[Phil]

Under what circumstances would you consider a natural opening 2♥ in 4th seat alertable?

[babalu1997]

i do it 12-15 hcp 6 with 2 of top 3

but i get many frowns

[campboy]

(I assume this is ACBL.)

From my reading, exactly the same as for any other seat: alertable if intermediate or better.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Campboy. The ACBL alert regulation does not distinguish according to what seat you're in. The alert reg doesn't define "intermediate", but I'd say if the strength of your fourth seat "weak" two is roughly a slightly sub-minimum 1 level opener or better, you should alert it. Say ten HCP or more and up.

[Phil]

Here was the setting:

---

NS are B- players; EW are C players.

2N drifted off 3. There were no alerts. I was called after the hand and I asked NS about their agreements regarding a two bid in 4th seat and was told "16-17". I thought this was an unexpected range (10-12 or 14-15 is more commonly played here), although I neglected to check the alert charts. West said that she would not bid 2N had she known 2♥ was so strong. 10 tricks in hearts looks like an easy make, so at the time, I adjusted to +170 NS.

However, after some thought, I think passing 2N (as well as the loose 2N call itself) certainly looks wild / gambling to me, so I think EW get to keep their -300. I did not poll any peers. Frankly, I do not think the East player even knew what 2N was - does ignorant or inexperienced fall within the wild / gambling definition?

A friend (who has about 35,000 points) of the North player saw me after the session and said that EW need to protect themselves and ask about the range before taking action. I explained my rationale for the ruling. He also said that NS are allowed to deviate from their agreements, but he didn't realize that I was told 16-17. He suggested I call a regional director, but I said I would trust the answers on IBLF more.

Thoughts?

[Echognome]

East and West are both passed hands. East may be hoping that 2NT may play to the same or better score than 3m (not my judgment, but certainly not insane).

I think 16-17 is uncommon enough that it definitely warrants an alert according to both the spirit of the laws and the actual wording of the laws. So there was a failure to alert IMO and MI to EW.

I don't think West is under any obligation to ask as West's only claim is they wouldn't bid had they known it was so strong [as 16-17].

Therefore I adjust to +170 and I'm done with it.

[campboy]

Agree with Echognome. 2NT is presumably minors by a passed hand, and is agressive but not SEWoG; passing it is a reasonable shot. West is unlikely to be aware of exactly what the regulation says, so he has no reason to ask unless it is alerted.

[bluejak]

Phil, on 2011-January-15, 23:39, said:

NS are B- players; EW are C players.

2N drifted off 3. There were no alerts. I was called after the hand and I asked NS about their agreements regarding a two bid in 4th seat and was told "16-17". I thought this was an unexpected range (10-12 or 14-15 is more commonly played here), although I neglected to check the alert charts. West said that she would not bid 2N had she known 2♥ was so strong. 10 tricks in hearts looks like an easy make, so at the time, I adjusted to +170 NS.

However, after some thought, I think passing 2N (as well as the loose 2N call itself) certainly looks wild / gambling to me, so I think EW get to keep their -300. I did not poll any peers. Frankly, I do not think the East player even knew what 2N was - does ignorant or inexperienced fall within the wild / gambling definition?

A friend (who has about 35,000 points) of the North player saw me after the session and said that EW need to protect themselves and ask about the range before taking action. I explained my rationale for the ruling. He also said that NS are allowed to deviate from their agreements, but he didn't realize that I was told 16-17. He suggested I call a regional director, but I said I would trust the answers on IBLF more.

Thoughts?

I think a gambling action is always intended, as otherwise it cannot really be called gambling.

Wild is more interesting, though I fancy the EBU has concluded that wild actions are intended as well.

But I really think that what you have here is poor judgement by two C players, nothing about wild or gambling.

As for asking C players to protect themselves in a natural unalerted auction, please be serious.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-January-16, 18:29, said:

As for asking C players to protect themselves in a natural unalerted auction, please be serious.

That's right. ACBL's "protect yourself" requirement is clearly aimed at MORE experienced players, who should protect themselves from players who may not be familiar with the alert requirements.

[Phil]

Yeah, LOL at getting a "C" player to protect themselves here. Or getting a C player to even understand the concept of a heavy weak 2 in 4th chair for that matter.

[WarrenWolf]

The opening of 2 H or 2 S in 4th seat classically means a 6-card suit AND a narrow, intermediate HCP range, typically 14-16 HCP.
It must be alerted.

[blackshoe]

I have long felt that the ACBL's failure to address the differences between openings in different seats is a serious omission in the regulations. Compounding the problem, the regulation says in one place "Most natural calls do not require Alerts. If the call promises about the expected strength and shape, no Alert is necessary." Since most people would, IME, expect a fourth seat "weak two bid" to be a bit stronger than a first or second seat opening, this bit would seem to say it does not require an alert. But when speaking specifically of two level openings (without mentioning seat), the regulation says "Weak, natural, non-conventional uses do not require an Alert. All other natural or conventional meanings are Alertable." I note in passing that the ACBL seems to have declined to specifically define "weak", much as they have declined to define "strong". Another serious error IMO.

IAC, it's safer to alert it than not. So I would do so.

BTW, IME, 14-16 is not typical for a fourth seat weak two. 10-13 is more like it. In either case, I think 18 points is too much even to be called "intermediate". I would call it "strong". And by ACBL rules I'd be right, since "strong" means whatever the speaker thinks it means.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-14, 23:36, said:

In either case, I think 18 points is too much even to be called "intermediate". I would call it "strong". And by ACBL rules I'd be right, since "strong" means whatever the speaker thinks it means.

Not for reason of the point count, but more for what they are and where, the hand as presented is just perfect for a traditional Acol Strong Two opener.

[WellSpyder]

iviehoff, on 2012-March-15, 04:52, said:

Not for reason of the point count, but more for what they are and where, the hand as presented is just perfect for a traditional Acol Strong Two opener.

Not in my view - the ♥ suit is just too poor. I only play Acol 2's in an occasional partnership these days, but it wouldn't occur to me to open one on this hand.