[david_c]

Hmm. I do think that, if you have not discussed it, you have a right to expect that partner will bid 2♦ on this sort of hand. I do actually think 2♣ is the better bid (in fact I prefer to play 2♣ as artificial - clubs or any balanced hand) but I would say this is by agreement only.

[Edited for clarity]

This post has been edited by david_c: 2009-June-11, 15:59

[kenrexford]

david_c, on Jun 11 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

Hmm. I do think that, if you have not discussed it, you have a right to expect that partner will bid 2♦ on this sort of hand. Much as I prefer the style where 2♣ is artificial, I would say this is by agreement only.

Sure. But, if he does not, how can that remotely be a "psychic?" If Responder can have two clubs for the call, and he actually has three, then how is bidding the suit with one more card than minimum possible in any way psychic?

How can you overstate club length when holding club length that exceeds minimum possible?

Take another example. You hold 5♠/6♣ and deal. The "normal" bid is 1♣, say. But, you for whatever reasons decide to bid 1♠ as your opening bid. How is 1♠ a "psychic?" What if you play 4-card majors? This makes calling 1♠ a "psychic" even more ridiculous.

For that matter, are you supposed to alert all 1♠ openings if partner has a tendency to occasionally open 1♠ with 5-6, such that you have to alert the opponents to an occasional "tendency canape?"

[jdonn]

'1M p 2♣' is the new 'fit non-jump' of the forums.

[Cascade]

My arguments against 2♣ have not been based on their merit or otherwise. But on the presentation of those methods in this thread. All of the early posters who suggested 2♣ presented the bid without any explanation whatsoever. As if this was standard. It is far from standard. It needs an explanation it probably needs an alert. If it is presented as standard then it is a misstatement of standard methods. It is then moot whether or not it is a gross misstatement.

It borders on nonsense to post a pet gadget without explanation as if it were standard. If I may adapt Josh's hyperbole, it would be silly for me or anyone to post for the hand in this thread "I would open 1♦ 10000%". What value does this add? It is complete nonsense? Would you not agree? Oh but my pet gadget is strong diamond or better yet 1♦ shows spades (I played against this method a week or so ago where Andy Braithwaite of T-Rex fame was playing what he called "transfer ACOL" - which was really "transfer Fantunes" since these openings were unlimited). It would be equally silly of me to post my relay auction which incidentally makes bidding this hand trivial without any explanation. It is just as silly to post this 2♣ gadget without explanation.

The border between psyche and not psyche is completely context dependent - what is gross with one hand is not gross with another hand with the same or similar shape. It obviously is also not a psyche if it is part of your method. But then it needs disclosure. The presentation of gadgets as if they are standard is akin to inadequate disclosure. Or if played as if standard then it is a deliberate misstatement of suit length which is possibly a psyche. I have no idea how Ken, Josh and others disclose this method and it is not that important on forums for obvious reasons. But it is also not that instructive to present non-standard methods without explanation either. Similar to my 1♦ example above it would be equally silly to post my relay auction to 7NT without explanation.

My claim that Josh's 2♣ was a psyche was made with a certain amount of tongue in cheek. Not to hijack the thread as Josh suggests. But to highlight what I consider the nonsense of presenting non-standard methods as standard and also to highlight the nonsense as I perceive it of not psyching against beginners. Combining these two points if your methods are standard and you deliberated bid your third best suit at your first turn to call then aside from very specialized situations I would consider that a psychic. I found those concepts combined amusing. And worth making a point.

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2009, 03:11 AM, said:

david_c, on Jun 11 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

Hmm. I do think that, if you have not discussed it, you have a right to expect that partner will bid 2♦ on this sort of hand. Much as I prefer the style where 2♣ is artificial, I would say this is by agreement only.

Sure. But, if he does not, how can that remotely be a "psychic?" If Responder can have two clubs for the call, and he actually has three, then how is bidding the suit with one more card than minimum possible in any way psychic?

How can you overstate club length when holding club length that exceeds minimum possible?

Take another example. You hold 5♠/6♣ and deal. The "normal" bid is 1♣, say. But, you for whatever reasons decide to bid 1♠ as your opening bid. How is 1♠ a "psychic?" What if you play 4-card majors? This makes calling 1♠ a "psychic" even more ridiculous.

