We are having some discussion about the alertability under ACBL rules of weak NT openings (we play a 11-to-14 HCP range whenever we are NV).
Actually, the question is not when NT is actually bid (or even rebid by opener at his second call), but when opener opens 1 of a minor, and raises responder's major suit response from 1 level to 2 level (when we are NV e.g., 1♦ opening by South; 1♥ by North, raised to 2♥ by South, with EW silent).
The question is whether EW are owed an alert upon the 2♥ bid by South in this example, based upon the availability of (but the non-use of) a weak NT opening by South.
If EW asked "Explain the alert please" then North's full explanation might be "We play weak NT at this vulnerability. Had South possessed a balanced hand with 11-14 HCP he would have opened 1NT, and not 1 diamond. Therefore, for his 2♥ raise, he should have ♥s with either (1) a balanced hand with 15 to (say) 17 HCP, or (2) an unbalanced hand. But he shouldn't have some schlocky balanced hand."
>>>Pro-alertability: "Weak NT is a bit unusual. The 2 heart rebid by opener conveys this "somewhat unusual" information to responder and EW are entitled to an alert."
>>>Con-alerability: "All bids are natural. If you're going to alert 2 hearts, why start there? Why not alert the 1 diamond opening bid, and say "He doesn't have a schlocky balanced hand with 10-14 HCP (i.e. give the same information you would give in the above example)? But alerting 1♦ seems preposterous. So by parity of reasoning, alerting 2♥ can't be required."
This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-September-04, 11:07