[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2013-February-18, 05:33, said:

I never like the imputations made in various posts. Like many ethical players I alert as I believe correct at the time and presume my partner will look after his/her own ethics as far as UI is concerned. If you then tell me one of my alerts/non-alerts has made sure my partner has UI which allows him/her to get it right both my partner and I shall be seriously upset and feel deeply insulted.

L23 is intended to avoid insulting players or questioning their ethics. I think it is the Law that should be applied here.

[bluejak]

 MickyB, on 2013-February-18, 21:16, said:

I would strongly prefer that posters here do not assume things which have not been said. While it is possible to read what I wrote in that fashion, and I could have chosen better wording, I would also be capable of making it much more clear if I wished to state that I felt opener had been deliberately unethical.

 MickyB, on 2013-February-15, 08:30, said:

He's basically made sure the UI his partner has received permits him to correct back to 3D.

It is very difficult to read that sentence to have any interpretation other than lack of ethics.

[c_corgi]

 bluejak, on 2013-February-26, 07:59, said:

It is very difficult to read that sentence to have any interpretation other than lack of ethics.

I thought that the sentence was referring to the effect rather than the intent. But I probably have more familiarity with MickyB's manner of speech than could be expected of most forum users.

[mycroft]

The effect is that partner has UI. If the intent of the Alerter is to pass the UI, then he's being improper, and probably unethical (as who doesn't know they're not supposed to do this?)

If partner *uses* that UI - which is strongly implied by "permits him to correct" - then *he*'s being improper, and almost certainly unethical (as who doesn't know they're not supposed to do this?) The UI actually "inhibits him from correcting" - doesn't bar, but inhibits - if he's being ethical.

The correct, ethical answer is that you Alert calls that you, by agreement or experience, believe are Alertable; and calls that you have no agreement over but believe, by agreement or experience, that one of the likely meanings is Alertable. When asked, you explain what you know. Partner follows Law 73C and "carefully avoids" using the UI, which could lead to playing a 3-2 or 3-3 fit and getting a bad result. You make an agreement after the hand, and we go on.

The correct ethical answer is that if partner does bid 3♦ after all of this, the TD is called, and if she decides that he did in fact carefully avoid using the UI (he's 0=6 in the reds, say), so rules, the opponents say "Thank you, Director" and continues on (and you do come to some agreement as before). If not, the pair without an agreement takes the ruling in stride and says "Thank you, Director" and continues on (or lodges an appeal, I guess).

It's not opener we're reading your sentence as having limited ethics, but responder. UI gets transmitted all the time; the ethical pairs suck it up and follow the Law, the less-ethical (or lack-of-knowledge) pairs don't (or "do what they always would have done", which usually works out to the same thing).

[Zelandakh]

Surely the point is that if Opener wanted to be unethical, the best way for them to give freedom for their partner in this situation may well be to bid 2♥ without alerting. That is not to say that any given player who did this in Opener's position is actually unethical, only that the actions of these 2 hypothetical groups are indistinguishable.

[Vampyr]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-February-27, 05:27, said:

Surely the point is that if Opener wanted to be unethical, the best way for them to give freedom for their partner in this situation may well be to bid 2♥ without alerting. That is not to say that any given player who did this in Opener's position is actually unethical, only that the actions of these 2 hypothetical groups are indistinguishable.

It is a shame that only one upvote per person is permitted.

[mycroft]

oh, so like this auction?

---

In this case, as it turns out, it was a "stolen bid" double, and South showed spades. No Alert. Having said that, he, of course, was 3=5=3=2 (he knew it was a stolen bid double and simply lost his mind for a second), and 3♠x went for 14. But it doesn't sound like it, does it? And what if opener didn't have 4♠, and passed out 3♣? The play would have been suboptimal if declarer asked what the double was...

[CSGibson]

 Fluffy, on 2013-February-15, 09:29, said:

opener is suposed to alert if he doesn't know, since one of the possible meanings is artificial. I have this problem often when I partner godzilla and he bids whatever after they overcall my 1NT opening, from my experience he can have any suit, including the one opponents have shown on the overcall.

I disagree strongly. I think opener is supposed to alert if he thinks he has an agreement, whether he knows it or not, and one of the possible meanings is alertable. I understand that later it was revealed that they do have an agreement, which is that 2D is natural (not alertable). I don't see any UI constraints in this, though there may be MI if they had asked about agreements.