For that matter, are you supposed to alert all 1♠ openings if partner has a tendency to occasionally open 1♠ with 5-6, such that you have to alert the opponents to an occasional "tendency canape?"

When did responding in a two-card suit (or fewer) become the norm for the minimum requirement for a two-over one in clubs?

The disclosure requirements in the laws are "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them."

[mikeh]

My choice of 2♣ does not mean I have gone over to the dark side, where Rexfordian bidding is the norm

I would expect that in a sample of experienced north american players, of expert status or better, constrained to play 2/1 5 card majors, a significant percentage would opt for 2♣ and almost all of them and many of the 2♦ bidders would be astounded at the idea that 2♣ should be alerted, let alone considered a psyche.

As gnasher said, there is merit to either minor as the initial response... and I agree that beginners would be taught, in all probability, that the 'textbook, bid was 2♦. So what?

2♣, on this hand, is NOT an artificial bid!!! Anyone who thinks that (the non-rexfordian) 2♣ bidders intend it as artificial is missing the point.

It's akin to raising 1N to 3N (in a strong notrump context) with Axxx KQx Q10x Q10x.

Do we have to start alerting this raise as 'denies a 4 card major unless he holds a hand on which he uses judgment to make the best call'? I mean, isn't he psyching by hiding the 4 card major? Isn't he forced to use stayman, or have his partner alert?

Respond 2♣ or 2♦, according to your perception of the best way forward, but stop claiming that your choice of 2♣ is the only proper, non-alertable choice. We have a player in the local club who freaks out whenever dummy comes down and he thinks that dummy has misdescribed his or her hand.. and often calls the director in an almost invariably futile effort to gain relief. The attitude that responding 2♣ here, absent an alert, is some kind of infraction would be a typical act of lunacy on his part...surely posters here should be more in tune with the game than that.

[cherdanno]

Cascade, on Jun 11 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

My arguments against 2♣ have not been based on their merit or otherwise. But on the presentation of those methods in this thread. All of the early posters who suggested 2♣ presented the bid without any explanation whatsoever. As if this was standard. It is far from standard. It needs an explanation it probably needs an alert. If it is presented as standard then it is a misstatement of standard methods. It is then moot whether or not it is a gross misstatement.

It borders on nonsense to post a pet gadget without explanation as if it were standard.

Or maybe you don't know what standard is.
Seriously, you are quite impressive. I wonder whether there is anyone else in the world who plays internationally, spends a lot of time on bridge, has English as native language but has so little clue about North American standard treatments.

[kenrexford]

This is so silly that I cannot stop myself from continuing this "debate."

In response to a 1♠ opening, a 2/1 bid in a new suit is forcing to game. That fact is not alertable.

What about length?

2♥, as a standard treatment, shows 5+. That's normal.

2♦, as a standard treatment, shows 4+. That's normal.

2♣, as a standard treatment, shows 3+. That's normal, if Max Hardy 2/1 GF is normal 2/1 GF.

Now, admittedly Max Hardy would view 2♣ as showing 3-card only if 3433 shape specifically. However, 3+ is the expected, normal range.

So, if you have a 3-card club suit that you bid, the length is as expected.

Thus, the only "alertable" treatment that would be relevant to this specific situation would be that you also might bid 2♣ with 2443 (or maybe 3343?) if the club honors are good but the diamond honors weak.

However, here's the thing. I bet not all of us voted 2♣ because of an expectation that partner would copnsciously think about that sole exception. Rather, some probably just bid 2♣ because it seemed right, even if a violation. That violation, however, is so friggin' minor, and not done with purpose to deceive, that it cannot be logically called a psychic.

So, back to the question of alerting. Should this slight nuance be alerted?

I would say this. There are some 18 bazillion nuances out there as to when in a natural system to open 1♣ and when to open 1♦. Some always want four diamonds. Some open "better minor." Some open 1♦ only if specifically 4432. Some open somewhat randomly. If we spent all day alerting these minor nuances,, and not just explaining them if asked, we could never bid.

Now, those of us who play funky 2♣ would alert these funky 2♣ calls. However, when responding to a question online, it doesn't seem necessary to note that your specific 2♣ call would happen to be a funky 2♣ call if you think that a non-funky person would and should also bid 2♣. Just how long do you want posts to be? Do you want every nuance thrown in?

