pescetom

It's not as if the opponents could have complained or easily found slam if this hand was opened 4♠. If the majors were reversed, then expert opponents have some questions to ask themselves in any case. In our limited games, most quickly decided that it was advantageous to intervene aggressively with a 5+ major once it was clear that this was no longer 2♣ Crodo. No particular problems. No such culture, if anything there is intense and legitimate suspicion about the 2♦ response, where all sorts of agreements are possible. I don't recall anyone ever questioning a simple suit rebid unless alerted (2♥ Kokish, RIP).

Yes that's exactly what I meant and how I would explain (after the gratuitous alert) in Italy too. But in ACBL-land I thought the alternative explanation was clearer. I guess it depends partly on what if anything semi-balanced still means today (for me 5332 is semi-balanced, but don't try that in ACBL-land).

I complained about this when I first started to read the forum almost ten years ago, finding to my astonishment that everyone seemed resigned to this and other glaring limitations of the BBO UI (no distinction between hand of dummy and other hands, my name lighting up in yellow to play when I am really just a spectator, etc.). So I can understand why you are astonished both by the limitations and by the resignation :) [To be fair, a few of the limitations I complained about have finally been mitigated or fixed: you can now spot the dummy due to a grey background (but only in the non-default hand diagram view) and it no longer looks like the program crashed after a claim is accepted, for example]

By contrast, Italian regulations are very liberal here, you can announce 2C as "strong" provided it is by agreement game forcing. Opening the hand of OP in this way would not raise any eyebrows, at least from a legal point of view. With an alert you can have almost any agreement promising 10 HCP or more. It's illegal to psyche an artificial 2C in a pairs tournament, although the only specified consequence is restoration of equity when appropriate. I've rarely seen any of this cause problems, either as a player or director. Yes beginners and poor players will occasionally open hopeless hands 2C, but it is often apparent and rarely works to their advantage. My only nitpick is that many of us play that 2C 2D; 2N could be as little as 22 HCP and so must alert rather than announce, which causes irritation and suspicion when opponents hear the perfectly normal explanation "22-23 balanced or game forcing unbalanced". My request to modulate the announcement more precisely went unheeded.

If you held KQ4 it doesn't cost, but thats still no reason to risk.

In Italy, XX is more likely to be big hand than support, neither is alertable. I wouldn't bid vulnerable after XX with this hand (if W is forced to take a punt I can always correct 1Sx to 2C if so inclined).

If a weak signoff is camouflaged as just "Range Ask", maybe it is even wose than this: "Range Ask" could be a hand looking for 6N, if the agreements are that 1N 4N is something completely different or another type of hand looking for 6N.

Not sure I follow you here. North already alerted and explained 2♠ as a simple range ask, now he should alert 3♦ as being a weak signoff with no interest in range, up to opponents if they spot the contradiction? I think that Laws and Regulations imply he should keep quiet at this point, as mycroft said. If he was genuinely troubled I would have sympathy with calling the TD and explaining the situation away from the table.

We've all experienced that, in my case it was the reason I moved to a 'serious' bridge club (which turned out to be not much more serious, but did at least allow me to become TD and improve things a bit). But the reason that this void of explanation renders playing meaningless (or at best a degenerate form of whist) is that the game insists on disclosure in the first place. My point (well addressed by mycroft, and apologies for the second thread drift) was to reflect on whether it might be playable all the same without this principle.

I sometimes wonder what bridge would be like *without* any obligation to disclose agreements. Goodbye alerts, explanations, system cards, system limitations and much of the regulations and litigation that stifle the game. Of course it would bring new problems such as hiding/spying training sessions, sale of information about other players' agreements, increased difficulty of identifying collusive cheating, u.s.w. I'd like to try it, but we just don't have enough players with the necessary skills and vision to rise to the challenge with playable but unexpected agreements. Curious to know if anyone has experimented with this and what emerged.

I'm an extremist on both enabling kibitzing (time-delay only) and Undo (never), but putting that aside I'm still surprised to hear you say this. Your defence to Polish Club (and inferences from discussion and actual situation that go beyond written description) are not due to next week's opponents?

Cappelletti is already a poor alternative to Multilandy without adding the twist of 2M being only 4+ in the major. If BBO restore the tricks function to Dealer I am confident I will be able to demostrate what a poor choice this is. [DD fans will be quick to note that 3NT happens to make on this hand, but only a quarter of the field actually made it and 2♠-2 was 20%.]

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense and preempts my follow up post with a similar idea :) I can imagine 2♠ developmemts on the basis of Multilandy, but if you have some similar proposal please post.

Looks logical and easy to play. Is 2♥ 2NT natural?

If you want to reach English language readers then I think you will have to improve the translation somehow: maybe your own English is good enough to spot and correct some contortions, or someone who is fluent in both languages can help.