[mycroft]

...Except that explicitly, in ACBL world, this is not Alertable. By inference, the opponents are deemed to be aware of this fact.

I don't agree or disagree with this part of the Procedure, but it is what it is.

[nige1]

jallerton, on 2013-August-30, 11:09, said:

Indeed. The opponents might not be aware that you might bid a 2-card suit here, an implication of your partnership agreements to play a forcing NT combined with not playing F****** , and the way to draw this to their attention is to alert!

mycroft, on 2013-August-30, 13:03, said:

...Except that explicitly, in ACBL world, this is not Alertable. By inference, the opponents are deemed to be aware of this fact. I don't agree or disagree with this part of the Procedure, but it is what it is.

In principle, jallerton seems right about alerting. I think local alerting rules are an enigma. They're complex, arbitrary, inconsistent, and designed to conceal local idiosyncrasies from those who most need to know about them -- beginners, strangers and foreigners. Nevertheless, in practice, mycroft is right. We must learn to endure them.

[barmar]

I think ACBL's rule is based on the fact that F******* is not very common.

[jallerton]

It seems to be quite common in the USA from what I have seen on Vugraph, but perhaps it is less popular amongst intermediate players.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2013-August-31, 21:18, said:

I think ACBL's rule is based on the fact that F******* is not very common.

jallerton, on 2013-September-01, 04:21, said:

It seems to be quite common in the USA from what I have seen on Vugraph, but perhaps it is less popular amongst intermediate players.

There are too many variables to determine how common Flannery is among ACBL tournament players of any level; also, the issue is not really how many pairs use or don't use it ---rather how likely the opponents are to be familiar with Flannery and its inferences.

We cannot just look at the CC's of record for the ACBL top players you see on Vugraph; these cards are mostly modified for USBF qualification events and for international play, and many have gone to 2♦ Multi which they won't be using in most ACBL tourneys. Strong Club pairs, who might have chosen Flannery if playing a natural system, use 2♦ for a different system plug.

The real basis for the (sloppily constructed) rule is to spell out an exception to their definition of "natural" for opening bids and rebids. I just believe they were wrong to do so; Forcing NT non-Flannery pairs with 4-5-2-2 might be compelled by necessity to rebid 2♣, but that does not make the bid natural or expected by the opponents (nor unexpected by partner) IMO.