I mean, I open 1♠ on really rare occasion with a four-card suit in first or second sat. Should I have provided a dissertation as to when and why? Or, was "1♠" sufficient, seeing as everyone would open 1♠ too?

I also play "Sparts" with some people, where a 2♦ opening shows 5♠, 4-5♥, and a weak opening. Thus, 1♠...2♥ shows extras in some form. Should I have explained that, or can I just rely on the fact that everyone opens 1♠ and rebids 2♥ and because the nuance I would have would be irrelevant to the problem?

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

This is so silly that I cannot stop myself from continuing this "debate."

In response to a 1♠ opening, a 2/1 bid in a new suit is forcing to game. That fact is not alertable.

What about length?

2♥, as a standard treatment, shows 5+. That's normal.

2♦, as a standard treatment, shows 4+. That's normal.

2♣, as a standard treatment, shows 3+. That's normal, if Max Hardy 2/1 GF is normal 2/1 GF.

Now, admittedly Max Hardy would view 2♣ as showing 3-card only if 3433 shape specifically. However, 3+ is the expected, normal range.

So, if you have a 3-card club suit that you bid, the length is as expected.

Thus, the only "alertable" treatment that would be relevant to this specific situation would be that you also might bid 2♣ with 2443 (or maybe 3343?) if the club honors are good but the diamond honors weak.

However, here's the thing. I bet not all of us voted 2♣ because of an expectation that partner would copnsciously think about that sole exception. Rather, some probably just bid 2♣ because it seemed right, even if a violation. That violation, however, is so friggin' minor, and not done with purpose to deceive, that it cannot be logically called a psychic.

So, back to the question of alerting. Should this slight nuance be alerted?

I would say this. There are some 18 bazillion nuances out there as to when in a natural system to open 1♣ and when to open 1♦. Some always want four diamonds. Some open "better minor." Some open 1♦ only if specifically 4432. Some open somewhat randomly. If we spent all day alerting these minor nuances,, and not just explaining them if asked, we could never bid.

Now, those of us who play funky 2♣ would alert these funky 2♣ calls. However, when responding to a question online, it doesn't seem necessary to note that your specific 2♣ call would happen to be a funky 2♣ call if you think that a non-funky person would and should also bid 2♣. Just how long do you want posts to be? Do you want every nuance thrown in?

I mean, I open 1♠ on really rare occasion with a four-card suit in first or second sat. Should I have provided a dissertation as to when and why? Or, was "1♠" sufficient, seeing as everyone would open 1♠ too?

I also play "Sparts" with some people, where a 2♦ opening shows 5♠, 4-5♥, and a weak opening. Thus, 1♠...2♥ shows extras in some form. Should I have explained that, or can I just rely on the fact that everyone opens 1♠ and rebids 2♥ and because the nuance I would have would be irrelevant to the problem?

Max Hardy actually says "Responder's two-level response in a minor suit will show a suit of at least four cards."

He does mention the one exception which is precisely 3=4=3=3.

You appear to be arguing to extend this to:

3=4=3=3 (as Hardy does)
3=3=4=3
3=4=4=2
2=4=4=3

and maybe some other 3=2=5=3 perhaps - I am not sure.

Hardy further states that with the exceptional 3=4=3=3 hand responder may elect to bid a forcing no trump and conceal the game force values.

You further claim that your extension is minor.

I dispute this I think there is a major difference between the rare exception that Hardy notes and the frequent use that you are advocating for short 2♣ responses.

When you have a three-card club suit in the Hardy scheme your suit length is not "as expected" to quote your language. It is at the minimum value. When you further weight those minimum length hands with relatively high frequency hands then you have a significantly different style.

[gnasher]

cherdanno, on Jun 11 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

I wonder whether there is anyone else in the world who plays internationally, spends a lot of time on bridge, has English as native language but has so little clue about North American standard treatments.

Well, there's me, if two or three overseas tournaments a year counts as playing internationally. Until I read about it in this thread, I didn't know that responding a "natural" 2♣ on a 2443 shape was anything other than a Rexfordian fantasy.

Mind you, I wouldn't presume to tell a North American what is standard in North America.

[cherdanno]

Yeah, I should have mentioned the combination of strong opinion with ignorance, my bad.

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Jun 11 2009, 05:06 PM, said:

cherdanno, on Jun 11 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

I wonder whether there is anyone else in the world who plays internationally, spends a lot of time on bridge, has English as native language but has so little clue about North American standard treatments.

