[ggwhiz]

I don't have the full hand but the situation.

East: 1♠ West: 2nt - alerted as Jacoby
East: 3♣ - no alert

E/W soon land in 6♠

Early in the play, South on lead makes the "safe" club exit with 3 small in dummy (west) into declarers (east) AQx the only way the slam makes

What is it?

1. Failure to alert 3♣ - east contends that a cue bid is not alertable
2. Misinformation alerting Jacoby - whatever this is it's not that convention
3. All of the above
4. None of the above

[gordontd]

 ggwhiz, on 2018-February-28, 08:53, said:

I don't have the full hand but the situation.

East: 1♠ West: 2nt - alerted as Jacoby
East: 3♣ - no alert

E/W soon land in 6♠

Early in the play, South on lead makes the "safe" club exit with 3 small in dummy (west) into declarers (east) AQx the only way the slam makes

What is it?

1. Failure to alert 3♣ - east contends that a cue bid is not alertable
2. Misinformation alerting Jacoby - whatever this is it's not that convention
3. All of the above
4. None of the above

What was 3C, by their agreement?

[ggwhiz]

 gordontd, on 2018-February-28, 09:17, said:

What was 3C, by their agreement?

Appears to be a cue bid (west confirmed that 3♣ was the appropriate response or at least disclosed no issue with it) but no documentation is available

[barmar]

 ggwhiz, on 2018-February-28, 08:53, said:

1. Failure to alert 3♣ - east contends that a cue bid is not alertable

I think he might be correct. Once you've established a fit, bidding new suits to show something (length and/or high cards) in that suit, as game or slam tries, is generally normal and not alertable.

What do you think the non-alertable meaning of 3♣ is? The usual meaning of 3♣ in Jacoby 2NT is shortness, but that's alertable.

Quote

2. Misinformation alerting Jacoby - whatever this is it's not that convention

An explanation should not just be the name of a convention, it should be a description of what it shows. But I'm not sure what difference it would have made. Suppose he said "Game forcing hand with 4+ spades and probably no shortness", you still wouldn't know what 3♣ means. I'll bet anything you would still have assumed that they play the usual Jacoby rebids, even though they didn't say the name of the convention -- that sounds like the usual description of Jacoby.

[TylerE]

2 with a little bit of 4.

A cuebid might not be normally alertable, but given that 2NT was "Jacoboy" (Insert rant here about the name not being an alert...)

From the alert procedures, section 4:

"Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or
unexpected meaning still requires an Alert."

Since world+dog plays 1M-2N-3x as shortness, I would consider 3x being a cuebid to by very unusual AND unexpected.

Alternatively, what was the ACTUAL agreement for 2N? I suspect it something like "strong forcing raise"m in which case alerting it as Jacoby is flat out wrong.

So EW have catch-22'd there way into an MI ruling.

[Cyberyeti]

While Barmar is right, EVERY explanation of Jacoby I've come across includes the shortness responses (and I just googled it and the first 5 I came across listed these as the responses without alternative), so it's a reasonable expectation if you use the name of the convention you're playing these as they seem to be part of the convention. The explanation Barmar gives instead of simply saying Jacoby, then opps are fine.

If 3♣ is a cue bid, then it might be a singleton so isn't this alertable, I don't know the US rules or is it always high card ?

[chrism]

3: Misinformation, both from misexplanation of the agreement and from the failure immediately to alert a conventional control bid (not a "cuebid") below the level of 3NT. As noted above, you shouldn't just use the name of a convention, but if you do, you had better be sure that you are playing a universally known "vanilla" version.

The ACBL Alert procedures include

Quote

Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or
unexpected meaning still requires an Alert

but defines "cuebid" explicitly as

Quote

A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards.

as opposed to "control bid", defined as

Quote

A bid, not intended as a place to play, which denotes a control (usually
first or second round). The control need not be in the denomination named ...

.
The alert procedures are silent on the alertability of control bids, but I would expect them to be alerted by default (delayed until after the auction when so required), since nothing that I see in the alert procedures exempts them.

[steve2005]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-February-28, 10:26, said:

If 3♣ is a cue bid, then it might be a singleton so isn't this alertable, I don't know the US rules or is it always high card ?

First, ACBL documentation on alerts isn't totally clear.
If 3♣ shows a control which could be a A/K or shortness it is normally not considered alertable after trump agreement.
It is true that the normal Jacoby 3♣ response shows shortness and is alertable. That 3♣ was not alertable means it shouldn't be exclusively shortness. If you want to know what it actually is ask.

People who say because 3♣ is unusual and not the normal meaning so should be alerted are wrong and are in effect saying all 3♣ bid meanings here would be alertable.

With my partner we don't play transfer over 1N. I have had people say we should then alert 2M. So we should alert something because it isn't alertable?!

[Cyberyeti]

 steve2005, on 2018-February-28, 13:01, said:

People who say because 3♣ is unusual and not the normal meaning so should be alerted are wrong and are in effect saying all 3♣ bid meanings here would be alertable.

Once you've explained 2N as Jacoby, it is extremely unexpected for it to be anything other than shortage. IMO given the clarifications above 3♣ wasn't alertable UNTIL they explained 2N as Jacoby.

[blackshoe]

"Alerted as Jacoby". If the "explanation" of the alert was just that one word, that's MI whatever the bid actually meant.

In Jacoby as I understand it, 3♣ shows a singleton club. This bid requires an alert because it's artificial. If the meaning this pair assigned to 3♣ is different from this, then given the explanation "Jacoby" 3♣ requires an alert because it's highly unusual and unexpected.

