Re: Can a legal non-alert be misinformation anyway?

>> If opponents are not properly informed, that's either their own
>> fault or a fault with the alerting rules.

On 11/8/2018 1:18 AM, Herman De Wael wrote:
> OK for the first, but is the second one fair on them?

I play in the ACBL, so there are lots of rules I don't like.  Fair or
not, we have to abide by and rule by what we are given.

> [Always asking] seems to be a good advice, but it kind of defeats the
> purpose of the non-alert: not giving UI to partner.

See above about "what we are given."  Of course as your opponent, I
_want_ you to have UI if your agreements are shaky.  But more than that,
I want to know what the opening bid showed.

> But anyway - you would always ask in second seat. But suppose your
> partner does not ask (maybe he has looked at the SC) and when it's
> your turn, the 4SP bid has come. Would you still ask?

Me personally, yes.  I'm probably in a minority, though.  Namyats is not
so popular here, so without asking I'd probably assume natural diamonds
and some kind of slam try.

If you're asking what I think the alert regulations should be, I think
"normal alerts on the first round regardless of level" is good.  But if 
the rule is something else, we just need to make the best of it.  In 
particular, we can't rule against someone who has met all requirements.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml