[inquiry]

Quote

To Luis

"Hey Luis, we bid 1N 3N to play".

If memory serves me well, the rules state somewhere that both partners have to play the same bidding system. If one frequently jumps to 3NT and the other never bids NT first, this would seem to indicate that they are not playing hte same system.

This is correct as far as I remember, Ben, but judgement between pairs in a partnership can vary. eg you might choose to always invite over a 12-14 NT opening holding 11 points regardless of their quality, whereas I might always choose to pass. This isn't alertable.

Yes the rule where both partners must play the same system does allow for difference in judgment. I am on the side of the people who say that if 3NT is to play, it is not alertable. Then I gave some exceptions... and one exception suggested in the original post was that the "stronger" of the pair was the one jumping to 3NT...which could be a violation if one and only if hte weaker was instructed never to bid NT first, etc.

There could be anohter problem, say opener is never allowed to move over the 3NT jump, even with a strong NT opening hand (playing acol, I assume they play weak NT). Then this 3NT must be alerted, because in addition to the unusual shape, it might be that they had some other special agreements. That is if opner is 18 balanced and the bidding gies 1d-3N-P without an alert or an explaination, I would want the director over to see what the heck is going on.

Ben

[luis]

Quote

To Luis
"Hey Luis, we bid 1N 3N to play".

Fun :-) but you and Ben are really missing a point -I think- opponents are entitled to full disclosure of system and style in use. If you bid 1N-3N with unbalanced hands that may contain a 5/6 card major, and may contain some shortness you have an agreement about "style" that is not standard and then it must be disclosed. You can pre-alter, put a note on your CC in the 1NT opening section, alert the 3N bid, etc. I think the proper way to handle this is using a pre-alert since as an opponent I may want to take special measures over your 1NT opening if your pd will blast to 3N with most game forcing hands. I have the right to chnage my style if your 1N-3N style is not standard and so your style must be disclosed.

Luis

[inquiry]

Quote

Quote

To Luis
"Hey Luis, we bid 1N 3N to play".

Fun :-) but you and Ben are really missing a point -I think- opponents are entitled to full disclosure of system and style in use. If you bid 1N-3N with unbalanced hands that may contain a 5/6 card major, and may contain some shortness you have an agreement about "style" that is not standard and then it must be disclosed. You can pre-alter, put a note on your CC in the 1NT opening section, alert the 3N bid, etc. I think the proper way to handle this is using a pre-alert since as an opponent I may want to take special measures over your 1NT opening if your pd will blast to 3N with most game forcing hands. I have the right to chnage my style if your 1N-3N style is not standard and so your style must be disclosed.

Luis

I think I understand luis... Let me give a couple examples..

1NT* * alert, may contain 5 card major or six card minor

1C-1D-1NT* *alert, may contain 4 h or 4S

(1C)-P-(1H)-1N* *if this is sandwich NT, must alert (but who plays natural???)

1N-P-2C* *alert if can contain no 4 card major

Ok, so from this small review, I think we can standardize what should be alerted. A non-standard bid that the opponents might not understand. So the question becomes if 1m-3NT is showing a) game forcing value, evaluation that notrump is playable, c) suggesting a final contract. Is that alertable.

I think the opponents understood that 3NT was showing exactly a willingness to play 3NT. So the answer would seem to be no, it is not alerable. Now, it is clear that these players have an agreement, either explicit or built through practice, that this 3NT, while "natural" can depart significantly from standard practice in the form of shape. And I suspect it is this non-standard. So what should you do?

Well first what is 3NT? It is a natural bid. Does that mean it should not be alerted? Well, just because it is a natural bid does not provide relief from the need to alert. All natural bids that convey a meaning that the opponents may not expect must be alerted. For example.. 1H-P-2C where 2C shows clubs must be alerted if opener can pass, because the opponents would not expect 2C (natural) to be non-forcing.

However, my understanding of alerting procedures is that skip bids beyond 3NT are "self-alerting". A self-alerting call is one that, because it may have many possible meanings, will usually not be natural - these are doubles, redoubles, cue bids of opponents' suits (including skip cue bids), and all calls above 3NT. During the course of the auction, these
bids are not to be alerted. In addition, other self-alerting skip bids include 2NT and 3NT skip bids which by agreement, suggest a willingness to play the contract in no trumps. Although I don't have any problem with a pre-alert if this bid is made with short side suits, especially ones not bid by opener.

Perhaps I misunderstand the alerting rules and the concept of a "self-alerting" bid. But if the bidding goes...

1H-P-1NT*-P-3NT where 1NT=forcing and 3NT is frequently bid with a solid running hearts and the thought that I can 9 tricks in notrump I don't think requires an alert, nor do I think these 1m-3NT require an alert. Certainly a pre-alert would be reasonable if you do this 4 out of 10 hands, but I suspect if you play a pair that jumps to such games willy nilly without exploring 4M or 6M in the long run, you will be a winner as this does not seem the optimal approach to bidding to me.

bEn

[Free]

You will be a winner in the long run, IF you have the full explanation of what for example 1m-3NT can contain! If you don't know, you'll just lead like oposite a natural bidding, and will lose sometimes (maybe a lot) if you lead right into their suit.

