[akwoo]

You haven't played with this partner for a couple of months, and you didn't have time (or forgot) to look over your CC before playing.

The bidding has gone (opponents pass)

1♣ - 1♠
1N - 2♦
2♥

Partner alerted 2♦. When asked by opponents, he stated that he had forgotten if you were playing new minor forcing or not, and the opponents should check the convention card for the actual agreement. (I am pretty sure you should alert, and, in addition, I think this is what the lawmakers meant by 'potentially' in 'potentially unexpected meaning')

Obviously, for the purposes of further bidding, what partner said is UI to you. This isn't in question.

However, for the purposes of disclosure, what you remember is that...

If 2♦ is new minor forcing, then 2♥ would be natural (and hence not alertable).

If 2♦ is natural, then 2♥ would be fourth suit forcing (and hence alertable).

Should you alert if:

a) You know your agreement is that 2♦ is new minor forcing (unclear to me)
b) You know your agreement is that 2♦ is natural (presumably yes)
c) You don't remember your agreement about new minor forcing either (presumably yes, on the same principle as partner's alert of 2♦)

Also, what should your explanation be if opponents ask (after an alert or not)? Should you simply state everything in the hypothetical to avoid waking up partner?

[blackshoe]

If you know that 2♦ is NMF, then you know that 2♥ is natural. Ordinarily that would mean not alertable, but in this case 2♥ says something about opener's spade holding - he doesn't have three. So it needs an alert.

If you know that 2♥ is fourth suit forcing then it requires an alert.

So if you're not sure, you should alert, and if asked explain both possible meanings.

If they ask without an alert, then you explain under the same principles: if you know the meaning, you state it, if you aren't sure which of two (or more) possibilities it is, you say that, and explain all the possibilities. If you don't have a clue, say so. Avoiding waking up partner does not come into it.

You don't, btw, ever say "I"m taking it as…" or otherwise indicate how you're interpreting the bid. You disclose understandings, not guesses.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-30, 19:58, said:

If you know that 2♦ is NMF, then you know that 2♥ is natural. Ordinarily that would mean not alertable, but in this case 2♥ says something about opener's spade holding - he doesn't have three. So it needs an alert.

Not necessarily. Many players prefer to show 4 in the other major before showing 3 in responder's major, or they bid the cheaper of the two options.

Quote

If you know that 2♥ is fourth suit forcing then it requires an alert.

Is FSF even a possible meaning in this auction? Opener has limited his hand with 1NT, and 2♦ doesn't show anything extra, so how can opener make a forcing bid? I think this bid makes it clear that opener has interpreted 2♦ as NMF.

[jeffford76]

barmar, on 2013-October-31, 10:39, said:

Not necessarily. Many players prefer to show 4 in the other major before showing 3 in responder's major, or they bid the cheaper of the two options.

This seems to be accepting the premise that if it does deny 3 in responder's major it requires an alert. I don't think that's true anyway.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-30, 19:58, said:

Avoiding waking up partner does not come into it.

Quite. These forums have gone so long without being visited by the DeWael School. I guess nothing lasts forever.

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2013-October-31, 10:51, said:

This seems to be accepting the premise that if it does deny 3 in responder's major it requires an alert. I don't think that's true anyway.

Why not?

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-31, 19:12, said:

Why not?

Because generally negative inferences don't make a natural bid alertable, just like you don't alert passes when playing support doubles or opening 1♥ bids when playing precision.

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2013-November-01, 09:02, said:

Because generally negative inferences don't make a natural bid alertable, just like you don't alert passes when playing support doubles or opening 1♥ bids when playing precision.

Quote

From the alert procedure: In general, when the use of conventions leads to unexpected understandings about suit length by negative inference, a natural call becomes Alertable. Some such agreements have become expected and are fairly common, therefore no Alert is required.

The italics are in the original. The first sentence seems to say precisely the opposite of what you suggest. In this particular case, there have been some three different approaches mentioned in this thread: After 1♣-1♠-1NT-2♦ (NMF) 2♥ may deny as many as three spades, be an "up the line" bid, saying nothing about spades, or may be "show four in the other major first," also saying nothing about spades. Do none of these require an alert? Put it another way, which of these three are "fairly common"? Are they common enough to override the general rule?

[jeffford76]

I think that responses to NMF have reached the "fairly common" point. I concede that if they haven't then denying three spades would require an alert on the heart bid. I also think that it's incredibly unlikely that a failure to alert or not here will make one whit of difference on an actual hand.

And of course the alert procedure ought to just say what should and shouldn't be alerted instead of the fuzzy language it has here.

[blackshoe]

Of the four checkback methods over a 1NT rebid of which I'm aware, NMF is by far the most common around here. OTOH, it is far more common that pairs have no checkback method at all, so I'm not sure that responses to NMF (an uncommon bid) can be deemed to be "fairly common". What goes on in other parts of the country I don't know.

[mycroft]

NMF is incredibly common here.

Whether to show "my suit first", "other suit first", or "hearts first" is pretty much random (say 55-10-35). I've played them all; I've liked them all (and also "other suit with both if you're going to accept the invitation" - finds those 4=4 and 5=3s so you can play the right suit in 6).

Whether one would bypass a 4cM to rebid NT is also arguable enough to discuss - or even "well, I'll bypass 9xxx, but not a real suit".

Also of interest - can you jump to accept an invite, or could NMF'er be trying to bail, or is that not allowed because you want the space for slam bidding?

In the original case, I certainly would not assume that opener has denied 3 spades - *my* partners wouldn't have!

[akwoo]

barmar, on 2013-October-31, 10:39, said:

Is FSF even a possible meaning in this auction? Opener has limited his hand with 1NT, and 2♦ doesn't show anything extra, so how can opener make a forcing bid? I think this bid makes it clear that opener has interpreted 2♦ as NMF.

It is quite common to play 2♦ as natural and forcing for one round, in which case 2♥ as FSF for one round as a mark-time bid with a bad heart stopper and 2335 or (at matchpoints or with bad diamonds) 2344 or 2245 distribution seems to me to be better than 2♥ natural.

In any case, the partnership agreement is that the fourth suit is forcing if all three other suits have been bid naturally, with no exceptions, whatever the merits - because it has been judged that figuring out and memorizing all the exceptions is not worth it at this point.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2013-November-01, 14:31, said:

NMF is incredibly common here.

....

Whether one would bypass a 4cM to rebid NT is also arguable enough to discuss - or even "well, I'll bypass 9xxx, but not a real suit".

Is it common to stop off to bid a major with a balanced hand AND play some form of checkback?

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-30, 19:58, said:

Avoiding waking up partner does not come into it.

Especially as it woud actually be "avoiding constraining partner by giving him UI".