[A2003]

---

1NT overcall is 3 suited takeout dbl meaning. 6-15HCP.
Is the 2nt call alertable? There is no specific partnership understanding on this call.
When Declarer finessed ♥ and lost Q♥. Declarer Lost 5 tricks in the contract, then called director for 2nt call was not alerted.
TD ruled as 3♥ making and said my partner should have alerted 2nt bid.
Is 2NT call alertable when 1NT call is made as takeout meaning?
ACBL regulations.

This post has been edited by A2003: 2012-December-17, 17:23

[aguahombre]

The question is the same as if the auction had gone:

(1H) X (2H) 2nt

I think it is common sense Bridge logic that 2NT not be a natural bid, but we alert it anyway as for minors. Would never, ever object if someone didn't alert it. The West hand looks like a responsive double of 2H rather than a 2NT bid, however. 2NT would be more shape in the minors and not 3 spades.

[blackshoe]

What are the alert regs in force, and which one says you alert bids about which you have no partnership understanding?

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-16, 23:09, said:

What are the alert regs in force, and which one says you alert bids about which you have no partnership understanding?

The OP does not say they had no partnership understanding. It says no specific partnership understanding. It would be nice to know why West bid 2NT, but my guess is that they had at least some expectation that their partner would work out what they were trying to do.

[Cyberyeti]

Depends on the standard of player, it is rather difficult to bid a natural 2N opposite a bid that can be 6-15, so GBK would indicate that it probably isn't natural if the players are any good. It clearly should be alerted though.

[Zelandakh]

You need to give the jurisdiction when making enquiries about alerts but I would say that it should be alerted unless the local regulations specifically say it should not be, assuming that E-W have some understanding in other similar auctions (which is highly likely, else West would not have bid 2NT). The bid satisfies both the criteria that it is artificial and the criteria that it was unexpected, at least to these opponents. Most regulations seem to work one of these into their definition of an alert.

[billw55]

Beats me about the alert. Rarely have I been able to make sense of alert regulations anyway.

I do wonder though: if 1NT is a 6-15 takeout, what would double mean?

[aguahombre]

billw55, on 2012-December-17, 10:12, said:

I do wonder though: if 1NT is a 6-15 takeout, what would double mean?

Split range takeout ---0-5 or 16+

[A2003]

billw55, on 2012-December-17, 10:12, said:

Beats me about the alert. Rarely have I been able to make sense of alert regulations anyway.

I do wonder though: if 1NT is a 6-15 takeout, what would double mean?

Double= 16+ any distribution. (Alert bid)

[bluejak]

I certainly know players who play (1♥) Dbl (2♥) 2NT as natural, including at least one of my partners. If such a player decided to play 1NT as a weak takeout, admittedly unlikely, I believe that such a player would assume 2NT was natural, whatever "bridge logic" says.

I don't think there is any doubt that 2NT is alertable if it is not natural by agreement, but the problem is what the OP means by "There is no specific partnership understanding on this call".

At the table I would ask West why he bid 2NT and East how he took 2NT and judge from the answers whether they have a partnership understanding. I would also ask them how they play (1♥) Dbl (2♥) 2NT. My guess is that they would play that sequence as artificial, in which case I thin they have an implicit understanding and 2NT required an alert.

[aguahombre]

As mentioned, we would alert 2NT here (or in the Doubling instance) because we have the explicit agreement 2NT is not a natural bid.

But the general idea that when we take a stab with an undiscussed bid and partner takes it as intended, it should have been alerted seems wrong.

[ehhh]

I'm having trouble understanding
the lack of discussion
re: full disclosure
and the reg requiring both players
having identical convection cards.

Can having 'no agreement' even applies here?

[nige1]

IMO, in most jurisdictions, even if you haven't completely agreed a meaning for partner's call, you should alert if it might have an alertable meaning.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-23, 13:10, said:

As mentioned, we would alert 2NT here (or in the Doubling instance) because we have the explicit agreement 2NT is not a natural bid.

But the general idea that when we take a stab with an undiscussed bid and partner takes it as intended, it should have been alerted seems wrong.

It is not a question of a general idea. It is the specific case. If you have an agreement that (1♥) Dbl (2♥) 2NT is for the minors, then you have a disclosable implicit understanding, since it is not a "stab": it is a bid which is likely to be understood.

I agree with you about complete guesses which you merely hope are understood. People here and on RGB have basically said that players never make such bids: such people are wrong. It is quite common with my less scientific partners to make a complete guess and pray.

[barmar]

ehhh, on 2012-December-23, 13:13, said:

I'm having trouble understanding
the lack of discussion
re: full disclosure
and the reg requiring both players
having identical convection cards.

Can having 'no agreement' even applies here?

of course it can. There are lots of situations that don't have any place on the convention card to describe them.

[bluejak]

... not to mention when things are left blank because a pair has no agreement.

There are a number of posts here that actually make me wonder whether all the posters understand how low level bridge is played. We had a long argument when various people said nobody played a 2♠ response to Stayman as possible with both majors. It became obvious that they meant no-one who plays a scientific approach. We even had someone who said he had played bridge for 20 years and none of his opponents had ever played that in his time. Yeah, right, he checked in every case.

Perhaps people should realise there are a lot of people in clubs, probably a majority, who make some basic agreements, but do not go farther. People here and elsewhere are often surprised that players assume 1NT - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♦ shows diamonds, not hearts. They do not realise that for a lot of players there is no such thing as showing two suits via a transfer. They have never done it, they would never do it, so they do not do it, so they do not recognise a partner who does it. Similarly they do not show controls, so a new suit after a major is agreed is meaningless: if pushed they will tell you they are taking it as natural.

If people are going to give correct rulings, especially in clubs, we need a more tolerant approach to the unscientific lesser player, what are called on RGB "permanent novices". They may have been playing for forty years but they still do not understand much of what goes on.

For such players many sequences are not agreed, even ones that most of the posters here think come under general bridge knowledge.