A cue bid is, by definition, a bid in a suit bid or shown by an opponent. Neither opponent has bid or shown any suit, so 3♣ is not a cue bid. If the person who asserted that "cue bids are not alertable" meant to refer to what is now defined as a "control bid" (though admittedly used to be called "cue bid"), i.e. a bid showing first or second round control, then he is mistaken in his assertion. Control bids require an alert. Often the alert will be delayed because the control bid is above 3NT and at or after opener's second call, but that doesn't apply in this case.

Added: the above is based on ACBL regulations. If this occurred elsewhere, the regulations are probably different.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2018-February-28, 16:52
Reason for edit: added information

[blackshoe]

 steve2005, on 2018-February-28, 13:01, said:

First, ACBL documentation on alerts isn't totally clear.
If 3♣ shows a control which could be a A/K or shortness it is normally not considered alertable after trump agreement.
It is true that the normal Jacoby 3♣ response shows shortness and is alertable. That 3♣ was not alertable means it shouldn't be exclusively shortness. If you want to know what it actually is ask.

People who say because 3♣ is unusual and not the normal meaning so should be alerted are wrong and are in effect saying all 3♣ bid meanings here would be alertable.

With my partner we don't play transfer over 1N. I have had people say we should then alert 2M. So we should alert something because it isn't alertable?!

Your transfer example is not a very good one, because your assertion that 3♣ does not require an alert is incorrect. See my previous post.

"Normally not considered"? What does that mean?

[steve2005]

 blackshoe, on 2018-February-28, 16:57, said:

Your transfer example is not a very good one, because your assertion that 3♣ does not require an alert is incorrect. See my previous post.

"Normally not considered"? What does that mean?

Ok lets say your right and 3♣ should be alerted.
So opps will assume bid means a void or singleton and still lead clubs thinking it's safe.
If 3♣ is alertable whatever it means then the alert is not helpful.

[Tramticket]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-February-28, 10:26, said:

While Barmar is right, EVERY explanation of Jacoby I've come across includes the shortness responses (and I just googled it and the first 5 I came across listed these as the responses without alternative), so it's a reasonable expectation if you use the name of the convention you're playing these as they seem to be part of the convention. The explanation Barmar gives instead of simply saying Jacoby, then opps are fine.

If 3♣ is a cue bid, then it might be a singleton so isn't this alertable, I don't know the US rules or is it always high card ?

You must have led a sheltered life. I have seen a large variety of response structures to a 2NT raise (which may or may not have been described as "Jacoby"). For example Heather Dhondy in April 2016 wrote an article: Mr Bridge.

EDIT: Also a David Bakhshi article from October 2009 English Bridge


I'm not suggesting that this is "correct" or "good bridge" - but I would not assume any response structure and would ask further. Using names of conventions in responses to questions is just wrong.

[Cyberyeti]

 Tramticket, on 2018-March-01, 05:07, said:

You must have led a sheltered life. I have seen a large variety of response structures to a 2NT raise (which may or may not have been described as "Jacoby"). For example Heather Dhondy in April 2016 wrote an article: Mr Bridge.

EDIT: Also a David Bakhshi article from October 2009 English Bridge


I'm not suggesting that this is "correct" or "good bridge" - but I would not assume any response structure and would ask further. Using names of conventions in responses to questions is just wrong.

These are English, I think OP is American, the articles I saw happened to be American.

[Tramticket]

 Cyberyeti, on 2018-March-01, 06:03, said:

These are English, I think OP is American, the articles I saw happened to be American.

Agreed. And I have no real knowledge of what is standard in America.

[pescetom]

 TylerE, on 2018-February-28, 10:20, said:

Since world+dog plays 1M-2N-3x as shortness

This might just be true for all ACBL players + dog, but it's certainly not so for the world.
Many people play 2NT as invitational or even natural and think Jacoby is just the name of a transfer.
And a 3♣ reply can be almost anything according to partnership.

 Tramticket, on 2018-March-01, 05:07, said:

Using names of conventions in responses to questions is just wrong.

And assuming that the name of a convention is enough to define the successive developments is even more wrong.
People can't even agree on the initial replies to Stayman, let alone the continuations.

[barmar]

 TylerE, on 2018-February-28, 10:20, said:

From the alert procedures, section 4:

"Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or
unexpected meaning still requires an Alert."

That's a different meaning of "cue bid", it's referring to bidding a suit shown by an opponent (e.g. Michaels cue bids). What we're talking about in this thread is a control bid, which is often called a cue bid as well.

[BudH]

 blackshoe, on 2018-February-28, 16:49, said:

Control bids require an alert. Often the alert will be delayed because the control bid is above 3NT and at or after opener's second call, but that doesn't apply in this case.

Ed, I find nothing other than the definition of a control bid in any ACBL document and nothing that says it is alertable. Do you have a source?

You appear to be saying that 1H-3H-3S control bid is alertable which is never alerted, in my experience, in ACBL play. (Of course, many things, like visually alerting and announcing, are done by a very small minority.)

Same for an inverted minor auction where several control bids might be made below 3NT.

[blackshoe]

 Tramticket, on 2018-March-01, 06:13, said:

Agreed. And I have no real knowledge of what is standard in America.

I'm pretty sure that nobody does, though a lot of people think they know.

[blackshoe]

 BudH, on 2018-March-01, 13:45, said:

Ed, I find nothing other than the definition of a control bid in any ACBL document and nothing that says it is alertable. Do you have a source?

You appear to be saying that 1H-3H-3S control bid is alertable which is never alerted, in my experience, in ACBL play. (Of course, many things, like visually alerting and announcing, are done by a very small minority.)

Same for an inverted minor auction where several control bids might be made below 3NT.

It's not natural, so it's artificial. Artificial bids require an alert unless the regulation specifically states otherwise. At least, that's how I read it.