sponsored tournaments. I do not think BBO falls into that category, since my understanding is that BBO has disavowed SO standing in most, if not all, games held here.

For ACBL online tournaments, the ACBL is the SO, and unless otherwise stated they follow the General Convention Chart, same as for ACBL face to face club games.

All real ACBL tournaments follow the guidelines for which Chart they use.

[matmat]

curious, what would 3s have been in place of checkback there?

i.e.
1c 1s
2n 3s
?

[jdonn]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 12 2007, 01:44 PM, said:

I can't be bothered to go all that way back through the thread, but I think he said he disagreed with the 2NT bid on the actual 4225 anyway.

His very first post was claiming that Hannie was mistaken to think that 2NT was a big mistake, and stated in very strong fashion too. Sounds like agreement with the bid to me. His second post supports that too, in which he said 2NT is "just fine".

Anyway I don't see what all the fuss is. 2NT as he described it early in the thread (forcing by partnership agreement, fine on the given hand) is alertable. 2NT as he described it since then (not truly forcing, wrong on the given hand) is not alertable. And the letter to ACBL rulings shows nothing, it was not worded fairly at all.

[han]

I also disagreed with Frances's "be fair to the poor guy".

First they go out of their way not to alert their calls (the short 1C as well). Then he reacts extremely aggressive when people say that 2NT was a bad call. Then he calls echognome "fucking nuts" when he says 2NT forcing is alertable (this post was modified later). And anything he says in the second half of the thread contradicts what he said in the first half, including the email to the ACBL.

This thread wasn't about Bid_em_up to begin with, the fact that it became what it was is completely his fault.