Was UI used?

[Vampyr]

Surely the point is that if Opener wanted to be unethical, the best way for them to give freedom for their partner in this situation may well be to bid 2♥ without alerting. That is not to say that any given player who did this in Opener's position is actually unethical, only that the actions of these 2 hypothetical groups are indistinguishable.

 

It is a shame that only one upvote per person is permitted.

[mycroft]

oh, so like this auction?

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1n(15-17)2h(Hearts%20and%20a%20minor)d2n(minor%3F)3s]133|100[/hv]

 

In this case, as it turns out, it was a "stolen bid" double, and South showed spades. No Alert. Having said that, he, of course, was 3=5=3=2 (he knew it was a stolen bid double and simply lost his mind for a second), and 3♠x went for 14. But it doesn't sound like it, does it? And what if opener didn't have 4♠, and passed out 3♣? The play would have been suboptimal if declarer asked what the double was...

[CSGibson]

opener is suposed to alert if he doesn't know, since one of the possible meanings is artificial. I have this problem often when I partner godzilla and he bids whatever after they overcall my 1NT opening, from my experience he can have any suit, including the one opponents have shown on the overcall.

 

 

I disagree strongly. I think opener is supposed to alert if he thinks he has an agreement, whether he knows it or not, and one of the possible meanings is alertable. I understand that later it was revealed that they do have an agreement, which is that 2D is natural (not alertable). I don't see any UI constraints in this, though there may be MI if they had asked about agreements.