Well, there's me, if two or three overseas tournaments a year counts as playing internationally. Until I read about it in this thread, I didn't know that responding a "natural" 2♣ on a 2443 shape was anything other than a Rexfordian fantasy.

Mind you, I wouldn't presume to tell a North American what is standard in North America.

'Standard' is a big tent, encompassing a variety of treatments. To me, the 'orthodox' standard response with 2443 is 2♦, but the 'standard' tent includes the right to respond, without alert, 2♣ on hands such as 2443 whenever that appears, in the opinion of the bidder, to be the better call.

By no means would I, as a 2♣ bidder here, always respond 2♣ with 2=4=4=3, even with good clubs. I gave my reasons for the call on this hand, in my first post, and stand by them.

I have never seen anything to suggest that Harald or Josh or I are inclined to rexfordian fantasies, and all 3 of us think the particular hand is best handled via 2♣, as do a number of other reputable posters. When a significant percentage of players view a call as reasonable in the context of a given method, that strongly suggests that this approach can be and should be viewed as a variant of standard... not as a deviation therefrom. There is more than one form of standard bidding!

[kenrexford]

Max Hardy actually says "Responder's two-level response in a minor suit will show a suit of at least four cards."

He does mention the one exception which is precisely 3=4=3=3.

I see how that's much different than what I said. You reversed the order of sentences, or something.

You appear to be arguing to extend this to:

3=4=3=3 (as Hardy does)
3=3=4=3
3=4=4=2
2=4=4=3

and maybe some other 3=2=5=3 perhaps - I am not sure.

I'm saying that none of these patterns violate the expectation that 2♣ could be bid with a 3-card suit.

Hardy further states that with the exceptional 3=4=3=3 hand responder may elect to bid a forcing no trump and conceal the game force values.

Hence, even Hardy uses judgment.

You further claim that your extension is minor.

I dispute this I think there is a major difference between the rare exception that Hardy notes and the frequent use that you are advocating for short 2♣ responses.

When you have a three-card club suit in the Hardy scheme your suit length is not "as expected" to quote your language. It is at the minimum value. When you further weight those minimum length hands with relatively high frequency hands then you have a significantly different style.

Again, an interesting nuance. But, how does "a significantly different style" cause a bid that shows at least 3 clubs to become a "psychic" when you have 3 clubs? Is it a psychic because in one approach 2♣ shows at least three cards but in the other approach 2♣ shows a "minimum" of three clubs? You seem to find the use of the word "minimum" as important.

If most people open 1♦ as showing "at least three diamonds" because they open 4432 1♦, but someone else opens 1♦ with three diamonds but their style is "better minor," is that a psychic because they might have three diamonds more often?

Or, are you insane?

[Cascade]

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

You appear to be arguing to extend this to:

3=4=3=3 (as Hardy does)
3=3=4=3
3=4=4=2
2=4=4=3

and maybe some other 3=2=5=3 perhaps - I am not sure.

I'm saying that none of these patterns violate the expectation that 2♣ could be bid with a 3-card suit.

3=4=4=2 seems to me to be a violation of "at least three clubs" but maybe I am insane.

How do you disclose this 3+ club requirement?

Do you respond 2♣ on

1=3=6=3

1=2=7=3

0=2=8=3

1=0=9=3

0=0=10=3?

[kenrexford]

Cascade, on Jun 11 2009, 08:06 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 12 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

You appear to be arguing to extend this to:

3=4=3=3 (as Hardy does)
3=3=4=3
3=4=4=2
2=4=4=3

and maybe some other 3=2=5=3 perhaps - I am not sure.

I'm saying that none of these patterns violate the expectation that 2♣ could be bid with a 3-card suit.

3=4=4=2 seems to me to be a violation of "at least three clubs" but maybe I am insane.

How do you disclose this 3+ club requirement?

Do you respond 2♣ on

1=3=6=3

1=2=7=3

0=2=8=3

1=0=9=3

0=0=10=3?

When I'm playing with someone who bids 2♣ like I like to bid 2♣, and not some random persaon playing basically normal 2/1, I explain 2♣ appropriately.

If I'm playing with someone who plays basic 2/1 without any special agreements about 2♣, I don't offer any more of an explanation.

