[shugart24]

I open 2D to show a 3 suited hand, alerted and explained. When partner then bids 2H to Play, should I alert his bid (as opponents may think 2H is a one round force)? Thank you

[pescetom]

Depends partly upon the regulations of your RA: over here, you would not be expected to alert 2H if it shows hearts and neither of your bids are forcing.
But if opener has important inferences from responses not made (2NT forcing enquiry, or whatever) then we would expect you to alert those, although I gather ACBL is not big on that.

[shugart24]

pescetom, on 2025-June-08, 05:47, said:

Depends partly upon the regulations of your RA: over here, you would not be expected to alert 2H if it shows hearts and neither of your bids are forcing.
But if opener has important inferences from responses not made (2NT forcing enquiry, or whatever) then we would expect you to alert those, although I gather ACBL is not big on that.

Yes, I am in ACBL land and 2NT is the response when partner wants to make further inquiry. Is 2D forcing? If partner has 6 Diamonds, he could pass, otherwise I would expect a bid, but it isn't 100 percent forcing. So, a suit bid infers that my partner wants to play it there unless that is my shortness. Maybe an ACBL director will pipe in. Thanks!

[BudH]

shugart24, on 2025-June-08, 06:04, said:

Yes, I am in ACBL land and 2NT is the response when partner wants to make further inquiry. Is 2D forcing? If partner has 6 Diamonds, he could pass, otherwise I would expect a bid, but it isn't 100 percent forcing. So, a suit bid infers that my partner wants to play it there unless that is my shortness. Maybe an ACBL director will pipe in. Thanks!

Unless you play a special version of this 2D "Mini-Roman" convention, 2D is an artificial but non-forcing opening bid. Partner might hold KQJxxx of diamonds and out and pass 2D.

Because the 2H bid is "pass or correct" and is often made with only THREE hearts, I think you should alert responder's 2H bid.

[Shugart23]

That’s a good point. Alert, may only have 3

[mycroft]

From the ACBL Alert Procedure:

"Natural Bids: Alert...

Responses to Opening Bids

1. By an unpassed hand, and after an Opening suit bid and an opponent’s pass or overcall,
a Non-Forcing new suit bid at the cheapest level (unless that bid is at the level of game
or higher)."

So, over a Precision (guaranteed short diamonds) 2♦ opener, Alert it (non-forcing, Natural because "intending to play"). Note: those of you playing Flannery better do it too, and I don't remember the last one who did.

Continuing:

"Artificial Bids: Do not Alert:

1. [2NT after a weak 2]
2. [Stayman after 1NT or a sequence of Artificial Bids leading to 1NT]
3. 2♦ response to a Strong or Very Strong Artificial 2♣ Opening Bid."

Pass-or-correct calls are not defined Natural (there's a blurry line there, in the meaning of "suggests the contract bid". But consensus seems to be "suggests the contract bid, unless it's *not* your suit" doesn't count.) and aren't an exception, so Alert if it's mini-Roman.

[Huibertus]

shugart24, on 2025-June-08, 05:05, said:

I open 2D to show a 3 suited hand, alerted and explained. When partner then bids 2H to Play, should I alert his bid (as opponents may think 2H is a one round force)? Thank you

What does "To play" mean? Does this mean partner will pass with 4♠0♥5♦4♣? If so, then my guess is no alert needed.
However if he then bids anything in search of a better fit, then it would require an alert and if asked for explanation "Pass or correct" would be more appropriate.

[pescetom]

It's the ACBL consensus that matters (so see end of mycroft's post).
But FWIW I wouldn't consider 2H as not natural or as "Pass or Correct" for that matter, even if partner will bid 2S should his shortage be in hearts. That seems to me simple bridge logic on both sides (given the agreed meaning of 2D) and in any case not "Pass or Correct" (there is no one correct suit - maybe "Pass or Wriggle").

[mycroft]

There's nothing in the Alert Procedure, or in the Laws, that says that Alerting is based on "what the opponents should know about your auction had they asked", or even "what the opponents should understand about your auction because they asked."

Is it "a suggestion to play"? Or is it "a suggestion to play if you have support, but not if you don't"?

