[pilun]

---

Australia
RealBridge in "face-to-face" mode, so no screens, players alerting partner's bids.

1♦ showed 4+♠s, not 4♥s, 10-15 points.
This was alerted verbally, plus the alert card clicked. (Not announceable, no question asked)
2NT was alerted by South.

At her turn, so after South had bid 3♦, West asked about 2NT and was told "Minors, presumably". Note that 3♦ being the "the bid of a suit bid or shown by an opponent" is not alertable in Oz.

4♥ made 11 tricks on the ♠J lead.

How might you rule? Also,

How do you view West's question about 2NT, which caused the problem?

Is this a case where polling is useful?

Do you think NS should be offered some leeway in view of the unusual method they were confronted with?

[pescetom]

It's a good argument for using RB in "virtual screens" mode. Also for preannouncement of basic system and weird openings.

Having said that, I don't think NS deserve particular leeway unless they are beginners, or the alert of 1D arrived after the bid of 2NT (which you seem to exclude).

I view West's question negatively: his only legitimate interest is in the diamonds situation and asking only about 2NT will not resolve that (even if asking only about 3D would be even worse).

I would ascertain what NS agreement is for when advancer bids opponent's suit or the fourth suit after Unusual.
And then for what it means if 2NT interferer bids a new suit after preference by Advancer.

Was there UI from North after the explanation of both minors?

[barmar]

How were NS damaged by West's question? Yes, they can make 6 on that lead, but what does the question have to do with their failure?

[Cyberyeti]

EW were damaged, because the Q&A woke N up to the fact that S did not have so many diamonds that he wanted to play 3♦ opposite clubs and hearts.

[barmar]

Ah, I misunderstood what they meant by "caused the problem" and "offered leeway". They meant that West may have inflicted their own damage by asking the question.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2023-May-17, 09:34, said:

Ah, I misunderstood what they meant by "caused the problem" and "offered leeway". They meant that West may have inflicted their own damage by asking the question.

Induced UI for North from South.

[blackshoe]

At the point where OP asked "How might you rule?" I have not yet seen an irregularity, much less an infraction.

Later, we are told that West's question "caused the problem". "The problem" still hasn't been defined.

Can we start over?

[pescetom]

Difficult to say without more information, which in two weeks has not arrived.

I do think that the "bid of a suit bid or shown" regulation is a problem, being both misguided (IMO) and misworded (whatever "or shown" was intended to mean. Were diamonds bid here? Were spades shown? Would neither be alertable?).

[blackshoe]

I would say that diamonds were bid, spades were shown by the 1♦ bid, and that neither cuebid would be alertable.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2023-May-17, 21:35, said:

At the point where OP asked "How might you rule?" I have not yet seen an irregularity, much less an infraction.

Later, we are told that West's question "caused the problem". "The problem" still hasn't been defined.

Can we start over?

OK, let me pose what I think the problem is:

N has bid 2N. We don't know which 2 suits he thinks he showed.

S has alerted and on being asked for an explanation has said "minors".

N is now alerted by this explanation that his partner's 3♦ could be 3 of them rather than 6 or 7 as partner thinks he has 5+ diamonds, and bid 3♥.

Is N allowed to do this ? depends what he thought 2N meant, is it hearts and another ? or specifically hearts and clubs ?

Further enquiries are needed.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2023-May-18, 05:49, said:

I would say that diamonds were bid, spades were shown by the 1♦ bid, and that neither cuebid would be alertable.

I too would hope it means that, given the wording, but it seems a very odd choice to me. I can see the logic that a cue of a natural suit bid will usually be artificial (watch out for occasional natural when playing with GIB and a few others) but why extend this to a cue of a suit which was bid artificially?
"A bid of a denomination indicated by opponents" (in this case, spades) would at least be logical and precise.

[sfi]

Blackshoe is right. As another example on the same hand, after North's 2NT showing the minors no future E-W bid of NT, clubs or diamonds is alertable whatever the meaning.

The declaring side still has an obligation to draw attention to the unusual nature of the bid(s) before the opening lead.

