[Trinidad]

Before I would say anything, I would figure out if 2♥ is forcing. If it is, it is not alertable. The fact that 2♥ was passed at the table does not mean that 2♥ wasn't forcing. Who knows? Maybe responder had something like ♠xxxxx♥xxx♦Kxxx♣x and decided to show his spade suit, rather than pass 1♣. I am not a fan of that, but I know that it happens. And if I would have come up with a 1♠ response, I would happily pass partner's 2♥ reverse, no matter how forcing it was.

Rik

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-29, 11:02, said:

I will grant that "nobody" alerts this (meaning I've never seen anyone do it). But I'm looking at the actual words in the regulation, and that's why I'm wondering if it should be alerted. If it's not unusual enough to require an alert, fine, but is that really the case?

I don't think there's a strong concensus that a reverse after a game forcing 2/1 response has to show extras. I think it's the expert treatment, but I wouldn't be surprised if less than half the 2/1 players have that agreement.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-28, 23:43, said:

Faulty reasoning. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. And if asking for the rules of the game to be enforced is silly, why have rules at all?

It's not ignorance of the law, but ignorance of the bidding system. You may know that unusual agreements have to be alerted, but you don't know that reverses are usually forcing.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-December-29, 16:52, said:

It's not ignorance of the law, but ignorance of the bidding system. You may know that unusual agreements have to be alerted, but you don't know that reverses are usually forcing.

I understand. My point was that if there was a failure to alert, and the opponents were damaged by it (as you say, it may be more likely the OS will be damaged when they don't know what they're doing, but that's beside the point) then the TD will adjust the score. "I didn't know I was supposed to alert" will not change that.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-29, 16:59, said:

I understand. My point was that if there was a failure to alert, and the opponents were damaged by it (as you say, it may be more likely the OS will be damaged when they don't know what they're doing, but that's beside the point) then the TD will adjust the score. "I didn't know I was supposed to alert" will not change that.

I just wonder if clueless players like that even have such an "agreement". Opener could have meant it as strong, but responder didn't know this and passed ignorantly. Or as with many novice players, neither of them knows what they're doing. A couple of weeks ago at the club, someone freely bid a 5 card suit twice with 2 HCP because they had a singleton in the suit their partner bid twice. Would I expect them now to alert that they play really negative free bids? They wouldn't even know the meaning of the term, they're just bidding by the seat of their pants.

Based on the additional info given above that's not what happened in the OP, but I'm thinking of the more general case.

[EricK]

mrdct, on 2011-December-28, 20:51, said:

I would take the word "must" in the phrase "natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be alerted" as implying that the alert is mandatory. A reverse after a one-level response in a natural system being non-forcing is about as "unexpected" as I could possibly imagine and is clearly a "weak bid that sounds strong".

Are you mistaking "non-forcing" for "sign-off" or some such? A bid can be non-forcing without being weak - it just means partner can pass with a minimum. A non-forcing reverse is not (necessarily) a "weak bid that sounds strong", but could very well be a "strong bid which sounds (to some) very strong". And I don't know how these are regulated anywhere.

As an aside, if responder has a partially mis-fitting 5 or 6 count opposite a "normal" reverse (eg ♠Qxxxx ♥xxx ♦Kxxx ♣J on the bidding sequence 1♣ 1♠ 2♥), what are the chances of game? It doesn't seem totally unreasonable to bail out into a playable part score at a low-level (especially at MP). It doesn't even seem unreasonable for this to be systemic, especially bearing in mind that when partner is strong he is likely to be at the bottom end of his range. So I'm not convinced that such a bid deserves to be ridiculed.

[campboy]

Is a not-quite-forcing reverse really highly unusual "in light of historical usage", which is the ACBL's criterion?

[Trinidad]

EricK, on 2011-December-30, 02:18, said:

Are you mistaking "non-forcing" for "sign-off" or some such? A bid can be non-forcing without being weak - it just means partner can pass with a minimum. A non-forcing reverse is not (necessarily) a "weak bid that sounds strong", but could very well be a "strong bid which sounds (to some) very strong". And I don't know how these are regulated anywhere.

As an aside, if responder has a partially mis-fitting 5 or 6 count opposite a "normal" reverse (eg ♠Qxxxx ♥xxx ♦Kxxx ♣J on the bidding sequence 1♣ 1♠ 2♥), what are the chances of game? It doesn't seem totally unreasonable to bail out into a playable part score at a low-level (especially at MP). It doesn't even seem unreasonable for this to be systemic, especially bearing in mind that when partner is strong he is likely to be at the bottom end of his range. So I'm not convinced that such a bid deserves to be ridiculed.

