1NT response after overcall
After 1H (1S) 1NT, the 1NT response is described as 6-9 any shape without heart support and doesn't guarantee a spade stopper. Should the 1NT be alerted (the players say that they have been told at EBU congresses that it should not)?
Comments
I can't see why this would be alerted.
Alan
The oppo thought that 4B1(b) applied "is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning"
It's in the grey area where you might ask about an unalerted call.. And you might get the answer : Don't know
Alan
In Acol, the 1NT response always has a potentially unexpected meaning, since it's basically just a bucket-bid, yet it's never alerted. Why should interference make a difference?
It's not unexpected that the 1NT response contains a wide range of weak hands; that's standard in virtually every system.
Interference makes a huge difference.
After 1H (P) responder wants to say something on many hands that are not shape-suitable for 1NT. It's a 'bucket bid' as described and this is not unexpected.
After 1H (1S) responder has no need to bid with an unsuitable hand.
I think a 1NT bid here that might be - say- a 1-1-6-5 distribution does need alerting.
I am always wary of being told 'but a TD told me it wasn't alertable' because we don't know exactly what the question was.
There's a big difference between '1NT is basically natural, but may not have a spade stop if otherwise suitable' (e.g. Jxx xx KQxx Qxxx - not saying I would bid 1NT but I don't mind it) and '1NT is any 6-9 any shape without 3 hearts' which could be x x KQxxxxx Jxxx or J10987xx K Jxx Qx etc'
In my opinion the first of these is arguably not alertable; the second definitely should be alerted
...continued...
Whenever thinking about alerting questions, the basic questions is to wonder "Why does it matter?"
It matters because if fourth seat has a marginal raise, their action will be affected if they think their RHO usually has values with a stop compared to could have anything (when pre-emption is far more tempting).
It also matters because it will affect either the play in a spade contract, or the defence against a NT contract.
If the bidding had gone
1H-(1S)-1NT-(3S)
NB-(NB)-4H
And the 1NT hand was
spade 10
heart Q 10 9 8 3
diamond 5 2
club A J 8 7 2
Again, 1NT shows 6-9 without Hs but this explanation wasn't given until after the hand was tabled as dummy.
What are your thoughts now?
Except that he has "heart Q 10 9 8 3" ?
The normal expectation would be that the 1N shows some kind of probable spade stop (albeit thin eg sJxx as Francis says). If your agreement is that you ignore interference and you always bid 1N irrespective, then it has a potentially unexpected meeting which the opponents are entitled to know...hence it needs alerting.
Well, to be honest, my thoughts now are that I'm going to beat these opponents in whatever event I am playing in.
It's not unexpected if you expect it. This became one of my pet peeves about Acol after I picked up a partner who'd not played for 30 years or so and only knew Precision. He was repeatedly caught out by the wide range of hands held in a not-alerted 1NT response. Of course, he now knows better and it's no longer unexpected.
I've not come across a version of Precision where the range of hands contained in a 1NT response is narrower that in the same response in Acol. In many cases the contrary is true as many Precisioners play a forcing 1NT response as recommended by Reese.
I have no problem with 1NT showing a wide range of different distributions - that is to be expected. But the opposition would expect that it normally shows a stop in the enemy suit. On that basis what is the problem with it requiring an alert (or alerting anyway even if it is not required) under 4B1(b) "is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning"? Otherwise 1H (1S) 1NT could be either made on, for example,
xx
x
KJxxx
KJxxx
or
KJx
xx
KJxx
xxxx
The former would be unexpected but the latter is what you would expect
I think we are talking about different things. My comments were in response to someone talking about the uncontested auction, which had split off from the original thread. Sorry for the confusion it's caused.
So should 1H (1S) 1NT be alerted if it doesn't systemically promise a spade stopper?
I think so, if it's by agreement. That's distinct from someone deciding to chance the bid without one.
I don't see it as a split from the topic. Most Acol players view the 1NT response as being just a "bucket bid", promising nothing other than a point range aslo many Acol players bid at the one-level after interference as though there had been no interference. Whether you think that a 1NT response should be alerted becomes a question of parochial culture. That we're having this discussion suggests that what is expected from the bid varies, whether with or without interference. As for Precision players bidding 1NT, I'd expect it them to alert it, since it's acknowledged that their culture differs from that of the typical Acol player as does their use of the bid.
"many Acol players bid at the one-level after interference as though there had been no interference"
Your experience must differ from mine in regard to 1NT responses.
With regard to Precision, alertability depends on the agreed meaning of calls and the alerting regulations, not on "culture". After all, limited major-suit openings are not alerted.
Board x ... LHO 1D, Pard 1S, RHO 1NT - turned out to have a small doubleton in Spades.
Next opponents, next but one Board ... LHO 1D, Pard Pass, RHO 1NT - turned out to have AQJT9x in Spades.
"Who teaches you to bid like this?" we asked. Answer cannot be typed here for reasons of defamation of character but let us say "Fred Splinge was our teacher" was the response. Very next round, Fred Splinge is our oppo. So, we asked Fred "do you teach your students ... " and quoted our two examples above. "Yes", he said, "1NT response is 5 to 8 points". "Even with the 1S overcall?" ... "Yes, you don't need a stop at the 1 level!" he said.
Dear Gordon, your experience does differ from ours.
Fred Splinge should teach his student to write on the front of their system cards:
Surely you can see this is a matter of culture. Acol 1M openings are also limited, just to a higher limit. 1NT overcalls might have a stop and they might not. Acol 1NT responses can have a void and a six-card suit and this is deemed a natural bid by an Acol player, not alerted. As said above, it comes down to what is expected and this is a matter of culture.
While true, Tag, the point of this thread is that the expectation of the majority of opponents when playing against an Acol pair is that 1M - 1N may not be balanced, but 1X (1Y) 1N will have a stop, or as discussed above, a semblance of one. If the system a pair is playing has no pretence of a stopper whatever for the second sequence that is against normal expectations and should be alerted.
Fully agree with David; the key is that the opposition should not be at a disadvantage and if we think they might be confused or misled, then we are honour bound to alert, whatever the words in the regulations are. We should never be looking for excuses to avoid alerts.
Absolutely agree it should be alerted - 'pass' is a good weak bucket bid after interference. Unfortunately those players who, probably through inexperience, continue to use 1NT as if the auction was uncontested will also probably not understand why it needs alerting