[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2017-March-12, 03:37, said:

I like to just play natural. 2♣ is clubs - or if doubled and redoubled, can stand the other three. 2♦ similar; could be majors. After a protective double we play that redouble from either partner is both majors or both minors.

IMO, You must alert when you open 1N and partner replies 2♣ (say) that could be natural but which you never raise, because, systemically, it might instead show a shortage with other suit(s).

At favourable vulnerability, partner might pseudo-psych opponents out of their best game or slam.

If you're vulnerable, opponents safest option might be to pass the response, hoping that your partner will be left struggling in what might be a 2-2 fit or worse.

If you fail to alert, however, opponents, duped into assuming your bid to be natural, might be tempted to double, allowing you to escape to a 4-4 or better fit.

An opponent, with a strong holding in your partner's putative suit, can hardly ask to protect himself, without imparting blatant UI.

In practice, failure to alert is the norm; In general, directors seem unconcerned about disclosure.

Please assume EBU regulations but I hope that failure to alert would be an infraction, at least in theory, under any regulations.

[weejonnie]

nige1, on 2017-March-18, 09:47, said:

IMO, You must alert when you open 1N and partner replies 2♣ (say) that could be natural but which you never raise, because, systemically, it might instead show a shortage with other suit(s).

At favourable vulnerability, partner might pseudo-psych opponents out of their best game or slam.

If you're vulnerable, opponents safest option might be to pass the response, hoping that your partner will be left struggling in what might be a 2-2 fit or worse.

If you fail to alert, however, opponents, duped into assuming your bid to be natural, might be tempted to double, allowing you to escape to a 4-4 or better fit.

An opponent, with a strong holding in your partner's putative suit, can hardly ask to protect himself, without imparting blatant UI.

In practice, failure to alert is the norm; In general, directors seem unconcerned about disclosure.

Please assume EBU regulations but I hope that failure to alert would be an infraction, at least in theory, under any regulations.

Wouldn't this come through as a psychic control

[Vampyr]

weejonnie, on 2017-March-18, 10:54, said:

Wouldn't this come through as a psychic control

Who's psyching?

[paulg]

IMO it is better just to read the regulations.

Quote

EBU BLUE BOOK

4 H 3 Players should not alert:
...
(d) A bid of two of a suit by responder when an opening 1NT has been doubled, if it is ostensibly natural but there is a possibility that responder will remove or redouble for take out: this is considered general bridge knowledge

[weejonnie]

paulg, on 2017-March-18, 16:07, said:

IMO it is better just to read the regulations.

Res ipsa loquitur - however IMHO the circumstances for this as well as the possible continuations are much more complicated than the other 5 options.

[steve2005]

paulg, on 2017-March-18, 16:07, said:

EBU BLUE BOOK

4 H 3 Players should not alert:
...
(d) A bid of two of a suit by responder when an opening 1NT has been doubled, if it is ostensibly natural but there is a possibility that responder will remove or redouble for take out: this is considered general bridge knowledge

Wow a license to deceive.

[nige1]

paulg, on 2017-March-18, 16:07, said:

IMO it is better just to read the regulations.

EBU Blue Book 4 H 3 (d) said:

Players should not alert: ...A bid of two of a suit by responder when an opening 1NT has been doubled, if it is ostensibly natural but there is a possibility that responder will remove or redouble for take out: this is considered general bridge knowledge

steve2005, on 2017-March-18, 18:42, said:

Wow a license to deceive.

Thank you Paul What about other regulators, such as the WBF and ACBL?

[paulg]

nige1, on 2017-March-19, 00:44, said:

Thank you Paul What about other regulators, such as the WBF and ACBL?

Few regulators provide such precise, concise, and easily discoverable information like the EBU. The WBF leave interpretations largely in the domain of their TDs and, as far as I can tell, the ACBL does not address this situation and would also leave it to their TDs.

However, if an NBO like the EBU (who, in my experience, tend to focus more on club players than many NBOs) says that this is general bridge knowledge, then I'd expect other NBOs to rule similarly. Particularly in normal tournaments and higher levels.

[Vampyr]

steve2005, on 2017-March-18, 18:42, said:

Wow a license to deceive.

Well, I was going to say in the other thread before this one was started that this is "just bridge". It is something that a player may make up at the table, after all.

And all but the most inexperienced players will be aware of the possibility.

[helene_t]

Wackojack, on 2017-March-19, 12:29, said:

I think alert 2C and if asked say "happy to play in 2C undoubled". It could have been David Gold (or was it Townsend his partner) who gave this explanation at the table when I asked a few years ago.

I am a bit uncomfortable with this. This was a regular partnership so presumably their partnership understanding goes a bit further than this. I would really like to know if they have a different way to deal with 44 or 45 minors, and if they systematically bid this way with for example 45 majors but not 54 majors.