But, since you ask,

1=3=6=3

No, I bid 2♦.

1=2=7=3

No, I bid 2♦.

0=2=8=3

No, I bid 2♦.

1=0=9=3

No, I bid 2♦.

0=0=10=3?

No, I bid 2♦.

I'm not sure what the point to that nonsense was. 2♣ is not meant as a canape bid, just like opening 1♣ with 4432 pattern is not meant as a mini-canape bid for those who want 100% assurance that a 1♦ opening promises 4+ and just like opening either minor with a 3-card suit but both 4-card majors is not meant as a part of a double-canape-system, where you start with your third-best suit.

When I personally respond 2♣, I have one of several hand types:

1. Support for Opener's major, not 6+ in the other major, and any number of clubs, but not right for a Jacoby 2NT, Artificial 3♣, Artificial 3NT, or Splinter raise.

2. 5+ clubs, with clubs being my longest suit.

3. 2434

4. 2443, but tactics tell me to bid 2♣ rather than 2♦.

Now, if you notice, I don't specifically include the Max Hardy exception because that fits into the first possibility -- spade support. And, unless I'm missing something, the only "weird" time I bid 2♣, other than with immediately known support, is when I have 2443 and see a tactical advantage to bidding 2♣, which is this hand.

I consider that "tactical advantage" to be unworthy of explanation, because that part is just bridge. All bids are (or should be) expected to be subject to minor variations based on tactics.

However, the "I might have support for partner's major, an undisclosed 4-5 card holding in the other major, and may easily be as few as a doubleton club" 2♣ is an unexpected treatment, and should be explained.

[Codo]

Maybe in NA you have other rules, but here:

When you open 1 Club with 4432, you need to alert 1 Club.
When you answer 2 Club to 1 M on 3442, you surely need to alert this.
I guess the same is true when you do it on 3343 or 2443 hands and your partner knows this tendancy.

Whether the ups of this approach outweight the downs is a matter of taste and very strong players have quite a strong opinion that it does.

[mike777]

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

This is so silly that I cannot stop myself from continuing this "debate."

In response to a 1♠ opening, a 2/1 bid in a new suit is forcing to game.  That fact is not alertable.

What about length?

2♥, as a standard treatment, shows 5+.  That's normal.

2♦, as a standard treatment, shows 4+.  That's normal.

2♣, as a standard treatment, shows 3+.  That's normal, if Max Hardy 2/1 GF is normal 2/1 GF.

Now, admittedly Max Hardy would view 2♣ as showing 3-card only if 3433 shape specifically.  However, 3+ is the expected, normal range.

So, if you have a 3-card club suit that you bid, the length is as expected.

Thus, the only "alertable" treatment that would be relevant to this specific situation would be that you also might bid 2♣ with 2443 (or maybe 3343?) if the club honors are good but the diamond honors weak.

However, here's the thing.  I bet not all of us voted 2♣ because of an expectation that partner would copnsciously think about that sole exception.  Rather, some probably just bid 2♣ because it seemed right, even if a violation.  That violation, however, is so friggin' minor, and not done with purpose to deceive, that it cannot be logically called a psychic.

So, back to the question of alerting.  Should this slight nuance be alerted?

I would say this.  There are some 18 bazillion nuances out there as to when in a natural system to open 1♣ and when to open 1♦.  Some always want four diamonds.  Some open "better minor."  Some open 1♦ only if specifically 4432.  Some open somewhat randomly.  If we spent all day alerting these minor nuances,, and not just explaining them if asked, we could never bid.

Now, those of us who play funky 2♣ would alert these funky 2♣ calls.  However, when responding to a question online, it doesn't seem necessary to note that your specific 2♣ call would happen to be a funky 2♣ call if you think that a non-funky person would and should also bid 2♣.  Just how long do you want posts to be?  Do you want every nuance thrown in?

I mean, I open 1♠ on really rare occasion with a four-card suit in first or second sat.  Should I have provided a dissertation as to when and why?  Or, was "1♠" sufficient, seeing as everyone would open 1♠ too?

I also play "Sparts" with some people, where a 2♦ opening shows 5♠, 4-5♥, and a weak opening.  Thus, 1♠...2♥ shows extras in some form.  Should I have explained that, or can I just rely on the fact that everyone opens 1♠ and rebids 2♥ and because the nuance I would have would be irrelevant to the problem?

