[Rossoneri]

david_c, on Aug 31 2008, 05:53 PM, said:

But obviously this sucks. Personally I think the most sensible idea is not to have this agreement in the first place. You might think that it is theoretically best to have different methods depending on the strength of 3♣. But we have seen that this agreement is unplayable because you can't help giving UI. You can complain about the regulations if you like (and I think there is a valid complaint here), but complaining doesn't get you any IMPs. Better to work around it. Play double as take-out over any artificial raise.

I would tend to agree with this actually. Though I don't have a good enough idea of your system to know whether this is actually viable. Maybe you could try it and see how it goes?

[gnasher]

david_c, on Aug 31 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

I am sure that (2) is the "right" thing to do.

I am equally sure that the right thing to do is
(5) When an opponent alerts on the first or second round of the auction, always either ask or ostentatiously look at the convention card.

Quote

But obviously this sucks. Personally I think the most sensible idea is not to have this agreement in the first place. You might think that it is theoretically best to have different methods depending on the strength of 3♣. But we have seen that this agreement is unplayable because you can't help giving UI.

*You* may be unable to help giving UI, but I have no difficulty in avoiding it.