I run into this with Keri/NT. Do I have to Alert 2♦(1) after 1NT(12-14)-2♣(Alert}? Does it matter if they asked what the Alert of 2♣ was before 2♦ was bid? Does it matter what the explanation of 2♣ is - especially given the habit of players around here to explain puppet calls as "forces me to bid 2♦", even though *they know* that partner has that suit maybe 10% of the time (and is going to play there maybe 2%). Again, 2♦ is "to play, if you have the weak hand with diamonds; otherwise show me your hand".

If this doesn't count as "suggestion to play" but 2♥ "pass or bid 2♠ if you're short in hearts" (25% (mini-Roman) or 50% (one major) of the time) does, where's the borderline? And again, does it matter to the Alertability of the 2♥ call if they've asked about 2♦ or not? Should it? How about self-Alerting online, where partner will have "auto-explained" (you hope. Maybe they just Alerted and didn't explain. Does that matter)?

I think, despite the "it makes sense" and "shouldn't have to explain twice" feelings, that it's unworkable to have a disclosure requirement that relies on the opponents knowing what has already been shown and understanding how your system works. "Do you show cards in the suit? If not, are you expecting to play there because partner has cards in the suit? Or only *if* partner has cards in the suit, which they may have, but if they don't, they have cards in this suit instead?" seems like a simple, workable difference.

(1) "Shows 13 cards", or "partner is required to bid 2♦", or "If I wanted to play 2♦, here we are", depending on mood and how capable they are of understanding. And, yes, of course, depending on whether they asked about 2♣ ("Either wants to play 2♦, or one of several invitational or better hands she will show next round." Or, if you're one of those who explains Pass as "forces Redouble" (but almost always a two-suited runout) or lebensohl as "wants me to bid 3♣" (but rarely has clubs), "please bid 2♦". Which should let you know how happy I am about those kinds of explanations.)

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2025-June-09, 14:09, said:

Is it "a suggestion to play"? Or is it "a suggestion to play if you have support, but not if you don't"?

Isn't that how most natural bids work? E.g. natural openings are a suggestion to play there, but you expect partner to offer some other suggestion if they don't have support and have enough strength to bid.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2025-June-12, 13:32, said:

Isn't that how most natural bids work? E.g. natural openings are a suggestion to play there, but you expect partner to offer some other suggestion if they don't have support and have enough strength to bid.

I think that is part of the answer, and I'm happy (on the whole) to have an alert procedure which is based upon alerting that which is not natural.

Most of the remaining part is in the posibility to request and obtain an explanation of the auction one call after another, rather than pointing at a single call and hoping (at best, assuming opponent really needed to know and did not have less noble intentions) to gain an instant photograph of the situation (such as the often nonsensical cumulative explanations offered by GiB). I think 2♣ "Either wants to play 2♦, or one of several invitational or better hands she will show next round." is a perfect explanation, and then 2♦ "obliged by 2♣" is quite sufficient in the context. But it's obvious that if the first/only question is "what is 2♦" then the opponent may well remain unsatisfied (and if that brings the Director to the table, then all the better).

[Cascade]

I think there is a difference, or at least should be, between 2!d 2!h to play and 2!d 2!h pass or correct.

The combination of description 2!d "three-suited" and 2!h "to play" in the description makes this a little difficult to decipher.

If 2!d is any three-suiter (maybe no five-card major) and 2!h is pass or correct then I think 2!h certainly needs an alert probably everywhere.

If 2!d is short diamonds (thus showing length in the majors) and 2!h is to play then 2!h, the cheapest bid in one of partner's suits should not be alertable.

[pescetom]

Cascade, on 2025-June-12, 14:51, said:

If 2!d is any three-suiter (maybe no five-card major) and 2!h is pass or correct then I think 2!h certainly needs an alert probably everywhere.

If 2!d is short diamonds (thus showing length in the majors) and 2!h is to play then 2!h, the cheapest bid in one of partner's suits should not be alertable.

I think this is a good example of how the WBF principal of alerting non-natural comes into play.
Developments could be entirely natural here.
If 2♦ is short diamonds then a bid of 2♥ must set trumps.
If 2♦ is any three-suiter then a bid of 2♥ must set trumps unless Opener is short in hearts in which case she will bid 2♠ which we will pass or correct to a longer minor.
All of this is natural, not a convention. Only if we agreed to play differently does any bid afer 2♦ need an alert around here.