[Fluffy]

1♦-(2♠)-2NT!-(pass) .....2NT=transfer to ♣
3♣-(pass)-3♠-(pass)
3NT-(pass)....


At the table it didn't end here, but lets supose it did. I was the 2♠ overcaller who had ♠AQJ93, I was going to lead hearts looking for an entry to partner not willing to give a free trick to declarer's ♠K

It turns out that declarer has ♠xxx and was expecting partner to have spade stopper, and lack of heart stopper. Dummy had ♠K10.

This was at Spannish trials with screens in use, declarer and me were screenmates.

Is it my responsability to ask for this kind of bids?

[kenrexford]

Trials? I don't know what the specific rule is, but I think you have a responsibility to ask from partner/teammates perspective.

[gnasher]

I would always ask about this type of bid. What does it cost to ask?

If this was played under the WBF alerting rules, 3♠ is alertable regardless of its meaning. Rule 1 of the Alerting Policy reads "Conventional bids should be alerted". However, with bids in the opponents' suit very few people obey that rule.

You are also supposed to alert "Those bids which have special meanings". I think a stopper-showing cue-bid in this sequence is unusual enough to be considered "special". In an environment where nobody alerts "normal" bids in the opponents' suit, this 3♠ bid should be alerted anyway. Hence you could argue that you were misinformed.

[iviehoff]

kenrexford, on 2014-January-19, 06:28, said:

I think you have a responsibility to ask from partner/teammates perspective.

That would be both illegal and futile.

Illegal because it is illegal to ask for the benefit of partner (L20G1).*
Futile because behind screens only you can see that the question has been asked.

*The law uses the curious word "improper" at this point. Neverthess it would appear to be illegal regardless of the wording of that specific prohibition because it would appear to be an attempt at illegal communication.

[kenrexford]

iviehoff, on 2014-January-19, 10:46, said:

That would be both illegal and futile.

Illegal because it is illegal to ask for the benefit of partner (L20G1).*
Futile because behind screens only you can see that the question has been asked.

*The law uses the curious word "improper" at this point. Neverthess it would appear to be illegal regardless of the wording of that specific prohibition because it would appear to be an attempt at illegal communication.

I was not talking about their perspective during play. I was talking about them wanting during the post mortem to know that you asked these questions before picking a lead.

[Fluffy]

little benefit for partner with screens.

[blackshoe]

"Improper" means, I think, that it is an impropriety. If I'm not mistaken, there was a time that the "Proprieties" did not have the force of law, though now, of course, they do. So "improper" may be a holdover from that earlier time, either deliberate or accidental. In any case, a violation of the proprieties is currently a violation of a law, and illegal as well as improper.

[gnasher]

iviehoff, on 2014-January-19, 10:46, said:

*The law uses the curious word "improper" at this point.

The Laws use many curious words at many different points.

[blackshoe]

I hope you do not lead to a NT contract on that auction, Fluffy, since it's your partner who's on lead.

[ggwhiz]

gnasher, on 2014-January-19, 06:56, said:

If this was played under the WBF alerting rules, 3♠ is alertable regardless of its meaning. Rule 1 of the Alerting Policy reads "Conventional bids should be alerted". However, with bids in the opponents' suit very few people obey that rule.

Unless it has changed cueing the opponents suit is not alertable in the ACBL as it's considered to carry an implied alert and you should ask if you need to know.

Not relevant to this discussion but I have a lot of sympathy for players competing between jurisdictions and doubt that there is any way to study up on the differences beyond you are on your own.

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2014-January-20, 08:45, said:

Unless it has changed cueing the opponents suit is not alertable in the ACBL as it's considered to carry an implied alert and you should ask if you need to know.

Not relevant to this discussion but I have a lot of sympathy for players competing between jurisdictions and doubt that there is any way to study up on the differences beyond you are on your own.

In the ACBL, most cuebids do not require an alert. The alert chart gives one example of a cuebid that does: a natural cuebid of a suit bid naturally. The alert procedure gives another: (1♠)-2♥-( P )-2♠. If 2♠ is a transfer to clubs, it requires an alert. The procedure also says that "any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert."

The alert procedure does say, in capital letters, "ASK, DO NOT ASSUME", but as far as I know there is no official indication from the ACBL anywhere that "cuebids carry an implied alert".