Does anything Alerting?

[pescetom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.