It's not about whether the bid is artificial or uncommon - it's about whether the bid is "self-alerting" by simple virtue of being a cue bid. It's the same idea that means doubles or redoubles are not alertable under any circumstances. The people writing the ABF rules went for simplicity in this and other areas of the regulation.

[sfi]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-May-18, 06:02, said:

OK, let me pose what I think the problem is:

N has bid 2N. We don't know which 2 suits he thinks he showed.

S has alerted and on being asked for an explanation has said "minors".

N is now alerted by this explanation that his partner's 3♦ could be 3 of them rather than 6 or 7 as partner thinks he has 5+ diamonds, and bid 3♥.

Is N allowed to do this ? depends what he thought 2N meant, is it hearts and another ? or specifically hearts and clubs ?

Further enquiries are needed.

It gets stranger.

• South asks about 1D and North hears that it shows spades. Is North now allowed to know they have misbid? How does the AI impact the logical alternatives that North needs to consider as the result of the UI?
  
• South bids 3D after asking. Is North meant to take this as a cue bid or natural?
  
• South bids 3D without asking, but North now asks and finds out the E-W agreement. Now what are North's obligations?

To answer at least one of the OP's questions. No - I don't think N-S should be given leeway. They didn't bother to ask about an alerted bid, so they created this situation themselves.

[Cyberyeti]

sfi, on 2023-May-18, 07:21, said:

It gets stranger.

• South asks about 1D and North hears that it shows spades. Is North now allowed to know they have misbid? How does the AI impact the logical alternatives that North needs to consider as the result of the UI?
  
• South bids 3D after asking. Is North meant to take this as a cue bid or natural?
  
• South bids 3D without asking, but North now asks and finds out the E-W agreement. Now what are North's obligations?

To answer at least one of the OP's questions. No - I don't think N-S should be given leeway. They didn't bother to ask about an alerted bid, so they created this situation themselves.

I'd also ask them what defence they play to a strong diamond which is I suspet the most common alerted diamond they play against.

What N takes 3♦ as depends on what he thought his bid meant. If S doesn't ask and N then asks, N has simply misbid and can try to rescue this however he likes.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2023-May-18, 07:06, said:

Blackshoe is right. As another example on the same hand, after North's 2NT showing the minors no future E-W bid of NT, clubs or diamonds is alertable whatever the meaning.

The declaring side still has an obligation to draw attention to the unusual nature of the bid(s) before the opening lead.

It's not about whether the bid is artificial or uncommon - it's about whether the bid is "self-alerting" by simple virtue of being a cue bid. It's the same idea that means doubles or redoubles are not alertable under any circumstances. The people writing the ABF rules went for simplicity in this and other areas of the regulation.

Ok, but it still looks to me more lazy than simple. In your example, EW bids of clubs or diamonds are clearly cuebids of NS suits, but what has an EW bid of NT got to do with things? NS bid NT artificially to show the minors, not to indicate any interest in the denomination NT. If EW now bid NT it is not a cue in any real sense and it is very likely to be natural (and if not, opponents have a right to an alert just like the first artificial NT bid).

But the regulation is now clear, thanks.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2023-May-18, 07:21, said:

It gets stranger.

• South asks about 1D and North hears that it shows spades. Is North now allowed to know they have misbid?

The OP does not mention South asking about 1D, only West asking about 2NT. Maybe 1D was also explained then, but we aren't sure.

Just as we aren't sure that the alert of 1D arrived before the bid of 2NT (going on experience of Realbridge and the defensive tone of OP, I have a hunch it was late, and that changes things).

[mycroft]

Not sure about all of this.

I too, would like to know if the Alert on 1♦ was timely. But let's assume it was. I would also like to know if there was a reaction from North to "Minors, presumably".

People who play unusual systems learn three things pretty quickly:

• They shouldn't have a higher burden of full disclosure than the "normal" folks, but they do. Or at least, the kinds of "everybody knows that" omissions standard players get away with, they eventually won't. But they'd better be careful not to explain too deeply, either, lest they elicit the dreaded "you just play this to win by confusion" response.
  
• But of course, their opponents will frequently have no agreement or differing opinions on what the defence to the unusual part of their systems are. And they have no idea what's Alertable. So you can either ask, and clarify the confusion, or not ask and get told later "well, if you needed to know..." Having said that, if you choose not to clarify, are you not trying to "win from the confusion"?
  
