[dkham]

So, having read all the posts so far, am I right in thinking:


South should basically "bid as if partner had properly alerted her bid", i.e. assume partner knows what he's doing.

So if you think an alert partner would bid 3♦ as "pick a major" you should pick a major, and if you think partner could be bidding 4♦ as natural you should pass that.

And if the only possible reason partner would bid 4♦ is because they've forgotten the system (and I'd say that is the case here), then you are ethically allowed to try 4♥, but this probably won't help anyway as he might then just bid 5♦ over you.


Incidentally 4♦x went seven off for 1700. But for mild compensation, the opponents did have their 3NT game.

[blackshoe]

Well, hopefully, mentioning it here will widen the range of people who know about it.

I find it interesting that the ACBL alert regulation, in its definitions section, differentiates between "cue bid" and "control bid", which to me implies that the alert rules on "cue bids" do not apply to "control bids". What makes that interesting? "Control bids" are not mentioned at all anywhere else in the alert regulation than the definitions. So a "control bid", since it is not natural according to the alert regulation, always requires an alert (no exceptions), though frequently the bid will be above 3NT and at or after opener's second turn to call, so the alert will be delayed. I've never seen anyone do this.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-November-21, 19:37, said:

It would be nice of people could state the jurisdiction which is asked in the rules for these forums. Having to guess seems unnecessary. People like myself do not look at where someone is from so if it is not in the text we do not realise it anyway. Please do state the jurisdiction, please, pretty please.

I don't generally look, either. But if they don't state the jurisdiction, I do, since I'd rather make an educated guess than a wild guess. And it's not like you have to make any great effort: the OP's location is about 2 inches below the thread title.

Of course it would be better if posters were explicit. It would also be better if people provided complete explanations when claiming, but we make do without that as well.

[blackshoe]

And yet we still ask them — repeatedly — to provide a complete claim statement.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-November-22, 11:23, said:

I don't generally look, either. But if they don't state the jurisdiction, I do, since I'd rather make an educated guess than a wild guess. And it's not like you have to make any great effort: the OP's location is about 2 inches below the thread title.

I agree. Most likely the OP lives about 30 miles South of Indianapolis along I65. But don't underestimate the possibility that he lives somewhere in say err.. Scotland.

Rik

[Sjoerds]

gnasher, on 2012-November-22, 02:32, said:

Why didn't South alert 3♦? If 2♦ is systemically Michaels, 3♦ is presumably artificial and therefore alertable in Scotland.

Good question..after an alert for 3♦ "pick your best major" the UI is changing places. Like to see North's hand too

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-22, 15:14, said:

And yet we still ask them — repeatedly — to provide a complete claim statement.

Yes, we do. But when they fail to do so, we don't throw common sense out the window.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-November-23, 11:24, said:

Yes, we do. But when they fail to do so, we don't throw common sense out the window.

To what "common sense" are you referring?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-23, 13:24, said:

To what "common sense" are you referring?

Looking at the poster's location and using this as a reasonable guess.

[blackshoe]

I don't see what "common sense" has to do with the location of a person of whom we are asking that they provide a complete line of play statement when they claim. Or are you talking about using the poster's stated location as a reasonable guess as to what alert (or other, I guess) regulations are in force? If so, then I guess the point is that the two situations are different. Regulations are one thing, but it doesn't matter where a person is, Law 68C is the same everywhere.

[barmar]

I got lost regarding which side of the analogy we were in.

The "common sense" in incomplete claims is that when declarer faces his hand, and we can all see that he has all winners (or he's already started a cross-ruff and it's obvious that he intends to complete it), he doesn't need to make any statement at all.

[blackshoe]

That's generally fair enough, so long as there's no "normal" line that might fail.

[barmar]

And how do we know what's "normal" versus "irrational"? There's no objective, mathematical definition -- we use common sense.

[blackshoe]

Not every definition has to be mathematical, but okay, whatever.

From the Oxford American Dictionary: word trends: The exclamation whatever is disliked intensely by many for the attitude of indifference and contempt it conveys. Popularized by the affluent Valley Girls of 1980s California, whatever has grown in use as a powerfully dismissive way to end a conversation ever since: "Whatever," he said and pulled his hood up and swaggered off. It can also be used to imply disagreement with a preceding statement ( They are telling me it's about time I earned my own money. Whatever!) or disbelief ( We found out later that she was casting for a major motion picture, and we were all like "Oh, yeah, whatever!"), and is even used as shorthand for everything seen to be wrong with the modern world, embodying apathy and refusal to accept responsibility: the board will probably brush this off, and say, "Hey, whatever!".

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-November-24, 23:23
Reason for edit: I've got to stop using "whatever" this way!

[barmar]

It was just a very rough analogy, not meant to be exact in every way. Sheesh.

We'd like posters to include jurisdiction ~ we'd like players to give complete claim statements

In both cases, if they don't we can often do better than just guess. "Common sense" is the term I use for the way we fill in the missing information.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough.