[mjj29]

campboy, on 2011-September-12, 15:37, said:

Either 15-17 or 15-19 I imagine.

I don't think 'a reasonable subset of an expected range and the same shape' is really 'highly unexpected'. Certainly I could see alerting a 3NT that shows 15-16, but I don't see how 2NT is 'unexpected' to contain 18 or 19 points when 15-19 is an accepted common range. How differently are you as the other side going to treat 15-19 facing 10+ and 18-19 facing 10+ during the rest of the auction?

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-September-12, 12:02, said:

In my view this makes it alertable. I cannot see any agreements that you are likely to expect that makes a 2NT rebid in Acol 18-19.

Well thanks for the lifeline David, and that was certainly my view at the time although we seem to be in the minority.

What made me suspicious at the table was East's initial explantion of 2NT of the more "normal" 15-17 which West quickly corrected to "18-19". I certainly got the sense that West was indeed worried that East had forgotten this unusual agreement when she went into the tank after East's 4♥ bid. I agree that West has a very good hand, but her partner didn't cue over 3♥ so why should she expect anything better than a filthy 10-count from East absent both minor kings?

After the match, I discussed the alertability of a number of other "unexpected point range" NT rebids with the ruling TD as I have a few in my own bidding system which I religiously alert, such as 1♣:1♦(showing ♥):1NT=18-19 balanced which is most certainly an unexpected point range which is affected by the agreement to accept the transfer on all 11-14 balanced hands with 2 or 3 ♥. The ruling TD (who is one of Australia's most senior directors and is on the WBF panel) opined that 1NT in that auction would not be alertable, but there's no harm in alerting it.

[bluejak]

mjj29, on 2011-September-12, 16:38, said:

I don't think 'a reasonable subset of an expected range and the same shape' is really 'highly unexpected'. Certainly I could see alerting a 3NT that shows 15-16, but I don't see how 2NT is 'unexpected' to contain 18 or 19 points when 15-19 is an accepted common range. How differently are you as the other side going to treat 15-19 facing 10+ and 18-19 facing 10+ during the rest of the auction?

I do. I have been playing Acol and against Acol players for what? 40 years? I have never run into anyone who plays a 2NT rebid to not include 15, and I don't believe you have, mjj, either.

So the incredibly unusual agreement, whatever it is, that this pair have on what they do with 15-17 [rebid 3NT is my guess, and miss 5-3 spade fits] makes this 2NT alertable.

[campboy]

mjj29, on 2011-September-12, 16:38, said:

I don't think 'a reasonable subset of an expected range and the same shape' is really 'highly unexpected'. Certainly I could see alerting a 3NT that shows 15-16, but I don't see how 2NT is 'unexpected' to contain 18 or 19 points when 15-19 is an accepted common range. How differently are you as the other side going to treat 15-19 facing 10+ and 18-19 facing 10+ during the rest of the auction?

It is not what is shown but what is denied that is unexpected. Wouldn't you alert if you were playing 6-card majors?

Of course, the questions "do the regulations require an alert" and "is alerting going to help opponents" are not the same. In the EBU even the standard meanings of this rebid are alertable!

[sfi]

mrdct, on 2011-September-12, 17:58, said:

What made me suspicious at the table was East's initial explantion of 2NT of the more "normal" 15-17 which West quickly corrected to "18-19".

Treating 2NT as stronger than 3NT when both are game forcing is standard here (same country, few hours drive away), so I would certainly not have expected an alert. Nor would I expect one in national events.

Bluejak, it may not be an agreement that you have come across in England, but there are pockets of Australia where it is common (I accept that this may be rather more "modified" Acol than would be seen in England). In general, there is enough variety here that this sort of a difference does not seem to be alertable. They both mean "balanced, narrowly defined point range".

On the actual hand, East forced to game with 2♥, so it's unreasonable to expect West to sign off over 4♥.

[paulg]

sfi, on 2011-September-13, 04:47, said:

On the actual hand, East forced to game with 2♥, so it's unreasonable to expect West to sign off over 4♥.

That is not what the OP stated as 2♥ did not promise a rebid. Although I do think it is clear for West to continue whatever East has on this auction with his control-rich hand.

