[Phil]

 kevperk, on 2011-January-18, 14:17, said:

Well, whether you or I consider QXX a feature, it seems the player does, from the discussion the OP had with the player, so we all should look at the auction continuing from 3S. With Flannery, that shows 4-5-2-2 with a maximum hand, so west would sign-off at 4H. The question is, would east pass this? I think so and would adjust to 4H. I leave it to others to determine the outcome of that contract.

It would have been only 1/2 a matchpoint difference between -300 and minus gazillion in 4♥ x'd.

The only question I really have is whether or not North has to pass 4♥. After all, partner didn't bid 2♥ over 2♦, so this could be a cuebid looking for slam in diamonds.

[barmar]

I've been googling around for this. Larry Cohen's site says:

Quote

A "Feature" is usually an ace or king. It is never a singleton or void. Occasionally, it can be a queen or even a jack with length.

A document on the ACBL web site shows a couple of examples (both kings), but doesn't actually define it. www.brieffieldbridgeclub.org.uk says "Qxx or better". www.sfvbridgeacademy.com says "a no-trump stopper"; while many consider Qxx to fit this definition, it's also generally preferable that it be in declarer's hand so the lead comes up to it rather than through it, but the 2NT inquiry wrong-sides this. www.wednesdaygame.com says "Ace or King, though you might want to stretch that definition to include holdings such as QJx." www.bridgeguys.com says "normally an Ace or King". web.mit.edu says "typically an outside ace or king." betterbridge.wordpress.com says "A or K".

I'd say that while there's decent support for calling Qxx a feature, it's not a concensus, and it would be inappropriate to fault someone for not showing it, especially if the suit is worse than Q9x.

[bluejak]

I would not on a borderline hand, but the way it was taught to me was that with a minimum you rebid your suit, with a maximum you showed a feature. So I am fairly unhappy at a player who does not show Qxx when he has a nine count with a suit of AKTxxx. Without the ♦K, sure, why not rebid 3♦?

[blackshoe]

As may be, David, but it's not how you would play it that matters, but how he plays it.

FWIW, I was taught that the Q is not a feature.

[bluejak]

True, but I was taught this by books, since weak twos were not generally played in England at the time, so I suggest that this method is that recommended in books.

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2011-January-21, 21:32, said:

As may be, David, but it's not how you would play it that matters, but how he plays it.

FWIW, I was taught that the Q is not a feature.

But the point David is trying to make is that there has to be an agreement concerning what to do with a maximum that does not have whatever the partnership defines as a "feature". So the relevant question is, does 3♦ promise a minimum?

[knyblad]

 bluejak, on 2011-January-16, 18:51, said:

But one problem with all this is that 3NT will probably make, so we do not want to adjust to 3NT making!

Opening lead a little ♣. West gets the trick with the king and finesse for ♦Q. Now N-S have 3 ♣ tricks, 1 ♦ trick and 3 ♥ tricks for 3 down.

I think there is something totally wrong with the arguments in this thread. If the pair is playing Ogust, then 2NT should have been alerted. At the same time you are claiming that Vest has UI, because the East did not alert 2NT. If I was in Wests seat playing Ogust and Flannery I would assume that East had simply forgotten to alert the 2NT. Besides, E-Ws CC should clearly state if they are playing Ogust. Starting to claim that they are playing Ogust when it is not listed on the CC seems like miscarriage of justice to me.

Anyway, the 3♦ bid looks based on UI to me. East hand is so good that it is a logical alternative to raise a natural 2NT to 3NT. Without knowing E-Ws agreements, it is hard to see where the bidding would have ended.

[ddrankin]

 knyblad, on 2011-February-06, 05:45, said:

I think there is something totally wrong with the arguments in this thread. If the pair is playing Ogust, then 2NT should have been alerted. At the same time you are claiming that Vest has UI, because the East did not alert 2NT. If I was in Wests seat playing Ogust and Flannery I would assume that East had simply forgotten to alert the 2NT. Besides, E-Ws CC should clearly state if they are playing Ogust. Starting to claim that they are playing Ogust when it is not listed on the CC seems like miscarriage of justice to me.

Anyway, the 3♦ bid looks based on UI to me. East hand is so good that it is a logical alternative to raise a natural 2NT to 3NT. Without knowing E-Ws agreements, it is hard to see where the bidding would have ended.

