[kenberg]

As far as the misinformatin is concerned, these things happen and I leave the decision to the director or possibly a committee if I really feel abused. I have never been able to grasp the convoluted logic of many of the rulings. I do however have strong feelings about the 5C bid. I believe letting such a call go unpunished is really bad for the game.

The original posting says that 2NT was intended to show the minors. The later explanation refers to 2NT as a two-suited bid. I assume the more precise statement that it showed the minors rather than some two suits is what the intent was. Through the alert, the 2N bidder comes to understand that his partner has misinterpreted his call. Can he act over 4S? Yes, I think so as this is a particularly strong and shapely two-suiter. If he were to call 4NT, saying partner I really want you to choose one of my two suits, I wouldn't say a word. If he called 5C and showed up with six clubs and five diamonds I wouldn't say a word. To bid his five card club suit after he has become aware through the alert procedure that his partner believes his earlier called showed the reds? I really don't think this can be defended.

I wish the players here had remained anonymous since it is not my wish to attack anyone personally. I hope this can be thought of as a general statement to those who direct games as to my views on protecting the integrity of the alert procedure.

Ken

[arrows]

I bid 5C because its lower suit and stronger for lead.
I didn't see why that would incriminate me, but I said earlier I would
accept procedure penalty, no problem.

Just want to show how they got to the slam when anyone could clearly read
the situation. BTW, 3♥, seems intended as transfer ♠, was never alerted.

That's all I have to say.

[Fluffy]

arrows, on Dec 31 2005, 04:04 PM, said:

I bid 5C because its lower suit and stronger for lead.
I didn't see why that would incriminate me, but I said earlier I would
accept procedure penalty, no problem.

Just want to show how they got to the slam when anyone could clearly read
the situation. BTW, 3♥, seems intended as transfer ♠, was never alerted.

That's all I have to say.

I think (in fact I am sure) that You bid 5♣ because you wanted to wake up partner fro his missinformation, you can try to convince yourself or another thing if you want. Yet you will still know what really happened. You bid based on a UI, that doesn't mean anything wrong, in fact I know no player that is able to bid/play 100% the same way he would do without an UI. I don't think he exists, humans jsut will try to use the information they have, you can't tell your mind to think without it.

[kenberg]

I accept the explanation of the 5C bid. Given the situation, I think you cannot do it, but the lead directing feature makes it a more plausible call than I first thought. As to the non-alert of the 3H bid, this gets into rules I am unsure of. Generally, cue bids are not to be alerted. Your partner explained that the 2NT bid shows diamonds and hearts. That makes, I believe, the 3H bid a cue bid. If they are playing some version of unusual/unusual, it probably shows both spades and strength but whether it is to be alerted I don't know. The presumption is that if 2NT shows hearts and diamonds then 3H alerts itself as an artificial bid, or so I understand. I imagine this places the opening bidder in a mild pickle. By looking at his hand he thinks it unlikely the 2N bid really showed the reds. He probably would like to have alerted and explained with somethng like: "On the off chance that the 2NT bid really did show the reds, which I doubt very much, the heart bid would show spades". He restrained himself. My guess is that silence was exactly what was called for, but I am definitely not an authority on such things.

Anyway, I appreciate the comment about clubs being the desired lead. It's a bad choice however since if it works out well the result may still be rolled back and if it works out poorly (for example if they now find their heart slam) then it works out poorly. And it looks bad.

Ken

[hrothgar]

arrows, on Dec 31 2005, 07:04 PM, said:

I bid 5C because its lower suit and stronger for lead.
I didn't see why that would incriminate me, but I said earlier I would accept procedure penalty, no problem.

Awful convenient that partner chose to pass that "lead directing" 5♣ bid?

I don't know what bothers me more: The blatant use of UI, the ignorance of the laws and proprieties, or your complete inability to learn from your mistake...