Join Bridge Winners
2 over 'could be short' 1 alertable?

Hi all,

I had a question come up today at a tournament that was contrary to previous experience. It was explained to me by the director in charge that bidding 2 over a "could be short 1" naturally was alertable. When I asked for documentation I was provided with a section of a 2005 document/memo rather than an official rule or law.

When looking the alert chart here it does say that a direct cue bid actually showing that suit is alertable if the opening bid was natural. However, it also appears to define a minor opening as natural if it shows 3+ cards in the suit or 1c if it is explicitly 4432 shape. It does not say anything about 1D being natural if it is 2 cards w/ longer clubs. 

As someone who frequently plays a precision 1D opener I always ask when my opponents overcall my 1 opener with 2 and it is commonly natural and I've never heard it alerted. It seems incumbent upon me, as the person who is playing the could be short 1 opening to ask for clarification if I care.

Can anyone clarify this for me? Preferably in a manner with some sort of reference or something I can point at? The director in charge has a reputation for making correct rulings so this really surprised me.

This particular instance that prompted this question was as follows:

1 2 2 p 2NT p 3NT* p p p    (The 3NT bidder looked at our card, saw michaels, and decided to bid 3NT without asking holding QT98xx AQ9x x AK. 3NT down 2 was reversed to 4 making).


(ACBL Land)

2 natural over a could be short 1 is always alertable
2 natural over a could be short 1 is alertable if you have michaels marked but treat 2 as natural in this situation
2 natural over a could be short 1 is never alertable
Other (explained below)

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top