Giving an explanation as "to play" is something different than "can contain about any hand". Normally, say 1NT-3NT, its considered as containing a possible 4 card Major, but NEVER a 6 card Major. So if you know your partner does that sometimes with a 6 card, you should alert because ops dont expect that, and you wont even be surprized if you get to see the dummy.
It's like playing 1NT 15-17, but your partner does it regularly with 18 HCP. Ops entire deffense can depend on 1HCP to find a Jack in partner's hand, or a King instead of a Queen. So this should also be known by ops.
Another example: ops playing something like Walsh, but didn't say that and dont have a CC. So the bidding goes 1C-1D-1NT-p. I think you'll lead a Major, and be quite upset if you find 4-4 Major in declarer's hand! Your partner knows that you can have one or two 4 cards Major, so it should be alerted because I don't know as much as my opponents do...

Every single bit of information you have should be known by your opponents. Ofcourse it's ridiculous to have to alert everything, but some things can be quite important. It's up to you what you think is important and what not... Imo 3NT with any FG hand should be (pre-)alerted because it hides information from opponents.

[luis]

Quote

Quote

Quote

To Luis
"Hey Luis, we bid 1N 3N to play".

Fun :-) but you and Ben are really missing a point -I think- opponents are entitled to full disclosure of system and style in use. If you bid 1N-3N with unbalanced hands that may contain a 5/6 card major, and may contain some shortness you have an agreement about "style" that is not standard and then it must be disclosed. You can pre-alter, put a note on your CC in the 1NT opening section, alert the 3N bid, etc. I think the proper way to handle this is using a pre-alert since as an opponent I may want to take special measures over your 1NT opening if your pd will blast to 3N with most game forcing hands. I have the right to chnage my style if your 1N-3N style is not standard and so your style must be disclosed.

Luis

I think I understand luis... Let me give a couple examples..

1NT* * alert, may contain 5 card major or six card minor

1C-1D-1NT* *alert, may contain 4 h or 4S

(1C)-P-(1H)-1N* *if this is sandwich NT, must alert (but who plays natural???)

1N-P-2C* *alert if can contain no 4 card major

Ok, so from this small review, I think we can standardize what should be alerted. A non-standard bid that the opponents might not understand. So the question becomes if 1m-3NT is showing a) game forcing value, evaluation that notrump is playable, c) suggesting a final contract. Is that alertable.

I think the opponents understood that 3NT was showing exactly a willingness to play 3NT. So the answer would seem to be no, it is not alerable. Now, it is clear that these players have an agreement, either explicit or built through practice, that this 3NT, while "natural" can depart significantly from standard practice in the form of shape. And I suspect it is this non-standard. So what should you do?

Well first what is 3NT? It is a natural bid. Does that mean it should not be alerted? Well, just because it is a natural bid does not provide relief from the need to alert. All natural bids that convey a meaning that the opponents may not expect must be alerted. For example.. 1H-P-2C where 2C shows clubs must be alerted if opener can pass, because the opponents would not expect 2C (natural) to be non-forcing.

However, my understanding of alerting procedures is that skip bids beyond 3NT are "self-alerting". A self-alerting call is one that, because it may have many possible meanings, will usually not be natural - these are doubles, redoubles, cue bids of opponents' suits (including skip cue bids), and all calls above 3NT. During the course of the auction, these
bids are not to be alerted. In addition, other self-alerting skip bids include 2NT and 3NT skip bids which by agreement, suggest a willingness to play the contract in no trumps. Although I don't have any problem with a pre-alert if this bid is made with short side suits, especially ones not bid by opener.

Perhaps I misunderstand the alerting rules and the concept of a "self-alerting" bid. But if the bidding goes...

1H-P-1NT*-P-3NT where 1NT=forcing and 3NT is frequently bid with a solid running hearts and the thought that I can 9 tricks in notrump I don't think requires an alert, nor do I think these 1m-3NT require an alert. Certainly a pre-alert would be reasonable if you do this 4 out of 10 hands, but I suspect if you play a pair that jumps to such games willy nilly without exploring 4M or 6M in the long run, you will be a winner as this does not seem the optimal approach to bidding to me.

bEn

It's not the 3N bid what I think should be alerted, it's the agreement on style. If you will bid 1m-3N with more hands than the panel then I might want to overcall 1m with 1x in hands that I wouldn't overcall against a std system. So if you don't pre-alert your 1m-3N bid I'll be deprived from my right to overcall against such a treatment with weakish hands.

Luis

[the hog]

It's not the 3N bid what I think should be alerted, it's the agreement on style.

Ok thats fair enough, can't really disagree with that.

[mikestar]

A response of 3NT to a weak 1NT on

S Axx
H AQxxxx
D x
C Kxx

is not an unusual choice, it is a blatantly irrational one. The only reasons for it I can see are:

1. The 3NT bidder is a beginner and wants his partner to play the game contract. Horrible judgment, partner is just as shocked as we are. No legal issues unless it happens frequently enough to create an implicit #2.

2. The 1NT bidder is a much better player and the weaker player has been instructed to raise 1NT to 3NT whenever he has game values, regardless of shape. Since the converse case is handled differently (if the weak player is even allowed to open 1NT, you know the strong player will bid 4HE and play the hand), then this is obviously illegal under the same system rule.

Note that this is very different than The Hog's example of a solid six-card major with no side shortness. This is just bridge judgement and raises no issues. 3NT has a very reasonable chance of being the right contract.