[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2021-February-26, 11:07, said:

There needs to be a line though, or at least a "fruit of the poisoned tree" carveout.

The classic case is describing a 5♥ KC response as "2" or "2 keys" and seeing who asks about the Queen. I have even heard people, whose opinions I respect, say that doing everything right makes the information you get UI - for instance my bugbear of an unAlerted 2♦ opener: "Find out which opponents asks, play them for 13 balanced"[1]. To which I say, "why not? Her partner will." (and yes, I know it's explicitly UI to her)


[1] or, as I found out recently, ♦AQT9x and a card. Luckily partner had obvious calls and she was able to show "decent hand, diamond stop" in the legal auction. If she hadn't been V vs NV, she probably should have passed the double, though, which would have immediately prompted a director call (which would have gone nowhere, because partner did in fact have a 100% double). I will admit that my "NAT PRE, and I would have Alerted anything else, and you know that" was not one of the highlights of my bridge propriety career. Not, however, *wrong*).

Part of the line could be to insist on a system (convention) card, no?
I don't play seriously on BBO, but my quickly written card does say that that 5♥ KC response denies Queen and that 2♦ is 5+ weak.
As a Director I am skeptical both of explanations that contradict the card and of pairs without one.

[mycroft]

You're assuming that the CC will be even reasonably filled out. Which it frequently is.

You're assuming that the CC will be available. Which, FtF in the ACBL is a pipe dream. Online it's better.

But also, you're assuming that with both of those operating, and with exactly one non-Alerted meaning of a 2♦ opener, that people will not ignore the card and the evidence and ask. As I said elsewhere, in our shared utopia...

More seriously, with the new ACBL Alert procedures, responses to ace-asking bids are (Delayed) Alertable, even if the ace-asking bid itself is not. So they're required to explain what 5♥ means after the auction (or at bid time online). So anyone who wants to play the "2" game now gets to, every time, not just when asked (which before was frankly "every time").

[Vampyr]

 ToffeeDan, on 2021-February-20, 08:05, said:

2D ostensibly Michaels, majors but opponent admits (online) "sorry I was raising partner's 1D so it's a mistake" which you could say is kind and ethical.

You could say a lot of things. Even things as incorrect as the above.

Anyway, I think I would be forced to explain U/U. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, offender’s partner would be clued in to the misbid.

[Vampyr]

 mycroft, on 2021-February-26, 11:07, said:

for instance my bugbear of an unAlerted 2♦ opener:

A 2♦ opening neither announced nor alerted? My assumption would be that partner was preoccupied and forgot to alert/announce. Without asking, I don’t see how I could have a clue what it is.

[mycroft]

And why, perchance, are you going to conceal your agreement?

You're bidding it as natural, partner's going to take it as natural, you describe it as a diamond raise for some not-legal (not illegal, but not required by the laws) reason that you don't want to clue in your opponents to their partner's misbid?

If cluing in offender's partner becomes a problem, that's what the director is for. Having concealed an agreement, my guess is that the director now has to find both sides offending.

I guess you could try the carding game: "we play U/U over known two-suited bid, and natural against natural or strong takeout." Yes, it might wake up the opponents, but, again, that is not against the laws. Concealing your agreements is.

Oddly enough, in this particular hand and auction, I think all roads lead to "score stands" no matter what happened at the table after.

[pescetom]

 Vampyr, on 2021-March-01, 10:12, said:

A 2♦ opening neither announced nor alerted? My assumption would be that partner was preoccupied and forgot to alert/announce. Without asking, I don’t see how I could have a clue what it is.

My club still has at least two members of an endangered species who play this as strong and natural. Which seems to me quite reasonable as the only non alertable/announceable explanation.
If you want something truly bizarre, here one can now announce Multicolor (withing certain constraints) in f2f play.

[mycroft]

 Vampyr, on 2021-March-01, 10:12, said:

A 2♦ opening neither announced nor alerted? My assumption would be that partner was preoccupied and forgot to alert/announce. Without asking, I don’t see how I could have a clue what it is.

Wow. 15 years and you still think your little London is the world. You truly are an American.

Obviously, *you* don't have this problem. Because your regulations have different holes. Do I wish we had your Announcement rules for 2 bids? Of course. But we don't. And in the ACBL there is one meaning for a 2♦ opener that's not Alerted. It's the most common one, too. But they still ask. And they still have a weak NT-ish hand when they ask and pass.

Seriously, unless that was a sarcastic "oh you colonials with your primitive ideas" comment...in which case, IHBT. IHL. IWHAND.

[barmar]

 smerriman, on 2021-February-25, 20:27, said:

Surely any information you receive from opponents has to be AI, not UI. Otherwise, every time your partner explains a bid, your opponents could read what he said out loud - if that's UI to you, and you're forced to pick from logical alternatives as if you hadn't heard it.. well, the game would break

I think you have to apply some common sense to implement the spirit of the UI laws here.

Your partner explains a bid to the opponents, that's clearly UI to you. But then an opponent asks him a question about it -- should that suddenly make the explanation AI, since you can infer the explanation from the question?

E.g. your partner explains a bid as forcing, and an opponent asks "forcing for one round or to game?"

[smerriman]

 barmar, on 2021-March-12, 23:19, said:

Your partner explains a bid to the opponents, that's clearly UI to you. But then an opponent asks him a question about it -- should that suddenly make the explanation AI, since you can infer the explanation from the question?

E.g. your partner explains a bid as forcing, and an opponent asks "forcing for one round or to game?"

Well, yes, it should. The opponent has made a mistake (by asking you, rather than privately to your partner). If you're 80% sure it's forcing, and 20% sure it's non-forcing, does that mean the opponent's mistake forces you to choose the 20% option (logical alternative) to avoid the use of UI?

Common sense says no.

(If you mean that the first infraction was your partner explaining their bid to the whole table rather than just the opponents, then sure, that's UI and the opponents can't override that - but that's a different scenario from the one discussed here).

[barmar]

 smerriman, on 2021-March-13, 00:00, said:

Well, yes, it should. The opponent has made a mistake (by asking you, rather than privately to your partner). If you're 80% sure it's forcing, and 20% sure it's non-forcing, does that mean the opponent's mistake forces you to choose the 20% option (logical alternative) to avoid the use of UI?

Common sense says no.

(If you mean that the first infraction was your partner explaining their bid to the whole table rather than just the opponents, then sure, that's UI and the opponents can't override that - but that's a different scenario from the one discussed here).

I was talking about f2f bridge, where it's not generally possible to talk privately to the opponents.

And he was asking your partner, but you couldn't help hearing the question.