[jillybean]

LHO Opens 1♣ precision (alerted), partner does not query 1♣ and bids 2♣, RHO doubles
I have a suspicion that partner is showing the majors but we have no agreement over Prec 1♣.

Should I alert 2♣ if I am going to bid a major or under any circumstance?

The opponents reach a 5♦ contract, at the end of the hand should either my partner or I
announce that 2♣ was intended as conventional?

[WellSpyder]

jillybean, on 2012-March-15, 04:28, said:

LHO Opens 1♣ precision (alerted), parnter does not query 1♣ and bids 2♣, RHO doubles
I have a suspicion that partner is showing the majors but we have no agreement over Prec 1♣.

Why do you suspect partner is showing the majors? (This would be a relatively unusual agreement over Prec 1♣.) You need to be careful that you do not allow yourself to be influenced by the fact that partner did not ask about the meaning of 1♣.

If you would still expect partner to be showing the majors even if they had checked first that 1♣ was Precision, then the advice in England at least would be to alert at this point (I don't have the exact wording in front of me, but if you aren't sure of the meaning of a bid but expect to treat it as having an alertable meaning then you are advised to alert.) If asked, you of course should not say what you intend to take the bid as meaning, but could say (if true) something like "We don't have a specific agreement over a Prec 1♣, but our agreement over other 1♣ openings is that this would show the majors. Our general style in undiscussed situations is that bids have the same meaning as in the closest situation we have agreed."

Quote

The opponents reach a 5♦ contract, at the end of the hand should either my partner or I
announce that 2♣ was intended as conventional?

I don't think there is anything more that you can say at this point that you shouldn't have said already - if you don't have an agreement then what the bid was intended as is strictly irrelevant. However, your partner may feel that you have at least an implicit agreement over what 2♣ meant - they at least presumably bid it with at least some expectation that you would understand what they were trying to show. If so, they should (in principle after calling the TD) say after the hand that they think 2♣ should have been alerted, and perhaps give an explanation along the lines of the one I suggested above.

[mjj29]

jillybean, on 2012-March-15, 04:28, said:

LHO Opens 1♣ precision (alerted), parnter does not query 1♣ and bids 2♣, RHO doubles
I have a suspicion that partner is showing the majors but we have no agreement over Prec 1♣.

Should I alert 2♣ if I am going to bid a major or under any circumstance?

The opponents reach a 5♦ contract, at the end of the hand should either my partner or I
announce that 2♣ was intended as conventional?

This is to some extent up to the RA. The EBU has a section in the orange book on this:

OB5B10 said:

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player's partner's actions are also consistent with that agreement.

In any case I think there is some disclosable information here - that while you don't have an agreement, you do have an agreement that over a natural 1♣ it would show the majors.

I would probably alert and say "we've not discussed this auction, but over a natural 1♣ it would show the majors".

If you genuinely don't have an agreement, then nothing further is required. If you do, in fact, have an agreement and have forgotten then your partner should obviously disclose this at the end of the hand, but not otherwise.

[iviehoff]

jillybean, on 2012-March-15, 04:28, said:

Should I alert 2♣ if I am going to bid a major or under any circumstance

The EBU has the regulation that if you are going to treat your partner's as if it has an alertable agreed meaning, ie, you think you have an implicit agreement to that effect, then you should alert it. It also advises alerting things you aren't sure about. I don't know your local regulations, but these seem like good advice.

jillybean, on 2012-March-15, 04:28, said:

The opponents reach a 5♦ contract, at the end of the hand should either my partner or I announce that 2♣ was intended as conventional?

If you think you have an alertable agreement, implicit or explicit, for this call, the correct time for you to alert it is at the time of the call. If you fail to do it then, you should alert it as soon as it occurs to you that it is alertable. There is no need for you to wait to the end of the hand. But if it does get to the end of the hand, your requirement to alert it has not expired. See Law 20F.

If your partner thinks he has an implicit agreement, or indeed an actual agreement, for an alertable meaning, and you didn't alert it, your partner, as a defender, must disclose this at the end of the hand and no sooner. Declarer/dummy should do it at the end of the auction. See Law 75B.

[blackshoe]

All this talk of EBU regulations is well and good, but Jilly is in ACBL-land, and here, a direct cue bid of an opening bid only requires an alert when both it and opponent's opening bid are natural.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-15, 07:23, said:

All this talk of EBU regulations is well and good, but Jilly is in ACBL-land, and here, a direct cue bid of an opening bid only requires an alert when both it and opponent's opening bid are natural.

I did wonder about whether there were important differences there, but the way OP asked about alerting did rather give the impression that it was the consequences of the uncertainty about the meaning that were of interest, rather than simply whether a cue-bid was alertable or not.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-15, 07:23, said:

All this talk of EBU regulations is well and good, but Jilly is in ACBL-land, and here, a direct cue bid of an opening bid only requires an alert when both it and opponent's opening bid are natural.

But we're talking about Precision 1♣, so the opening bid isn't natural. In this case, natural 2♣ is not alertable, and I think any other meaning (e.g. Michaels) would be.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-March-15, 10:43, said:

But we're talking about Precision 1♣, so the opening bid isn't natural. In this case, natural 2♣ is not alertable, and I think any other meaning (e.g. Michaels) would be.

