gordontd

There are those who would prefer that their opponents do not have to guess, to have a normal bridge auction, so as to avoid the risk of outcomes such as this.

If one were to accept that the comment provided UI demonstrably suggesting bidding 3NT (which I do not), I think a poll of players who were asked what they would call if they knew that their partner was barred, but not for what reason, would find that pass is not a logical alternative.

Lattie is Polari for apartment, but that probably doesn't clarify anything. :)

Unless we consider their defence to be wild, gambling, or a serious error unrelated to the infraction, what happened with the misinformation is irrelevant. What matters is what we think would have happened without it. And since we're rarely able to estimate with complete accuracy, we round up in favour of the NOS.

All these objections to the 1♣ opening have some basis, but a 1NT opening would probably have made it harder to discover your diamond fit in this instance, and so less able to judge what to do now.

Tough hand to reach 7H on.

No. When they get it right, they do so by following the wording of the regulation.

Whereas, of course, no-one complains about or has difficulty understanding the global rules we do have - the Laws of Bridge.

Neither of them is natural and unalertable, but that is not the question under discussion. The question is which doubles of those bids should be alertable, and for those purposes the EBU treats doubles of these may-or-may-not-have bids the same as doubles of natural bids.

For the purpose of alerting there was a desire to formulate something simple that covered the difficult cases: when the last bid showed nothing new about the hand, as in completing a transfer; when preference is shown which might not indicate much length in the suit; when it was a pass/correct call and the bidder may or may not have length in the suit; and when an artificial bid is passed by the bidder's partner, presumably indicating length in that suit by passing. The formulation adopted, which was suggested by a member, seems to cover everything so that everyone (or almost everyone) knows where they are with which doubles to alert.

If you don't want to use is for one of the artificial methods others have suggested, you could play it as an invitational hand with a six-card suit and no spade fit.

I don't need to bid something else, because in the context of the auction I always will be willing to play in spades. In contrast, if I broke the transfer and bid 3D to show that I liked spades, in the context of that auction my bid of diamonds would not be showing a willingness to play in diamonds.

The 2♠ bid is made in the context of an auction where it may well be the final call. Of course it shows willingness to play in spades, just as it would if I gave preference to a singleton, or responded to a Multi 2♦ in my void. If I weren't willing to play there, I'd have to bid something else.

The WBF Laws Committee issued this minute:

Usefully, in the Orange Book we are told: .and: That deals with the situations under discussion.

The answer is that it's alertable if not for takeout. In both cases the 2♠ bid shows willingness in the context of the auction to play in spades.

I'm happy to concede that you might have been the one who did. :)

That's not the choice. The options are that all such bids be alerted, or that only the unusual uses be alerted. I know which I think is better. Remember the bad old days when Stayman was alerted? All 2♣ responses to 1NT were alerted, so no-one bothered asking and would occasionally get caught out when opponents were playing Keri or something.

Actually it would be worse: it would mask the alerts of genuinely surprising treatments.

I don't think they show that. I think they show that your attempt to simplify things would actually make them worse. And if you were to make exceptions for things that aguahombre thinks are obvious, then it would no longer be simpler.

Then I wonder why you are proposing it as an improvement on the current regulation?

A double on the first round of an auction is extreme? Is it not the most common case of a double?

It's simple and easy to understand, but I'm sure players would find it hard to follow. We already have a rule that's fairly simple and easy to understand, but players seem to find it hard to follow when it requires them to alert a call that they consider to be standard (eg a penalty double after a redouble, or a takeout double of a 1NT response). How much worse it would be that you want them to alert a takeout double of an opening bid.

I think if you ask the player why he did what he did, in all cases the answer is likely to indicate that he was trying to save time - ie to curtail play. Note that "unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim" only applies to him showing his cards, not to him suggesting that play be curtailed.

I don't remember.