ACBL TD ruling

[glen]

As noted by almost everybody, even those who don't read the whole thread, 2♦ should have been alerted. As noted as well the ACBL regulations are clear in this case. The f2f club level directors in this area would have all gotten the ruling correct, but most here have a zillion years of experience so everything is "deja vu all over again" for them.

 

As to the hand, it seems you were not in a bad position after the no alert. You got to make a takeout double of ♦s, and then the 2♦ bidder bid ♥s showing, s/he believes, both majors. Now you can pass or double to show your degree of ♥ values. In addition, since your LHO did not bid a major yet, s/he may also have assumed that 2♦ was natural, and now might assume 2♥ was a single suit, or that the overcaller has the red suits. So personally I would not have called the TD at the point you did, because I think things so far have worked out nicely for our side, and that calling the TD might wake up the overcaller's partner that something is wrong in Denmark.

 

However I hope you "asked what 2♦ meant" by clicking on the 2♦ and/or 2♥ bid, so that both and your partner then knew it was "majors" when overcaller provided that detail. If you had asked by private message and received reply by the same, you would need to ensure that the overcaller gave this information also to your partner, in order that you were now both on the same page.

[csdenmark]

2♦ overcall clearly alert-table. No problem with that. Whether 1♣ bidder was harmed thats of course depends of their skills. I see those were not solid - so yes they were harmed. In my view, thats the general view for good strong club players, he was favoured of the overcall. Unfortunately he has handicapped himself disabling his penalty options.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

We don't know how the auction continued after the 2H bid, all we know is that they got a decent score.

 

I am also totally bemused as to why you think there is anything wrong with playing a double of a natural 2D bid as takeout in this auction. That would be my first, second and third choice of call.

If 2♥ will be final it will be a borderline but likely to be down. So I assume 2♥ will produce a decent score.

 

The reason for not accepting DBL as takeout is if Precison all doubles are normally defined as for penalty according to principle of captaincy. Playing strong club you must be ready to accept responsibility. This means to pave the way a decent contract - if any. To play takeout doubles for 1♣opener is rejecting this responsibility.

[csdenmark]

There's no such thing as a "strong system".

Please come up with a better term Helene. If you prefer 'artificial system' I certainly know what you mean - but I see nothing artificial.

 

I try to use the words strong/weak for 2 reasons:

• Strong systems mostly refer to a strong opening feature, can be pass, club or diamonds. Often you additionally as standard has other kind of special strong features available like Namyats
  
• Those kind of systems require additional skills compared to standard system
  

[keylime]

2D is clearly alertable unless it had diamonds, since diamonds bid previously in this auction is an artificial call. What concerns me is the timing of the alert and the lack of knowing that an alert was required...this is for me a reoccurring problem when opps who are not versed in strong club countermeasures make a call and pard is not aware of what that call means. I've had this type of situation come up at least half a dozen times in this exact style of auction.

[glen]

The reason for not accepting DBL as takeout is if Precison all doubles are normally defined as for penalty according to principle of captaincy. Playing strong club you must be ready to accept responsibility. This means to pave the way a decent contract - if any. To play takeout doubles for 1♣opener is rejecting this responsibility.

Meckwell would double for takeout, so they are not just ready yet to accept responsibility, at least in your view. They play a clever scheme you might have seen - either partner can double for takeout (albeit iyo irresponsible) and then their partner can convert the double to penalty by passing. So to make a penalty double, one passes first and hopes partner can double. If partner cannot double, the opponents might be in a truly awful spot for them (such as having overcalled 2♦ with both majors and being left to play there with only the strong club side having ♦s), or partner might have a very distributional hand where showing the hand type will be necessary.

[helene_t]

They play a clever scheme you might have seen - either partner can double for takeout (albeit iyo irresponsible) and then their partner can convert the double to penalty by passing.  So to make a penalty double, one passes first and hopes partner can double.

Wow, hi-tech bidding anno 2007 :-) Have they issued a pattent application already?