• Most of the time the opponents make a "mistake", it results in damage to them. And frequently I hear "well, they should know their system against this." But sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes you just can't help it. Oddly enough, that's when I hear "how dare they not know their system against this?" (and how to explain it, and whether to Alert it).

After 20 years of this, the ACBL at least decided to say "-- this, bidding the opponents' artificial suit is not Alertable, no matter what it means. You want to know? Ask." Do I like that result? Not really. But it stops (or at least front-loads) the complaints when (1♣ Precision)-2♣ is "Michaels, what else?" and both opponents are on the same page (the times that that auction is "Michaels, what else?" to the bidder and not to partner, and they take 800 into partscore in 4♠x, I don't hear as many complaints).

All of that to say, I am not at all surprised that West asked what 2NT was, because he's seen this game before. I don't think it gets to the level of L20G2. Of course, if he doesn't ask when he has 9732 KQ 98 KQ842, then there are other problems (the standard "partner, I'm surprised they want to bid this suit, because of how many cards I have in it").

Having said *that*, what is their agreement about 2NT over a spade opening? (not "a 1♠ opening", but that will help get the answer). If the answer is "well, if it was 1♠, then...but we have never discussed transfer openings", then okay, there's that.

I have a great deal of sympathy with people playing Vic Mitchell's "Nuttin' System", and the Alert rules in ABF help doing it. Obviously, choosing to do that is an agreement you should be making before this comes up (and obviously isn't this case), but still.

But let's say that "Minors" is the answer, and either North didn't bother to look or ask, or forgot. Does he think that 3♦ is "good hand, support for one of your suits" (probably hearts)? Or "good hand, looking for 3NT"? If 2NT shows the "two lowest unbid" (not unshown) to him, doesn't "cue their bid suit" show the same? Okay, he knows from the UI that partner's trying to pick a minor. But are you sure that someone who will bid this way would automatically think that bidding the opponents' "suit" shows "want to play here, rather than your suits"?

Going back to my original point, yes, there's UI, yes, it could have woken up North; yes, 3♥ is demonstrably suggested over Pass by the UI. And yes, West's question triggered the transmission of the UI. And yes, if there's an adjustment, West will be "accused" of asking just to set up a L40G2 UI trap (not in those words, but it'll happen). And if there's no adjustment, for whatever reason, West will feel aggrieved. And if he hadn't asked and got taken (on a different hand, maybe when 3♦ even with the bad break makes -110, but the "obvious" 3NT goes down), West will feel aggrieved.

It's a situation people playing non-standard systems get sometimes. But (shhh) sometimes they do win when the opponents are confused, too, whether or not that's their intention.

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2023-May-18, 09:38, said:

The OP does not mention South asking about 1D, only West asking about 2NT. Maybe 1D was also explained then, but we aren't sure.

Just as we aren't sure that the alert of 1D arrived before the bid of 2NT (going on experience of Realbridge and the defensive tone of OP, I have a hunch it was late, and that changes things).

Sorry if it was unclear. Some of my scenarios were hypothetical and not trying to reflect what happened at the table.

[sfi]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-May-18, 08:22, said:

I'd also ask them what defence they play to a strong diamond which is I suspect the most common alerted diamond they play against.

The most common alerted 1D is a Precision-style catch-all. The other ones I know of are "diamonds or balanced (mostly 18-19, but one pair plays it as 11-14)", "hearts (Moscito)", or "spades (pilun's system)". I haven't encountered a strong diamond in Oz for years.

[Cyberyeti]

sfi, on 2023-May-18, 16:25, said:

The most common alerted 1D is a Precision-style catch-all. The other ones I know of are "diamonds or balanced (mostly 18-19, but one pair plays it as 11-14)", "hearts (Moscito)", or "spades (pilun's system)". I haven't encountered a strong diamond in Oz for years.

OK, a precision diamond is I believe announced with a minimum length (certainly down to 2, not sure if you alert if shorter) not alerted here so that one didn't occur to me (similarly the diamonds or balanced).

I think moscito and Pilun's are illegal here so only the strong diamond is left and we did have a couple of pairs that played it locally until recently.