BBO Discussion Forums: The tale of the missing convention cards - BBO Discussion Forums

lamford, on 2014-January-08, 16:36, said:

I agree this is contradictory. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to me to cause too many problems in practice, and is actually quite helpful.

Against experienced players I will tend to assume that the lack of an alert means the bid isn't alertable, unless the lack of an alert is so surprising that no-one will assume there is any UI from just checking they really meant not to alert it. Against less experienced players I will be more cautious about deducing anything from a lack of an alert if the "normal" meaning of a bid is alertable, and the section of the White Book quoted confirms that I cannot expect to gain from "bridge lawyering" an inexperienced pair who have forgotten to alert a bid that I was pretty confident I understood anyway.

It says "can assume", but not "should assume" or "must assume". I'd interpret this as allowing players who don't know better to make the assumption, but experienced players are expected to protect themselves if they can do so without UI problems.

barmar, on 2014-January-09, 12:11, said:

This post makes no sense. "Should assume" and "must assume" are pretty meaningless. They would seem to suggest that you might be subject to penalty if you didn't make the assumption. LOL.

EDIT: The above terms would also prohibit asking.

WellSpyder, on 2014-January-09, 03:34, said:

I agree, and in this example, both East and West are experienced, and I think won their County Pairs Championship in 2013, so I certainly would expect them to alert if 2S is pass or correct. And I interpret "can assume" to mean "can assume without being penalised for assuming". And the OP states that 2H was "alerted as showing spades or both minors". It would just have been alerted, and we need to know when its meaning was established.

I think even experienced pairs can be confused regarding the requirement to alert P/C bids. When partner has shown one or two unknown suits, it's often considered obvious that bidding the cheapest of the suits he might have is P/C (except when using conventions where 2NT is the asking bid for an unknown minor). It's also an ostensively natural bid: the player is offering to play in the suit if it's partner's suit. So while the regulations may say that it's alertable, I'll bet it's a common mistake, and rarely results in damage because the meaning is clear.

barmar, on 2014-January-10, 11:07, said:

I was with you right up to here.

barmar, on 2014-January-10, 11:07, said:

This I'm not so sure about. I don't think the meaning is necessarily clear to all players, so I don't think you can say that it rarely results in damage.

blackshoe, on 2014-January-10, 11:25, said:

You haven't made your case. I didn't say "all", although I implied "most". It's simple bridge logic: if partner has shown specific suits, you take preference by bidding one of them; if they've shown unknown suits, you bid the cheapest that you can stand.

I admit that there are conventions where there are more nuances than just pass/correct. E.g. when playing Multi-2♦, if responder bids 2♠ he's effectively showing better hearts than spades, because he's forcing opener to the 3 level to correct. While this is also an obvious logical conclusion, it goes beyond just P/C and deserves explanation.

barmar, on 2014-January-10, 11:42, said:

No problem: If responder bids 2♠ in response to Multi-2♦ it is essentially the bid corresponding to a 3♠ in the sequence 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♠.

3♠ is (obviously) an invitation to 4♠ and the response of 2♠ to a Multi-2♦ is pass/correct with an invitation to 4♥ if the opener happens to have hearts.

pran, on 2014-January-10, 17:16, said:

I don't think barmar meant that it was difficult to explain.