[jerdonald]

BBO forum,

My partner opened 2 clubs(21+) today and I responded 2NT showing
5+ hearts with 3 of the 4 honors. This bid is shown on our
contention card which is generated by the ACBL "Bridge Convention
Card Program". The program didn't show this bid in red so we
don't alert it but should it be?

Jerry D.

[blackshoe]

Under ACBL rules, yes it should. Under the rules in place in whatever event you were playing, it depends on what those rules are.

[steve2005]

Anything you type in that spot is black-so is meaningless as far as alerts go.

[Kaitlyn S]

jerdonald, on 2016-October-04, 17:46, said:

BBO forum,

My partner opened 2 clubs(21+) today and I responded 2NT showing
5+ hearts with 3 of the 4 honors. This bid is shown on our
contention card which is generated by the ACBL "Bridge Convention
Card Program". The program didn't show this bid in red so we
don't alert it but should it be?

Jerry D.

This again touches on the point I was mentioning in the other thread. Let's say the opponents claimed damage, and the Laws would say that Jerdonald's pair was the guilty party and the director should really try to favor his opponents in any ruling.

However, unless the OP has about 10,000 masterpoints and should know better, he made a reasonable assumption that the ACBL knew what they were doing with their convention card software and I think it should be ruled that there is no guilty party, and that his opponents would have to prove damage in order to receive a score adjustment. I'll bet I have little company in that opinion, but to make the opposite assumption will only hasten to chase players away from tournament bridge. (Don't worry guys, eventually I'll tire of saying this and you won't hear it anymore )

However, does the convention card show anything you key in yourself as red? There is no box for a 3NT bid showing an 8-card minor preempt (yes, I have that agreement with someone), but if I just wrote it in, it would probably come out black and I'd better get a pink highlighter if I used it in at a table instead of on BBO. However, if I was a director or on the appeals committee, I would take the statement "The ACBL software generated this card and printed it in black" as the truth and and presume no fault and only give an adjustment when it was really needed (such as someone leading a heart into a notrump contract played by the person that showed hearts that the opponent was unaware of.)

[Vampyr]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-October-04, 19:38, said:

This again touches on the point I was mentioning in the other thread. Let's say the opponents claimed damage, and the Laws would say that Jerdonald's pair was the guilty party and the director should really try to favor his opponents in any ruling.

However, unless the OP has about 10,000 masterpoints and should know better, he made a reasonable assumption that the ACBL knew what they were doing with their convention card software and I think it should be ruled that there is no guilty party, and that his opponents would have to prove damage in order to receive a score adjustment.

Obviously there is no score adjustment without damage, but I think that "prove" is a bit strong, especially since a weighted score can be given. As far as needing 10,000 master points to realise that this bid is alertable, well, if this bid is not alertable I don't know what is!

I don't think that it is reasonable to expect software to interpret people's writing and decide what is alertable and what is not. Perhaps the colour-coding is a mistake if people are using it as as much a crutch as the OP.

[blackshoe]

Print out the card, and fill it out with a pen. Black pen, or red? The card will not decide for you.

[barmar]

There's no field on the ACBL CC for 2NT response to 2♣, so I don't see how you can claim that it's not red. There are a few checkboxes for the meaning of opening 2♣ and responding 2♦, but the rest is just a general "Responses/Rebids" field. Since some responses/rebids are alertable and some aren't, it wouldn't make sense to make that whole section red.

Also, the color coding on the convention card is just supposed to be a helpful guide, it's not the definition of what's alertable/announceable. The definition comes from the ACBL Alert Procedures pamphlet. The only thing it specifically says about 2♣ openings is that they don't need to be alerted if they're strong and artificial and no 2♦ responses need to be alerted. Anything else falls under the general "Almost all conventions must be alerted" rule. Using 2NT to show hearts is a convention, and it's not one of the well known exceptions to this rule, so it's alertable.

[mycroft]

Note also the top of the Alert Procedures document, explaining the responsibilities of the non- or improperly-Alerted side:

Quote

• Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have
  neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.
  
• Adjustments for violations are not automatic. There must have been
  misinformation.
  
• An adjustment will be made only when the misinformation was a direct cause of
  the damage.
  
• An opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not
  properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed
  without clarifying the situation.

