mycroft, on 2024-November-04, 10:56, said:
And you would be right to.
No, this is the ACBL's answer to the perennial "how was I supposed to know (1♣ showing 16 HCP and 0+clubs)-2♣ was majors? Clearly that's Alertable, we didn't show clubs!" (conversely "my opponents don't know what their defence to Precision is, so I won't ask about 2♣. If it turns out to have been Michaels, and they didn't Alert, *and* we got a bad score, we'll complain. But if it was Michaels, and they didn't Alert and treated it as the (non-Alertable) clubs, and we get it for 800, no worries there, mate. And it won't matter if they didn't Alert because they thought it was not Alertable or because they thought it was natural, we still get to have the director if we get a bad score.")
So now, *no* meaning for 2♣ over 1♣ is Alertable. Even if it is, as I said before, opener's LHO flirting with anyone at the table.
You need to know? Ask. You want to keep them in the dark? You failed to ask in a position where *you* knew you needed to if you cared what it meant, that's your problem.
As a Precision player myself, I find this completely acceptable. Put the onus of "getting it right" on the pair that actually sees it more than 4 boards a weekend.
Got you, thanks.
And yes, that makes perfect sense and is fair and practical, although I hate going against the grain of alerting artificial calls.
In our last regulations we decided no-alert for any meaning of a 2C response to 1NT, which I was similarly uncomfortable with as an exception and precedent, but happy with in practice, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately someone slipped in undiscussed an announcement for "Speculative Stayman" (undefined, but probably includes an agreement that we may not have a 4 card major) and so the baby flew straight out with the bathwater. In practice that was unworkable anyway and people soon reverted to alerting their 2C (except for those convinced that they play the one and only true Stayman).
Help