I expect 2c=4c+...very very often 5+.......over one major
2) I respond on assumption 2c=5 very good clubs......

[awm]

I tend to agree with Cascade here.

If your normal practice is to respond 2♣ to 1M with 2443 distribution (i.e. 2♦ promises 5+ or the like) then this should require an alert. This is much like if your methods included opening 1♣ on the same shape. The fact that these clubs bids could be three cards in standard methods (without an alert) is not relevant because the hands where the club bids could be three cards will not normally include a four-card diamond suit.

Of course, you are always allowed to use judgment in deciding what to respond. It is quite possible that even if you normally bid 2♦ with 2443, there might be some hands with very weak diamonds and/or very strong clubs where you select a 2♣ response instead. This is just judgment although it might be classed as a "tactical bid" and does not require an alert provided that these hands are relatively infrequent.

On the hand in question however, you have two of the top five diamond honors. This is not the same as having four tiny diamonds and wanting to avoid suggesting that as a possible trump suit and/or stopper for notrump. If you think this hand merits a 2♣ response, my impression is that you are probably responding 2♣ on most 2443 hands -- at least I cannot see any obvious reason that this hand is a 2♣ bid that would not apply to the vast majority of other game forcing hands with the same distribution. Certainly many arguments can be made in favor of 2♣, but they also favor using a 2♣ response as an artificial relay (2♦ consumes more space, we don't really want to play in diamonds unless partner can introduce them himself, etc etc).

Elianna and I might have the following auction:

1♠ - 2♦(1)
2♥ - 4♣(2)
4♠(3) - 4NT(4)
5♠(5) - 5NT(6)
6♠(7) - 7♣(8)
7NT(9)

(1) Yes, we bid four-card suits before three-card suits.
(2) Conventionally showing a raise to 4♥ with a club control and extra values. 3♥ is NF.
(3) Cuebid; avoiding the void cuebid opposite partner's first bid suit.
(4) 1430 keycard
(5) Two with the trump queen. Again avoiding showing void in partner's suit.
(6) King ask.
(7) Spade king (sometimes we avoid this call, but opener has quite a good hand here)
(8) Last ditch try for 7NT. In most fields I'd probably bid 7♥ here though.
(9) Lots of extra tricks.

[kenrexford]

On the one side, you have the idea that bidding 2♣ on 2443 if it seems tactically best but normally you would bid 2♦, and hence the bid of 2♣ is neither alertable (with those parameters) nor a psychic.

On the other hand you have a claim that 2♣ is a psychic.

In the middle, you have a possible dispute as to when 2♣ may or may not be alertable.

Within that middle, you have the extremely fine line from AWM that 2♣ is alertable if you occasionally bid 2♣ with 2443 but not alertable if you occasionally bid 2♣ with 2443, the difference being how often those occasions come up, by some unarticulated standard.

I'm not sure how this extreme nuance works in the real world, or that it even makes sense. I cannot imagine how one would alert this. "Alert." "Yes?" "We on rare occasion bid 2♣ with 2443 shape." "So does everyone else." "Yes, but we do it three more times per year than average, given a normal expectation of boards played for a year by the average ACBL member in our current bracket for this event."

Even if those of us who bid 2♣ with this hand meet the criteria for above-average use of the 2♣ call, on the basis of a one-hand example, I cannot imagine that this alert is needed.

But, even if it is, HOW CAN THIS BE A PSYCHIC????? I mean, awm, you said you tend to side with the lunatic fringe Cascade in this debate, and Cascade's argument was that 2♣ is a psychic call.

[MarkDean]

I am surprised to see people calling 2♣ here is standard in North American bridge. I have played against many NA experts in the last few years, and have watched my share of Vugraph of NA experts as well - and I would expect a 2♦ bid to be favored by a large majority.

Ken, of course it is a gray line. I think we would all agree that if you played 2♦ as 5+ and 2♣ as a catch-all that it should be alerted, and that if you bid 2♣ with 2443 once per three years it should not. We can disagree as to where the line is, but it is going to be arbitrary and hard to define whereever we put it.

I agree it is not a psychic call, but if you reguarly (sorry, no exact frequency here) do bid 2♣ with this hand type or other shapes not standard, and do not alert it, I think that is illegal, regardless of your intent when you bid it that way.