[phoenixmj]

We recently had a 2 club open (which we play as strong). On our card, it says that 2d is a waiting bid. It is my understanding that this bid is NOT alertable - obviously someone can ask and we would say waiting.

My question is on the next bid. After I bid 2spades in this instance, my partner bid 3c - which we play as a second negative.

I thought this was standard practice that the cheaper minor available would be a second negative - but our opponents indicated that I should have alerted it.

We have never encountered an alert on this bid when others use it - so i wanted to know if it is alertable. I always wonder that if I did alert it as a second negative and it was not alertable, could I be guilty of providing unauthorized info to my partner?

Thanks in advance.

[hrothgar]

I can't recall ever hearing this alerted

[TylerE]

Personally I think the 3♣ SHOULD be alerted. Cheapest suit negative isn't nearly as common these days.

My reading of the ACBL alert chart supports this. Artificial 2D responses to strong 2C are specially called out as not alertable. There is no such carve out for a conventional double negative. An immediate 2H double negative is certainly alertable, why wouldn't a delayed 3C be?

[paulg]

You should ask rulings@acbl.org for a definitive answer, but I'd be stunned if this was not alertable.

It is an artificial, conventional bid and I can see nothing in the ACBL regulations saying it is not alertable. Even if this treatment is common in your area and everyone plays, it doesn't change the need to alert.

I find the concern about providing unauthorised information to partner is far greater in the ACBL than other jurisdictions. It is not an infraction to provide UI, it is only an infraction if partner acts inappropriately on it. Although this can put constraints on partner that can be difficult to follow at times, in general this is a minor matter. However it is an infraction to provide misinformation to the opponents: failing to alert an alertable call is typically far more damaging than alerting a call that may not require an alert.

So it is always in your best interests to alert and, if in doubt, alert. As David Burn always says, "tell them what you play".

[pescetom]

TylerE, on 2019-October-14, 18:50, said:

My reading of the ACBL alert chart supports this. Artificial 2D responses to strong 2C are specially called out as not alertable. There is no such carve out for a conventional double negative. An immediate 2H double negative is certainly alertable, why wouldn't a delayed 3C be?

What you say is logical, but then the ACBL alert policy is not - if an immediate 2H is alertable then it makes no sense to me that 2D is never alertable whether or not it carries inferences such as "he did not bid our immediate 2H negative". This means that if opponents want to know what your bid means they have to ask even though you are forbidden to alert.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-October-15, 07:09, said:

What you say is logical, but then the ACBL alert policy is not - if an immediate 2H is alertable then it makes no sense to me that 2D is never alertable whether or not it carries inferences such as "he did not bid our immediate 2H negative". This means that if opponents want to know what your bid means they have to ask even though you are forbidden to alert.

I think this was changed because practically no one plays 2♦ there as natural. If [i]every[i/] meaning is artificial, and we should alert artificial meanings, then we end up alerting it all the time, and the alert serves little useful purpose.

It used to be that the non-alertable meaning was "waiting, unspecific about strength". But even this had significant negative inferences: you don't have a good quality suit to bid and you don't have a strong enough balanced hand to bid 2NT.

[TylerE]

pescetom, on 2019-October-15, 07:09, said:

What you say is logical, but then the ACBL alert policy is not - if an immediate 2H is alertable then it makes no sense to me that 2D is never alertable whether or not it carries inferences such as "he did not bid our immediate 2H negative". This means that if opponents want to know what your bid means they have to ask even though you are forbidden to alert.

That isn't a contradiction. Some bids are considered "self alerting" as they are essentially always 100% conventional for everyone.

The alert chart literally says; Not Alerable: "Any 2♦ response to a strong artificial 2♣ opening"

[helene_t]

paulg, on 2019-October-15, 01:24, said:

I find the concern about providing unauthorised information to partner is far greater in the ACBL than other jurisdictions. It is not an infraction to provide UI, it is only an infraction if partner acts inappropriately on it. Although this can put constraints on partner that can be difficult to follow at times, in general this is a minor matter. However it is an infraction to provide misinformation to the opponents: failing to alert an alertable call is typically far more damaging than alerting a call that may not require an alert.

So it is always in your best interests to alert and, if in doubt, alert. As David Burn always says, "tell them what you play".

If people don't alert it, we will have plenty of people who ask about the meaning of an unalerted 3♣, and then the issue arrives if partner is still allowed to lead a club if you ask, are told that it is "natural", and then you don't double it.

Or indeed if you are allowed not to lead a club if partner doesn't ask.

Far better would be if all artificial calls were alerted, period.

[pescetom]

helene_t, on 2019-October-15, 18:33, said:

Far better would be if all artificial calls were alerted, period.

I agree, and I think a growing number of people are returning to this idea (which luckily is still more or less the rule in our RA).
Of course that begs bigger questions like what is natural and whether we should trust single RAs to decide it.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2019-October-16, 07:16, said:

I agree, and I think a growing number of people are returning to this idea (which luckily is still more or less the rule in our RA).
Of course that begs bigger questions like what is natural and whether we should trust single RAs to decide it.

The purpose of alerts is to suggest that the bid has an unexpected meaning and the opponents may need to inquire. Alerting all artificial bids leads to the insanity of alerting ordinary Stayman. Which has two results:

1. Players get out of the habit of inquiring, since they "know" it's just Stayman. Then the players who actually play something different get away with not informing the opponents; or

2. Every Stayman auction gets slower because the opponents ask a (usually) redundant question.

This is why announcements were created as a compromise -- the nearly ubiquitous conventions get announced rather than alerted, so that an alert means something.

ACBL didn't go as far as EBU in their announcement regulations -- we don't alert or announce Stayman. And I suspect they felt that announcing in 2♣ auctions is more likely to help the bidders than the opponents, and alerting would be useless since all meanings are artificial.

For most players, I think the difference between a positive and negative response to 2♣ is a king, so if you were thinking of interfering it usually doesn't matter what the 2♦ bid shows.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-October-16, 08:45, said:

For most players, I think the difference between a positive and negative response to 2♣ is a king, so if you were thinking of interfering it usually doesn't matter what the 2♦ bid shows.

I'll take your word on that for where you play, but not for the world in general and certainly not here.

If you look at descriptions of 2♣ opening you will see all sorts of "standards" for the 2♦ response: wikipedia for instance claims that 0-5 is the most common ("natural") treatment, also indicates 0-3 (so basically your two "usual" so far) but also 0-UNL, 4-UNL, 8-UNL.
Here in Italy the most common treatment is 0-UNL (with only the inference that responder holds no strong suit) with a minority using 0-7 (with the inference that responder did not bid a "natural" 2NT or show suit). A 2♥ negative is unheard of.

I think these differences do matter to opponents whether they are thinking of interfering or just preparing to defend.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-October-16, 08:45, said:

The purpose of alerts is to suggest that the bid has an unexpected meaning and the opponents may need to inquire.

Yes but the question is, unexpected compared to what set of expectations? The WBF policy takes the line that expected = natural and unexpected = artificial. In recent years ACBL in particular has swayed towards expected = what most people play here. There are obvious defects in both approaches, but maintaining a single and clear bridge is important and the old rule of "if it works (sort of) don't fix it" remains valid.

barmar, on 2019-October-16, 08:45, said:

ACBL didn't go as far as EBU in their announcement regulations -- we don't alert or announce Stayman.

But they went further in not alerting or announcing some very unnatural conventions such as Michaels or Unusual and alerting some purely natural bids such as a strong 2-level opening.

barmar, on 2019-October-16, 08:45, said:

Alerting all artificial bids leads to the insanity of alerting ordinary Stayman. Which has two results:

1. Players get out of the habit of inquiring, since they "know" it's just Stayman. Then the players who actually play something different get away with not informing the opponents; or

2. Every Stayman auction gets slower because the opponents ask a (usually) redundant question.

This is why announcements were created as a compromise -- the nearly ubiquitous conventions get announced rather than alerted, so that an alert means something.

I think this is a poor example to demonstrate either the validity of announcements or the existence of "ordinary" conventions, since there is no such thing as an ordinary Stayman, at least around here. So wise people will always enquire in this case, unless you have a more complex tree of possible announcements than any I have seen to date (in which case the RA is assuming the dubious role of normaliser of conventions). Some responders promise HCP, some do not, some responders promise a 4-card major, some do not, some hearts replies deny spades and some do not, etc. etc. Like any other convention I think the answer is alert and ask if necessary.

[kuhchung]

paulg, on 2019-October-15, 01:24, said:

So it is always in your best interests to alert and, if in doubt, alert. As David Burn always says, "tell them what you play".

I also came to quote David Burn but instead I'll quote Paul quoting DB!

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2019-October-16, 08:45, said:

1. Players get out of the habit of inquiring, since they "know" it's just Stayman. Then the players who actually play something different get away with not informing the opponents

I do not think it's a good idea to characterize people who follow the rules as "getting away with" something.

[rmnka447]

It should be alerted.

Originally 2 NT was the default second negative bid and 3 ♣ was a natural bid. So other bids that are second negatives are departures from the "standard" and should be alerted.

[pescetom]

rmnka447, on 2019-October-16, 22:12, said:

Originally 2 NT was the default second negative bid and 3 ♣ was a natural bid. So other bids that are second negatives are departures from the "standard" and should be alerted.

If there must be a standard for a convention then I guess that has some logic - although 2NT as a negative is arguably an awful treatment and for that reason is fairly uncommon around here.

[Zelandakh]

pescetom, on 2019-October-17, 06:45, said:

If there must be a standard for a convention then I guess that has some logic - although 2NT as a negative is arguably an awful treatment and for that reason is fairly uncommon around here.

Funny, I have always felt precisely the same way about the cheapest minor as second negative. Anyone who has played Strong Twos (almost everyone in the UK I guess) immediately understands a 2NT negative over 2♠ and I doubt there are many (if any) playing 3♣ as a negative in that auction.

[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2019-October-17, 09:45, said:

Funny, I have always felt precisely the same way about the cheapest minor as second negative. Anyone who has played Strong Twos (almost everyone in the UK I guess) immediately understands a 2NT negative over 2♠ and I doubt there are many (if any) playing 3♣ as a negative in that auction.

I wasnt' arguing that 2NT negative was not intuitive or in the natural tradition, I agree that the logic and derivation is identical. But it is singularly destructive of partner's auction when he has a suit too strong to open at 1-level and is avoided by many experts (and even a majority around here) for this reason. I play it as showing two strong minors, but it could equally well be any 12-card suit, the important thing is don't bid it

[blackshoe]

Far as I know, back when we (in the US) played strong twos, 2NT was the negative response, and there was no "second negative". When the artificial strong 2!C became the norm, 2!D was "negative". Later it became "waiting". Some who wanted a second negative in that case chose "cheaper minor". I don't recall 2NT as a second negative, but that may have happened when I was away from bridge ca. the 70s to about 1990.

[jeffford76]

Cheaper minor as a second negative definitely requires an alert in the ACBL. All artificial bids require alerts unless they are specifically called out as not needing one, and this is not called out.