[Cyberyeti]

If a bid is natural, but is also an asking bid, is this alertable as a potentially unexpected meaning ?

1♣(16+, alerted)-1♥-2♦(natural but responses are tied to holding in diamonds and number of controls)
1♣-1♥-1N (usually but not always balanced, responses are number of controls)
1♣-1♥-2♥ (response is tied to heart holding natural ish raise)

[pran]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-April-16, 03:02, said:

If a bid is natural, but is also an asking bid, is this alertable as a potentially unexpected meaning ?

1♣(16+, alerted)-1♥-2♦(natural but responses are tied to holding in diamonds and number of controls)
1♣-1♥-1N (usually but not always balanced, responses are number of controls)
1♣-1♥-2♥ (response is tied to heart holding natural ish raise)

Yes, they have meaning(s) in addition to their natural meanings.

[nullve]

 pran, on 2021-April-16, 04:08, said:

Yes, they have meaning(s) in addition to their natural meanings.

A:

1N(1)-2♥(2)

(1) 15-17 BAL
(2) 5+ S

B:

1N(1)-2♥(2)

(1) 15-17 BAL, asks if partner has 5+ S
(2) confirms 5+ S

1N should be alerted in B but not in A?

[paulg]

Yes, in my opinion. Actually I would alert without even thinking about it, since it's seems so clear to alert.

The EBU Blue Book has the following regulation:

4 A General
4 A 1 The purpose of alerting and announcing is to draw to the opponents' attention a call by partner that may have a special meaning. If a player is uncertain whether the regulations require an alert, but believes it would help the opponents, he should alert (see also 2A2).

For those unfamiliar with Precision with these relays, it is important to realise that the Precision pair is not necessarily bidding naturally to find a fit at this point. If you do not alert the asking bid, it looks very odd when the response is alerted to a natural call. It might also be safer for the opponents to bid over an asking bid than it would be over a 'normal' natural call.

[pran]

 nullve, on 2021-April-16, 04:57, said:

A:

1N(1)-2♥(2)

(1) 15-17 BAL
(2) 5+ S

B:

1N(1)-2♥(2)

(1) 15-17 BAL, asks if partner has 5+ S
(2) confirms 5+ S

1N should be alerted in B but not in A?

Correct, there is no reason to alert the 1N opening bid in case A as it just shows 15-17 BAL.

But in case B the 1N bid concerns a denomination different from or in addition to the one named in the bid and therefore should be alerted.

(In both cases he 2♥ bid) concerns a denomination different from or in addition to the one named in the bid and therefore should be alerted.)

[Cyberyeti]

 pran, on 2021-April-16, 07:03, said:

Correct, there is no reason to alert the 1N opening bid in case A as it just shows 15-17 BAL.

But in case B the 1N bid concerns a denomination different from or in addition to the one named in the bid and therefore should be alerted.

(In both cases he 2♥ bid) concerns a denomination different from or in addition to the one named in the bid and therefore should be alerted.)

But in the first case, 1♣-1♥-2♦ the 2♦ bid conveys no different info about the bidder's hand whether you're playing asking bids or bidding naturally, it's just the responses (which are clearly alertable) which are different. This was the essence of the question.

[pran]

 Cyberyeti, on 2021-April-16, 07:29, said:

But in the first case, 1♣-1♥-2♦ the 2♦ bid conveys no different info about the bidder's hand whether you're playing asking bids or bidding naturally, it's just the responses (which are clearly alertable) which are different. This was the essence of the question.

The 2♦ bid is alertable if it conveys any information other than or in addition to that the bidder has a diamond suit of a particular minimum length.
(This includes for instance questions, responses, controls and so on)

[Cyberyeti]

 pran, on 2021-April-16, 08:03, said:

The 2♦ bid is alertable if it conveys any information other than or in addition to that the bidder has a diamond suit of a particular minimum length.
(This includes for instance questions, responses, controls and so on)

Do you have a citation for the last bit ? This implies almost any natural bid with mainly unusual/artificial responses is alertable. It conveys ZERO unexpected extra information about the hand itself.