If someone told me they were damaged because they were not Alerted to 2♣-2NT being hearts, and they had played in the ACBL before, especially if they're playing the same thing, and they had any serious experience at all, I would quote the above and tell them to check next time. If you had 10 000 MPs (note: about 9 times what I have), my "surprise" would be obvious.

Yes, there issues with this regulation. I know them very well (having been nailed by them more than once myself, as being "experienced"). But the deck is not universally stacked in favour of the player with the most Law knowledge - sometimes that is actually a hindrance, even if you are trying to rules-lawyer.

Now, if you complained that one of *my* old partners failed to Alert 2♣-2NT, and it caused damage, you might have had a case. We played reverse transfers, so 2♠ showed hearts, and 2NT showed spades.

[WellSpyder]

mycroft, on 2016-October-05, 09:27, said:

If someone told me they were damaged because they were not Alerted to 2♣-2NT being hearts, and they had played in the ACBL before, especially if they're playing the same thing, and they had any serious experience at all, I would quote the above and tell them to check next time.

Is this a common agreement in ACBL-land, then? TBH it would never occur to me that an unalerted 2NT might show hearts, and it is not something I have even seen suggested before, so perhaps it is just as well I play in EBU-land rather than ACBL-land!

[ggwhiz]

WellSpyder, on 2016-October-05, 09:50, said:

Is this a common agreement in ACBL-land, then?

No, at least certainly not with the 3 of 4 top cards requirement.

The whole idea of needing to ask for clarification to protect oneself with the risk of transmitting UI to partner doesn't sit well with me unless the failure to alert/announce makes it fair game, perhaps not entirely relevant in this case but it feels like an alert, period.

[barmar]

ggwhiz, on 2016-October-05, 10:34, said:

No, at least certainly not with the 3 of 4 top cards requirement.

Except for the 3-of-4 requirement, it's pretty popular among intermediate/advanced players, who use 2♥ as an immediate negative. Many (most?) people do play that showing a suit naturally over 2♣ requires 2 of the 3 top honors, not 3 of 4.

Quote

The whole idea of needing to ask for clarification to protect oneself with the risk of transmitting UI to partner doesn't sit well with me unless the failure to alert/announce makes it fair game, perhaps not entirely relevant in this case but it feels like an alert, period.

This mainly applies to very common conventions, when experienced players are playing against novices. For instance, if a novice forgets to announce a Jacoby transfer, an expert should ask for clarification because they know that almost everyone plays transfers.

On the other hand, there's nothing unusual about 2♣-2NT being natural, and I can't imagine anyone asking for clarification in this auction.

[mycroft]

A common (to the point where if you *don't* play this, people will be surprised) system in this area over 2♣ (and yes, while it may be regional, it certainly is not unheard of throughout the ACBL) is:

• 2♦ ART GF. Promises something (either A or K, or A, K, QQ, or 6 high, depending on agreement)
  
• 2♥ ART double-negative. Denies any other call (however, if 2♦ promises a control, they could still be 12 high)
  
• 2♠ Spade positive (usually 5+ to 2/top 3 or 3/top 5 and not just KQxxx and out)
  
• 2NT Heart positive (as above)
  
• 3m suit positive (probably at least 6 to 2/top 3...)
  
• other calls undefined unless you're a really regular pair.

So yes, if you're an ACBL player of reasonable experience and claim to have never heard of this before, I would tend to not believe you.

[Kaitlyn S]

mycroft, on 2016-October-06, 11:33, said:

So yes, if you're an ACBL player of reasonable experience and claim to have never heard of this before, I would tend to not believe you.

I was an ACBL player who claims to have reasonable experience (albeit not recent) and I have never heard of it.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2016-October-06, 11:33, said:

So yes, if you're an ACBL player of reasonable experience and claim to have never heard of this before, I would tend to not believe you.

That's the method I play with almost all my serious partners, so I'm not claiming I haven't heard of it. But if I were playing against a random pair and they had the unalerted auction 2♣-2NT, I would not consider that they might be playing this, so I wouldn't ask if 2NT had any special meaning. I know it's alertable, and I assume that anyone advanced enough to be playing it would also know this. When they don't alert, my assumption is that they're playing natural responses (except for 2♦, which is almost universally artificial).