Hard to say, since the ACBL alert regulation is such a <deleted> mess. The only thing that would make a cue bid of Precision 1♣ alertable is a "very unusual or unexpected meaning", and I don't think Michaels is either of those. OTOH, I wouldn't be surprised if some TDs, at least, would rule otherwise.

[barmar]

(1♣) 2♣ isn't even a cue bid by ACBL's definition, so it doesn't fit into "Most cue bids are not alertable." I think a Michaels non-cue bid would be very unusual or unexpected.

The ACBL CC used to have a column for "Over Artificial" in the "Direct Cuebid" section. They removed it, perhaps because practically everyone checked "Natural", which was non-alertable.

[nigel_k]

If you have no agreement over a strong club, then IMO you don't need to alert regardless of your agreement over a natural 1♣.

Certainly you have no obligation if your suspicion is based on your own hand, e.g. you have shortage in one major and opponents are not bidding that major and playing in diamonds instead. If you have, say, 5-1-1-6 shape and decide to bid 5♠ over their 5♦ because you are pretty sure partner has the majors, you can go ahead and do that and if they ask about 2♣ it is absolutely fine to just say 'no agreement'.

If your suspicion is based on something other than your own hand, then you may need to disclose that. But bidding a natural 2♣ over a precision 1♣ is very normal and in a casual partnership before I looked at my cards it wouldn't occur to me that it could be majors.

If partner believed your agreement was that it shows the majors, then he should tell the opponents at the end of the hand. But on the evidence of your post, the director should probably rule mistaken bid (so no adjustnment) not mistaken explanation.

[Vampyr]

mjj29, on 2012-March-15, 05:16, said:

In any case I think there is some disclosable information here - that while you don't have an agreement, you do have an agreement that over a natural 1♣ it would show the majors.

I would probably alert and say "we've not discussed this auction, but over a natural 1♣ it would show the majors".

I don't understand this. If you haven't discussed a defence to a strong club opening, isn't "suit bids are natural" the default?

You do have UI that partner might not know what the 1♣ bid was and might be showing the majors -- is there a requirement to share your UI with the opponents?

[jillybean]

This is a rather strange case and merely for my interest and reference in future. I am not in ACBL land, I am playing in New Zeland with causual partners - 3rd game with this partner.

My suspicion that the 2♣ bid is showing both majors is based on the knowledge of my partners inexperience. I felt that I did have an obligation to alert, though I may have been wrong and the 2♣ could have been natural.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-15, 13:48, said:

I don't understand this. If you haven't discussed a defence to a strong club opening, isn't "suit bids are natural" the default?

I am not sure that it is. At a fairly low level in the game defences are often based on "this is what we bid over 1♣" and so on. I have a partner who is quite reasonable in amny ways, but our defence to 1 ♣ Precision is to treat it as natural, and one day he will bid 1NT with a balanced 15 count, or double with a 4=4=4=1 12 count. I think in his club this is close to standard.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-March-15, 12:28, said:

(1♣) 2♣ isn't even a cue bid by ACBL's definition, so it doesn't fit into "Most cue bids are not alertable." I think a Michaels non-cue bid would be very unusual or unexpected.

The ACBL CC used to have a column for "Over Artificial" in the "Direct Cuebid" section. They removed it, perhaps because practically everyone checked "Natural", which was non-alertable.

You're right, Barry, and I had forgotten that it's not, by the definition, a cue bid. Which raises the question "what is it"?

[blackshoe]

jillybean, on 2012-March-15, 15:37, said:

This is a rather strange case and merely for my interest and reference in future. I am not in ACBL land, I am playing in New Zeland with causual partners - 3rd game with this partner.

My suspicion that the 2♣ bid is showing both majors is based on the knowledge of my partners inexperience. I felt that I did have an obligation to alert, though I may have been wrong and the 2♣ could have been natural.

When did Vancouver transport itself to New Zealand?

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-March-15, 17:00, said:

I am not sure that it is. At a fairly low level in the game defences are often based on "this is what we bid over 1♣" and so on. I have a partner who is quite reasonable in amny ways, but our defence to 1 ♣ Precision is to treat it as natural, and one day he will bid 1NT with a balanced 15 count, or double with a 4=4=4=1 12 count. I think in his club this is close to standard.

Once you are north of Jeremy Dhondy...

[Zelandakh]

I have something of a problem with treating this as Michaels. It allows the "Don't ask then 2♣ = majors; ask then 2♣ = natural" defence. Ask yourself: if partner had asked about the 1♣ opening and understood it to be artificial, what would you have expected a 2♣ overcall to mean? You should only bid your major as "support" if you are confident the answer to this question is still the majors.

[jillybean]

You are right, I should not let partners lack of asking about the alert influence my bidding. However, the question was more in regards to my requirement to disclose the 2♣ as (likely) majors. Partner most likely knew 1♣ was precision, even with a query I would still suspect 2♣ was majors.

[barmar]

You can (and perhaps must) use UI in deciding how to explain partner's bid, even though you must ignore it when responding.