[Manastorm]

2♦ - p - p - x;
2♥ - 3♣ - p - p;
3♦ - p - 3♥ - p;
p - p;
Two diamonds was multi and it was not alerted. The cheaky opener had diamond support with good heart honours among several small ones and rationalized his outrageous use of UI as a good diamond raise. The responder had a weak hand with 4 diamonds and two hearts, so the second pass was reasonable. However 3♥ was peculiar, but maybe a lawful wake-up. The firm agreements included just the opening bid.
Can the cheaky opener get away with this?

[mycroft]

Online - self-Alerts? Fine.
Partner-alerts? Same responses (it's almost exactly the same issue) as the other thread.

Cheeky? No, just unauthorized panic.(*) Unusual with Multi, though. That's a call that comes up enough that it's not forgotten, either in RAs where it's legal and common, or in RAs where it's only legal in very high level events and has a million hoops to jump through before you can use it.

Here, as there, it is of interest whether 2♦ undoubled would be the adjusted score.

Partner gets to look at the auction and remember (although they are obligated to correct their own misinformation before the opening lead, and it's better if they [call the director and] correct it immediately upon figuring it out. Just because the call that wakes them up is (potentially) illegally based on the UI doesn't mean it's not AI to the forgetter.

(*) Please don't imply intent where it may not exist. It's just use of UI. If they don't know, they don't know. If they think it's okay, because that's what they've been taught, or that's what everyone else in their games do, they don't know. It's not a "how dare they do that, against *us* of all people?" it's an education issue. Ascribing intent when it is potentially one of many other things (including a good attempt with bad judgement, not that in this case I think that is arguable) is how you get those "very good, very ethical" 5-table A games and 10 table I/N games that nobody ever moves out of (or if they're forced, just stop playing).

[Manastorm]

The deal is essentially the same. The situation is clear without diamond support. However with diamond support the opener is almost forced to continue, but can you continue in a way which increases the chance partner wakes up legitimately. As far as I understand 2♥ is totally fine as long as you can back it as a diamond raise, which the cheaky opener did by raising diamonds again with serious risk. The responder seems to be allowed to wake up when he likes and correct to hearts. I think it is illadvised to show shortness in a major in this situation, as partner can wake up wrong footed.

[pescetom]

This would be easier to evaluate if you posted the actual hands and not just the auction, using the Hand Editor tool (looks like a Spades symbol at the end of the horizontal menu).

[Manastorm]

pescetom, on 2023-August-08, 14:58, said:

This would be easier to evaluate if you posted the actual hands and not just the auction, using the Hand Editor tool (looks like a Spades symbol at the end of the horizontal menu).

My post isn't a real case, it's a variation of a real case discussed on bridgewinners and here. The bridgewinners thread is triple star material for their participants (Woolsey, Rosenberg and Burn).

[mycroft]

If the argument is "It's a raise to 3♦, showing my suit on the way, so partner knows what to do when they take it out" - well, that's an argument. The 3♦ call after "supports" that argument. It's an interesting question if "raising by showing my suit" was influenced by the UI that "hey partner, I have hearts, not diamonds" would be a very good message to pass.

Still relevant to the other thread.

I really don't think it will fly - I think we will find that at least one of pass and 3♦ are logical alternatives. Just because it might in fact be the best bid absent the UI (but it allows a 2♠ or 3♣ call, so maybe not) doesn't override L16B1a.

Putting it in the system notes that in this exact situation, we will show the suit constrains the LAs a bit. But I bet proving it applies *when partner obviously forgot multi* isn't going to be easy.

Note: nothing you say stops you from using the hand editor to put the bidding in an easier-to-understand format. But it's better than most text formatting, so there.

[helene_t]

mycroft, on 2023-August-08, 11:24, said:

Here, as there, it is of interest whether 2♦ undoubled would be the adjusted score.

What about 2♦ doubled? Clearly, opener is not allowed to bid 2♥ if they have the UI that 2♦ was not alerted. While the 2♦ opening might not have been doubled with correct explanation, it might. Doubler might take the view that 2♦X is likely to end the auction if opener is ethical, or they may simply have a hand suitable for double regardless.

[mycroft]

Well, that was my question in the other thread. Are they entitled to know both the agreement and that opener's partner forgot? Are you willing to double "knowing" that partner has zero diamonds?