[mycroft]

Remember, Alerting is RA-specific. We would have to use the EBU's regulation and case law, even if a similar regulation applied in Norway or Canada.

A similar question: is 1♣ (16+)-1♥ (normal meaning) Alertable? It's Natural, but "conveys any information in addition to" 4+ (actually 5+) card heart suit - it's game forcing. Note: in several places at several times, the answer to this was "Yes".
If it is, is 1♥-2♣ playing 2/1 AGF Alertable? Again, 50 years ago, the answer was "Yes" in the ACBL.
If yes, then no, why? Because Precision is weird, but everybody plays 2/1?

For another example, let's assume that "everybody" plays inverted minors, so we've decided that the range of the bid isn't Alertable (note: several people in the clubs I play in already believe this, at least based on their Alerting practise). Is it then Alertable because it asks for major suit stoppers?

I would have assumed given the regulations and my (obviously imperfect) knowledge of them, that I would not Alert the asking bid, provided it's *guaranteed* Natural (i.e. you'd never fake it with a 3-card suit because it's the way to get the answer you need), and Alert the response. Knowing Precision players as I do, however, the provided is likely going to be ignored when the right hand shows up[*], so...

[*] Because it's the right bid! I agree! It's just that "we'll fake it when the fact that we're lying about Natural won't matter, and the answer we get does" isn't something the standard-playing opponents won't work out.

[Cyberyeti]

 mycroft, on 2021-April-16, 09:24, said:

Remember, Alerting is RA-specific. We would have to use the EBU's regulation and case law, even if a similar regulation applied in Norway or Canada.

A similar question: is 1♣ (16+)-1♥ (normal meaning) Alertable? It's Natural, but "conveys any information in addition to" 4+ (actually 5+) card heart suit - it's game forcing. Note: in several places at several times, the answer to this was "Yes".
If it is, is 1♥-2♣ playing 2/1 AGF Alertable? Again, 50 years ago, the answer was "Yes" in the ACBL.
If yes, then no, why? Because Precision is weird, but everybody plays 2/1?

For another example, let's assume that "everybody" plays inverted minors, so we've decided that the range of the bid isn't Alertable (note: several people in the clubs I play in already believe this, at least based on their Alerting practise). Is it then Alertable because it asks for major suit stoppers?

I would have assumed given the regulations and my (obviously imperfect) knowledge of them, that I would not Alert the asking bid, provided it's *guaranteed* Natural (i.e. you'd never fake it with a 3-card suit because it's the way to get the answer you need), and Alert the response. Knowing Precision players as I do, however, the provided is likely going to be ignored when the right hand shows up[*], so...

[*] Because it's the right bid! I agree! It's just that "we'll fake it when the fact that we're lying about Natural won't matter, and the answer we get does" isn't something the standard-playing opponents won't work out.

My view FWIW was that 1N would be alerted as you might well fake it on say KQJ10xxxx, A, KQJ, K where number of controls is all that matters, the others not.

[helene_t]

That a bid asks for controls is not in itself alertable. The control showing responses obviously are.

If a diamond bid shows diamonds and carry little further inference (but may e.g., deny primary support for partner's suit) then I would not alert it.

A nt rebid that is "usually" balanced might be alertable.

In Precision, almost all bids mean something different than in acol. Don't let that make you alert everything. Then you would be crying wolf. Alert artificial bidd, bids that promise something in a second suit, and bids with an unexpected forcing character.

[mycroft]

And I would Alert 1NT because it asks for controls, and doesn't even claim to promise a balanced hand. I wouldn't treat your Gerber hand as a "fake", it's systemic (playing that set of responses).

But that's again why I think this convention has waned - it's trying to do two things at once (show and ask) and that rarely works.

[Cyberyeti]

 mycroft, on 2021-April-16, 16:53, said:

And I would Alert 1NT because it asks for controls, and doesn't even claim to promise a balanced hand. I wouldn't treat your Gerber hand as a "fake", it's systemic (playing that set of responses).