Exactly. If you have never seen somebody pass out a reverse (though technically forcing), you should play more. So, the TD should first examine what the agreements are.

Keep in mind that an agreement with partner is not a warranty to the opponents.

On the other hand, if opener had a 13 count and responder had a hand with which "everybody" would bid again, then there is a failure to alert.

Rik

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2011-December-30, 00:58, said:

I just wonder if clueless players like that even have such an "agreement".

That's a matter for the TD at the table to judge. If they have no agreement, there is no requirement to alert.

[barmar]

campboy, on 2011-December-30, 04:29, said:

Is a not-quite-forcing reverse really highly unusual "in light of historical usage", which is the ACBL's criterion?

I don't think so. When I started playing about 2 decades ago, I don't think it was forcing. If responder had a minimum and preferred opener's second suit, they would show it by passing. If opener really wanted to force, they jump shifted (I hadn't yet learned about splinters).

[bluejak]

Please can I remind Bill and others that we request people to state their jurisdiction when asking questions. Many many questions have different answers dependent on where in the world you are, and this one is a good example.

I also request that you make clear what you are doing in bidding sequences. It is perfectly possible to use the Hand Editor and show no hands. I understood 1C-1S//2H-P to mean

---

and found the whole thread confusing until someone started talking about reverses.

Like the players who double 1♥ with any 13 cards holding at least 12 HCP and are surprised if told there is any alternative approach, many poor players reverse because they have a second suit. Since partner has no idea whether they have extra values or not on most sequences it makes no difference. Trying to get them to alert something that sounds to them like natural bidding is a bit pointless.

In old-fashioned standard Acol the sequence is non-forcing, you jump to 3♥ if you want to force. I would expect a lot of pairs to play that, so a non-forcing 2♥ is far from unusual in the EBU.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-December-31, 14:07, said:

I also request that you make clear what you are doing in bidding sequences. It is perfectly possible to use the Hand Editor and show no hands. I understood 1C-1S//2H-P to mean

---

and found the whole thread confusing until someone started talking about reverses.

I agree with your general recommendation regarding bidding diagrams. But you must have overlooked where the OP said "our side silent".

[bluejak]

Fair enough: it did and I did. But it is much easier to make such a mistake with a confusing auction.

[barmar]

Regarding "weak bids that sound strong", I had this auction today and I was wondering whether it counts:

---

If you're playing New Minor Forcing (or some other checkback), 2♥ is a weak bid. I can't remember what it means without NMF -- is it forcing? And if so, does this auction need to be alerted in a NMF context? I've never done so.

[blackshoe]

If I'm not mistaken, it's not forcing. Opener has limited his hand, responder is just showing shape.

[barmar]

Thanks. I wasn't sure how responder distinguished between invitational and game forcing when showing his shape.

Which is, of course, one of the reasons why NMF was created.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-December-31, 14:07, said:

In old-fashioned standard Acol the sequence is non-forcing, you jump to 3♥ if you want to force. I would expect a lot of pairs to play that, so a non-forcing 2♥ is far from unusual in the EBU.

I agree with your first sentence, but I would expect very few pairs still to play that and would regard it as quite unusual. I remember someone who played that way by agreement - it was about 15 years ago. Of course there may well be others who play it like that but have not had the hand to pass it when it's come up against me, or who don't really know how they play it, but I would certainly still regard it as unusual in most fields in England.

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2012-January-01, 20:30, said:

I agree with your first sentence, but I would expect very few pairs still to play that and would regard it as quite unusual. I remember someone who played that way by agreement - it was about 15 years ago. Of course there may well be others who play it like that but have not had the hand to pass it when it's come up against me, or who don't really know how they play it, but I would certainly still regard it as unusual in most fields in England.

We play it as NF, but only if you'd shaded the 1♠ response, if you have a "real" 1♠ response it's F1.

[gordontd]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-January-02, 03:01, said:

We play it as NF, but only if you'd shaded the 1♠ response, if you have a "real" 1♠ response it's F1.

You play that you have to bid 3♥ if you really want to force?

[Cyberyeti]

gordontd, on 2012-January-02, 07:48, said:

You play that you have to bid 3♥ if you really want to force?

No, we play a GF unbalanced (alerted) 2N rebid after which we show hand type over a 3♣ relay for really big hands so the reverse is limited.