[pescetom]

WellSpyder, on 2018-May-02, 09:54, said:

Or one could argue that any non-forcing 1NT bid "proposed" to play in NT....

That is implicitly the assumption of the regulations I cited. But would you buy that argument?
Proposal = a plan or suggestion.
Anyone who makes a non-forcing 1NT bid is prepared to play in NT, but that does not mean he suggests or plans to do so.
Quite often he is hoping (or at least willing) to play in a suit.

[barmar]

Any non-forcing bid is essentially a proposal to play in that contract, isn't it? That doesn't necessarily mean you think it's the best contract for the partnership, that depends on how much you know about partner's hand at that point in the auction.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-May-03, 08:16, said:

Any non-forcing bid is essentially a proposal to play in that contract, isn't it? That doesn't necessarily mean you think it's the best contract for the partnership, that depends on how much you know about partner's hand at that point in the auction.

A non-forcing response of 2♦ to 2♣, where the latter is either strong or a weak two in diamonds, I believe requires an alert even though it is a proposal to play in that contract. Is that not the same worldwide? If not, I will take it up with all partners as oppo rarely ask about an alerted 2♣ and will just assume we forgot to alert 2♦.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2018-May-04, 03:43, said:

A non-forcing response of 2♦ to 2♣, where the latter is either strong or a weak two in diamonds, I believe requires an alert even though it is a proposal to play in that contract. Is that not the same worldwide?

Are there jurisdictions where that meaning of 2♣ is allowed in the first place?

If so, 2♦ would be a kind of "pass or correct", and I think these are generally alerted. Where did you get the idea that it shouldn't? The FIGB regulation that was quoted was about not alerting 1NT bids that propose to play in NT, not all bids that propose to play in the contract named.

Quote

If not, I will take it up with all partners as oppo rarely ask about an alerted 2♣ and will just assume we forgot to alert 2[ci].

Aren't you supposed to announce a strong 2♣ in EBU, rather than just alert it? So if they alert, you should definitely ask, since it's not just a typical "strong 2♣".

[blackshoe]

In ACBL, that's a Mid-Chart convention with an approved defense (which must be provided to opponents in writing). Playing it, both 2♣ and 2♦ require an alert.

[sfi]

barmar, on 2018-May-04, 09:40, said:

Are there jurisdictions where that meaning of 2♣ is allowed in the first place?

ABF regulations allow this. Since neither 2C nor 2D show that suit, both are alertable.

[weejonnie]

barmar, on 2018-May-04, 09:40, said:

Are there jurisdictions where that meaning of 2♣ is allowed in the first place?

If so, 2♦ would be a kind of "pass or correct", and I think these are generally alerted. Where did you get the idea that it shouldn't? The FIGB regulation that was quoted was about not alerting 1NT bids that propose to play in NT, not all bids that propose to play in the contract named.

Aren't you supposed to announce a strong 2♣ in EBU, rather than just alert it? So if they alert, you should definitely ask, since it's not just a typical "strong 2♣".

In the EBU this convention is fully acceptable at Level 4 (standard tournament). ANY strong hand is allowed and a hand showing 5 or more cards in a specified suit of any strength is also allowed. It is defined in the Blue Book 7C1

(a) Any meaning or meanings as long as they all show a strong hand (16+ HCP, or 12+ HCP with at least 5 controls), and/or
(b) At most one from the following four options:
...
(ii) One or more meanings which all show at least five cards in the same one specified suit
...

(You would announce a strong 2♣ if its ONLY meaning was a hand with a club suit - by stating the strength. You alert anything else (all calls from 2!c to 2NT must either be announced or alerted, depending on meaning.)

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-May-04, 09:40, said:

Are there jurisdictions where that meaning of 2♣ is allowed in the first place?

Allowed at any level of play by FIGB, so long as the weak variant guarantees 4+ cards in ♣ and the strong variant guarantees at least 13 HCP.
It's alertable, like any other 2♣ except a natural strong clubs opening of at least 19 HCP.

[barmar]

For some reason I thought this was generally disallowed, for the same reason you're not allowed to psych a 2♣ opening with a weak diamond hand.

[weejonnie]

barmar, on 2018-May-07, 08:51, said:

For some reason I thought this was generally disallowed, for the same reason you're not allowed to psych a 2♣ opening with a weak diamond hand.

The laws do not forbid it - the RA might as they have the power to do so (but not natural psychic calls) under law 40B2.(a)iv - the EBU USED to forbid them.

(If you want to play 2♣ as possibly being a weak diamond hand then the EBU won't mind - no need to psych - providing full disclosure is made.)

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-May-07, 11:15, said:

The laws do not forbid it - the RA might as they have the power to do so (but not natural psychic calls) under law 40B2.(a)iv - the EBU USED to forbid them.

Probably due to a 35 board evening, I find that hard to parse
40B2 does allow the RA to "restrict" the use of psychic artificial calls, which suggests that it may not "restrict" the use of natural psychic calls.
Nevertheless my local RA (FIGB) forbids natural psychic calls at lower levels of competition.
I now wonder if this is legitimate

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2018-May-07, 14:52, said:

I now wonder if this is legitimate

It isn't.