But that's again why I think this convention has waned - it's trying to do two things at once (show and ask) and that rarely works.

I'd suggest 95% of the hands for the 1N rebid are balanced

We just play this style because it's an occasional partnership where we don't want to get into the nuances of transfer responses

[pescetom]

 pran, on 2021-April-16, 08:03, said:

The 2♦ bid is alertable if it conveys any information other than or in addition to that the bidder has a diamond suit of a particular minimum length.
(This includes for instance questions, responses, controls and so on)

 mycroft, on 2021-April-16, 09:24, said:

Remember, Alerting is RA-specific. We would have to use the EBU's regulation and case law, even if a similar regulation applied in Norway or Canada.

You are both right of course, but I don't see that you put the question fully to rest.
Actual regulations in any RA apart, I am not in a hurry to have people manually alert the case where the bid is natural but the foreseen subsequent developments are not.

Are agreed system developments after a call an intrinsic part of the agreement about the call itself? One could argue not. One could also argue that not receiving an unrequested and perhaps undesired explanation about the agreed subsequent developments does not alter opponents' ability to react to the call and may be a relief to all, permitting the game to proceed more fluidly.

This issue often comes up in debates about how to explain an asking bid. Going into detail about the possible responses is of course undesirable for UI reasons in a f2f verbal explanation scenario ("asks for Aces, with replies 1403") but can also be criticized simply as unnecessary complication and delay (I would argue that opponents have a right and need to know what 1NT - 2♣ "Stayman" enquiry for majors says about responder's hand, but that they do not yet need to know possible replies, even if they are unusual such as showing 5 cards).

An extreme example of this dilemma closer to cyberyeti's question might be the convention XYZ. When I make call Z (say 1♠ after 1♣-1♥) it is natural (excluding any inferences from things like short club and Walsh, at least) and in any case would not have been different if our system did not include XYZ. Should I alert Z to explain that it is natural but partner has a host of artificial responses to more precisely describe his hand and intentions? That way lies madness, as barmar would argue.

[0 carbon]

Alert what your bid shows & asks - your P alerts her answers. The complete set of choices should be in your Convention Card.

[barmar]

 mycroft, on 2021-April-16, 09:24, said:

For another example, let's assume that "everybody" plays inverted minors, so we've decided that the range of the bid isn't Alertable (note: several people in the clubs I play in already believe this, at least based on their Alerting practise). Is it then Alertable because it asks for major suit stoppers?

Although it's normal to start showing stoppers after an inverted raise, that doesn't mean that the raise "asks" for stoppers. This is just constructive bidding, describing your hand further to try to find the best contract. Since responder has usually denied 4+ length in the majors, it's not logical for those rebids to be looking for a fit.

[mycroft]

Still not sure I see the difference. "I'm the strong hand and have shown my suit in a game forcing auction. It's just constructive bidding to show whether partner has support for me and whether we have controls for slam. We're just describing our hand further to try to find the best contract."

Or is it different because the responses are coded? If so, what about my system with T. where, after 1♦-2♦, our suit bids deny a control in that suit (and show controls in the other two)? Does that make a (n otherwise non-Alertable, by posit) 2♦ bid Alertable?

[mycroft]

In answer to the Opening position, for a real answer, ask the RA. I'm sure they have a canned answer, it won't be the first time they've been asked this.

My guess would be:
1. No (but the responses are)
2. I'd Alert it, and explain as "asking for control count, almost always a balanced hand", but I think you could argue otherwise (as you have here)
3. This one I'm less sure of. I certainly Alerted the equivalent 1♣-1♥; 1♠ "Agrees spades, asks for length and top honours"; but I probably could be convinced otherwise. Note that this was in the pre-2021 ACBL, I believe it fell under "Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted." ("[I]ncludes...all other bids that...convey meanings...in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them.")

And I have no idea why I would think 1 and 3 would be different. But that's what I did.