[lamford]

This seems to belong in simple rulings. No relevant UI and no adjustment.

I would be much more interested in the brown sticker convention which was not pre-alerted after the TD had advised East to pre-alert. That, to me, is an automatic PP or DP, and an adjustment on the board in which it occurred because of the lack of opportunity to discuss a defence.

[sfi]

paulg, on 2011-September-13, 04:55, said:

That is not what the OP stated as 2♥ did not promise a rebid. Although I do think it is clear for West to continue whatever East has on this auction with his control-rich hand.

Fair enough. I read 2/1 F1 as 2/1 FG. Apologies.

[bluejak]

campboy, on 2011-September-13, 04:15, said:

In the EBU even the standard meanings of this rebid are alertable!

They are?

[campboy]

It's alertable if it's forcing -- at least that is my understanding of 5F1b. I think it's standard to play it as forcing whether it's 15-17 or 15-19.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-September-12, 09:35, said:

The question as to whether this E/W pair believes 2NT showing 18-19 is alertable and whether they normally alert it is vital, and should have been asked. There can be no sensible decision as to whether UI was transmitted without knowing the answer to that. Whether the ABF believes it to be alertable is actually irrelevant: that would affect MI but MI is irrelevant. It does not affect UI.

IMHO, everything following this, in post #12 ---including my feeble attempt to emphasize it are superflous to the OP's issue at hand.

[FrancesHinden]

campboy, on 2011-September-13, 10:55, said:

It's alertable if it's forcing -- at least that is my understanding of 5F1b. I think it's standard to play it as forcing whether it's 15-17 or 15-19.

I know plenty of people who play it as either 15-16 or 15-17 and non-forcing, which is why I agree it's alertable in the EBU if it is forcing.

It's totally off-topic for this thread, but I've had different opinions about whether 1C - 1D (hearts) - 1NT (18-19) is alertable in the EBU as well, there isn't a consensus.

[phil_20686]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-September-13, 13:14, said:

I know plenty of people who play it as either 15-16 or 15-17 and non-forcing, which is why I agree it's alertable in the EBU if it is forcing.

Really?

I am pretty sure that roughly 50% of the field in EBU play 2NT as GF in these auctions, 15-19, and I have never seen it alerted in an EBU tournament.

A similar case would be if you play a strong club, so that 1C-1M-1N = 18-19 (or 17-19), but for a lot of players 1M response to a strong club already promises 8+ points. Does that make 1N alertable as GF? I have never seen it alerted, even though I have played against pairs who had NF auctions after 1C*-1M (in the case of misfits).

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-September-12, 18:17, said:

I do. I have been playing Acol and against Acol players for what? 40 years? I have never run into anyone who plays a 2NT rebid to not include 15, and I don't believe you have, mjj, either.

So the incredibly unusual agreement, whatever it is, that this pair have on what they do with 15-17 [rebid 3NT is my guess, and miss 5-3 spade fits] makes this 2NT alertable.

I suspect that your guess is correct. This switch actually makes quite a lot of sense given their system. They won't miss any 5-3 spade fits (unless Responder judges to play in 3NT) as Responder can just bid 4♠ with 3-card support.

I haven't been playing for as long as you, but I've come across Acol players playing a 2NT rebid after a 2/1 as all sorts of ranges:

11-13
12-13
12-14
14-15
15-16
15-17
15-18
15-19
18-19

Not all of these ranges include 15-counts. Of course, the weaker ranges are generally played by those who would open 1NT with a 15-count, but are you suggesting that "unexpectedness" for alerting purposes should be measured in terms of unexpectedness given their declared basic system?

[bluejak]

I have run into these sort of rebids myself, but not when they are playing Acol. I do not see how you can play a 2NT rebid as 11-13 for example with Acol, which is basically four-card majors and light 2/1s.

I suppose the problem is that some people think Acol means any natural system played in the British Isles. Perhaps it is the same in Australia.

I have played 11-13 myself with a young Hackett. But if one thing was certain, it was that we were not playing Acol.

Mind you, going back to the question of alertability, if it is common in Australia to switch the 2NT and 3NT rebids around, then the 3NT bid probably is not alertable.