In terms of D30.2.2 the 2S bid "conveys a willingness to play in the denomination named" and is not conventional (ie doesn't show another suit)  (Manual page D58).  So it's a natural bid.

The regulations say such a bid should, nonetheless, be alerted if "its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect."  What I am thinking of is if you play super accepts and the 2S response is saying something about the strength of your hand.

Possibly "its meaning is affected by" is intended to cover such negative inferences.  In any case the ABF regulations which closely follow ours in wording mention this case explicitly.  http://www.abfevents.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFAlertRegs14.pdf includes the following on page 5:  "4.2 Transfers in response to partner's NT.  The transfer bid is alertable. Acceptance of the transfer, whether or not after interference, is alertable if it conveys any meaning relating to hand strength or length in partner’s shown suit."

This is the approach I would take: alerting the 2S transfer acceptance wherever something like superaccepts meant the 2S had meaning beyond merely accepting the transfer, but not otherwise.

I agree with Peter's summary. It follows that if you are playing super-accept doubletons (eg after 2D transfer you bid 2S to show 4 card heart support witha doubleton spade) then if you just bid 2H it should be alerted - as the bid has some meaning your opponents can't be expected to know / expect.

Perhaps, Jane, it is not so much that it is "in vogue" to alert the acceptance bid, but that at some stage someone has been pinged for this and started alerting it and it is flowing through.

I'm not sure if the non-alert of the minimum-level accept would affect the auction in many cases, but there could well be a case it hinders defence (or line play if opposition become declarers).

I'm not a director, but I'm not so sure that the negative inference argument is such that it demands an alert for the simple acceptance of the transfer - at least on first principles rather than based what the alerting regulatons say.

If my partner opens 1H and I raise it to 2H, that has a number of negative inferences.  In some cases, if we have a mini-splinter option, it may deny 4 card support with a singleton.  For some people it may deny 4 card support at all, or at least unless it is very minimum.  It may deny 5S, or for some it might deny 4S, or for others it might not.  But I would not expect 2H to be altered on the basis of those things - my opponents can be expected to know that it has some negative inferences and can ask if they want to.

To me, simply accepting the transfer is in the same boat.  Indeed, the negative inferences may be weaker than in the 1H 2H example.

I guess what I'm saying is that the fact you may play some form of super-accepts over a transfer is not information that your opponents cannot reasonably be expected to understand.  If they want to know if you do, and if so the style, then they can ask.  Just the same as the 1H 2H example, if they want to know other systemic options you had for similar had types then they can ask.

How far would you otherwise take this?  When your partner raises 1NT to 3NT do you need to alter that and explain the negaitive inferences - no 4 card major?  No 5 card or longer major? No 1345 if you play a way to show those hand types...

It could all get just a bit silly.

Regards

Scott

How far would you otherwise take this?  When your partner raises 1NT to 3NT do you need to alter that and explain the negaitive inferences - no 4 card major?  No 5 card or longer major? No 1345 if you play a way to show those hand types...""

If 1NT is opened and the partner goes 3NT I make a habit of asking if it denies a 4 card major as it may affect my lead. I don't think that it needs to be alerted as it doesn't give opener specific information about the hand - other than that they want to play it in 3NT.

However, the low-level acceptance of a transfer if playing some form of super-accepts, gives opener some very specific information, and the opposition are entitled to this. So this needs to be alerted IMO.

I don't see the presence or otherwise of a super-accept option is relevant

If the forced responce is deemed to be similar to the 3C forced response to Lebensohl then it should be alerted

And if it is different then ??

Anyone able to forward an argument as to why the forced response to a transfer (by a pair who don't play super-accepts) should be treated differently to a forced 3C response to Lebensohl?

Me > In terms of D30.2.2 the 2S bid "conveys a willingness to play in the denomination named" and is not conventional (ie doesn't show another suit)  (Manual page D58).  So it's a natural bid.

The comment about bids that convey no meaning (like the acceptance of a simple transfer) being conventional convinces me.  I was wrong to see "conventional" in the overly narrow terms of showing another suit.  And so my contrast with the case where the acceptance says something - even negatively - about hand strength or length in partner's suit was misplaced.