[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2012-June-21, 09:47, said:

That would certainly solve the problem of people violating the "can't ask solely for partner's sake" law.

Or maybe not. Even if partner can't hear the answer, he can see that you asked, and that might prompt him to ask at his turn when he might not have otherwise.

Personally, I put this kind of speculation into the "this will drive you crazy" category, and ignore it.

[aguahombre]

So, here is how it should have gone:

---

2♠ alerted by East. North asks, and is told privately that the bid shows spades and diamonds.

3♦ is alerted by South. East asks, and is told privately that South has no idea what 3♦ means.

East, aloud: "What do you mean, you don't know?".

South now calls the director. "Director, East asked what my partner's bid means. I gave an answer to East, and he retorted out loud. He isn't allowed to ask questions for his partner's benefit."

The TD rules on East's infraction (asking a question for partner's benefit). Then, he tells South to eleborate as best he can but only to East because there is no law requiring both opponents to be informed at the same time.

South explains to East privately that when it is his turn to call, he will find out what 2♠ meant and will then know what 3♦ meant.

And on it goes until West's next turn to act; and he can find out what North's bid meant, then East's, then South's.

What fun! Perhaps some common sense, starting with explaining 2♠ to both opponents, would have been more efficient. But, we dare not do more than is absolutely required.

[paua]

I think you have complicated the situation with the rudeness and asking Qs for partner's benefit issues.
In the above situation, when East asks South what 3D means, South can easily and politely explain that "it depends on what 2S means. If 2S doesn't show diamonds then 3D is natural. If 2S shows diamonds then 3D is a cue." No angst.
East can now make his bid. At South's turn to bid s/he will presumably now ask what 2S means. It will unravel.

[blackshoe]

The only thing I'd suggest changing in that is "if… then 3♦ is a cue" because that still doesn't answer what 3♦ means.

[aguahombre]

Yes that would be better. South should be the only one at the table to go the extra effort.

[Fluffy]

The fact north had hearts might have helped him to understand that west had diamonds and not hearts.

[lamford]

The OB states that it is the responsibility of the player to ensure that his opponent has seen any alert. What it should say is that he or she should ensure that a reasonably observant opponent has seen any alert. Similarly here, the obligation should be that a person with reasonable hearing understands the explanation. If an opponent is deficient in this department, then the TD can make special arrangements for him or her.