In the ACBL, 2nt in response to a weak 2-bid requires an alert only if it is natural and non-forcing. All conventional meanings are not alerted.

[Bbradley62]

Playing with screens and therefore no unheard alerts or lacks of alerts, if the auction goes:
2D-(p)-2N-(p)
3S-(p)-4H-(p)
p -(x)-p -(p)

Is East allowed to be "woken up" by the auction to realize that EW is not playing weak 2 and then bid 5D?

[blackshoe]

Why not? What UI does he have?

[Bbradley62]

 blackshoe, on 2011-February-06, 11:01, said:

Why not? What UI does he have?

Dunno. I've never played with screens, so I'm just trying to catch up on how the world works. Thanks.

But, I guess this East heard the original alert and therefore has UI. Since he has an LA (pass) after the double of 4H, he cannot pull?

[mycroft]

 ddrankin, on 2011-February-06, 07:46, said:

In the ACBL, 2nt in response to a weak 2-bid requires an alert only if it is natural and non-forcing. All conventional meanings are not alerted.

Not that I've ever played it (I have played "natural" and non-forcing (but might be off-shape)), but would natural but forcing be not Alertable? (Certainly down around "we want to play a Strong Spade" in "chance of needing to know" level, of course)

[blackshoe]

The regulation does not say that a natural and forcing 2NT response to a weak two bid requires an alert. One might think this means it does not, but I think such an agreement is unusual enough that it should be alerted for that reason.

[ddrankin]

The alert chart does specifically state under the "No Alert" header: "Conventional and/or forcing 2NT responses", so I say no alert is required.

[blackshoe]

If the chart and the procedure differ, which one governs? Why?

[ddrankin]

 blackshoe, on 2011-February-07, 15:39, said:

If the chart and the procedure differ, which one governs? Why?

My guess would be the procedures overrule the chart, and the chart is a simplification, if I can use that word when referring to the ACBL. But since the procedures don't specifcally address the bid, and the chart does specifically address it, and also does not conflict with the procedures, then it seems that 2NT does not require an alert unless natural and non-forcing.

I'm not sure what the value of a natural and forcing, but not conventional, 2NT bid would be, though. Does anyone play that?

[blackshoe]

 ddrankin, on 2011-February-07, 15:55, said:

My guess would be the procedures overrule the chart, and the chart is a simplification, if I can use that word when referring to the ACBL. But since the procedures don't specifcally address the bid, and the chart does specifically address it, and also does not conflict with the procedures, then it seems that 2NT does not require an alert unless natural and non-forcing.

I'm not sure what the value of a natural and forcing, but not conventional, 2NT bid would be, though. Does anyone play that?

None that I've ever seen - which is why I would say it should be alerted, but under the more general "highly unusual and unexpected" clause rather than the specific "response to weak 2" clause.

[Cascade]

 blackshoe, on 2011-February-07, 16:14, said:

None that I've ever seen - which is why I would say it should be alerted, but under the more general "highly unusual and unexpected" clause rather than the specific "response to weak 2" clause.

Except that the chart specifically addresses not conventional and forcing and says that such a meaning does not require an alert.

If you say that natural and forcing requires an alert can you give an example in this context of a non-conventional forcing 2NT bid that would not require an alert as directed by the alert chart.

[barmar]

I think it's just saying that if opener can pass the 2NT bid, it must be alerted. 4th hand needs to know this because it means he might not get another chance to bid. As long as it's forcing, he can wait a round, to get more information about the opponents' hands.

[blackshoe]

 Cascade, on 2011-February-07, 16:55, said:

Except that the chart specifically addresses not conventional and forcing and says that such a meaning does not require an alert.

If you say that natural and forcing requires an alert can you give an example in this context of a non-conventional forcing 2NT bid that would not require an alert as directed by the alert chart.

First, the chart does not govern, the procedure governs. Second, either the "unusual and unexpected" provision is a general exception to specific "does not require" provisions, or it's meaningless. I do not think it's meaningless.

To your second paragraph, I answer "no". So what? If a natural and forcing 2NT response to a weak two were not highly unusual, it would not require an alert. I already said that. The fact, however, is that it is highly unusual.