[bid_em_up]

While I agree with the majority that 2♦ should be alerted, and on the surface, you should be entitled to redress (without knowing result, its hard to say what that would be). I believe Fred has asked that questions regarding ACBL directors rulings be emailed to acbl@bridgebase.com (I think thats the address, someone correct it if wrong please), instead of being posted on this forum. They will want the ruling, the board number (better yet, a link to the board from myhands), and an explanation of the situation.

 

That said, I also think you have an obligation to your side to inquire as to the meaning of the bid.

 

Cuebids, in and of themselves, are self-alerting. The bid may or may not contain a special meaning. It may be natural or it may show something else (however, using 2D to show majors in the sequence is silly, imo, but thats another thread).

If you want to know what 2♦ is, the time to ask is when the 2♦ bid is made, not after the 2♥ bid is made.

 

You claim that you didnt want to "alert the opps", but if you click on the bid and an explanation is entered, the other opponent will not see the explanation, so they will still be "unalerted". So your claim, on its surface, does not appear to be valid. And it also appears, at least to me, a method of attempting two bites at the apple, so to speak.

 

 

jmoo.

[glen]

While I agree with the majority that 2♦ should be alerted, and on the surface, you should be entitled to redress (without knowing result, its hard to say what that would be).

Just to note in reply - even though the 2♦ should have been alerted, this does not by itself result in "entitled to redress". That would require that there have been damage in some form.

[csdenmark]

The reason for not accepting DBL as takeout is if Precison all doubles are normally defined as for penalty according to principle of captaincy. Playing strong club you must be ready to accept responsibility. This means to pave the way a decent contract - if any. To play takeout doubles for 1♣opener is rejecting this responsibility.

Meckwell would double for takeout, so they are not just ready yet to accept responsibility, at least in your view. They play a clever scheme you might have seen - either partner can double for takeout (albeit iyo irresponsible) and then their partner can convert the double to penalty by passing. So to make a penalty double, one passes first and hopes partner can double. If partner cannot double, the opponents might be in a truly awful spot for them (such as having overcalled 2♦ with both majors and being left to play there with only the strong club side having ♦s), or partner might have a very distributional hand where showing the hand type will be necessary.

Glen I think it makes little sense to argue. First your former post I agreed to and second Meckwell is something special. Special because it is very much a system aimed to harbour 3NT whereever it makes some kind of sense. Of other deadly persons will prefer a 4MAJOR here. Please note the general strong preemptive bids are not included either. Those go via other channels - some of them ruled out in 2006.

 

I looked up their notes. I am unable to find an exact match for your claim. Your may derive it from this below.

 

Note:..1:Bidding Style: aggressive, frequent upvaluing, less downvaluing.

Play/defend decisions made by judgement, not mechanical

rule. Both players have latitude to use judgement in any situation.

Playing strength, Vulnerability, and level of bidding are paramount

 

The other candidate to come close is

 

Note:..25:1D and competition: 1D-X-transfers used (unlimited): XX=4+H,

1H=4+S, 1S=ART 8+BAL, 1N=C, 2C=inv nat, 2H=54+ SH less than inv, 2S=

same but inv, 3C=MINs less than inv, 3MAJ=short OM MINs or long D FG.

1D-2C,2S,3C-transfers used only by UPH. If transfers not used, nf

free bids only at 2-level (up to inv strength), with 2D raise as F1.

 

I trust your comment and I see no problems. But Meckwell is no standard precision approach.

[bid_em_up]

While I agree with the majority that 2♦ should be alerted, and on the surface, you should be entitled to redress (without knowing result, its hard to say what that would be).

Just to note in reply - even though the 2♦ should have been alerted, this does not by itself result in "entitled to redress". That would require that there have been damage in some form.

I think its fairly clear that some damage was incurred (or at least the poster feels that there was), or we wouldnt be seeing this post here.

[Gerben42]

How come this thread is so long? It's very simple: The opening poster was denied some options (cuebids in ♥ and ♠, for one thing) when he didn't know about the artificiality of the 2♦ bid when it was his turn.

 

Now that it has come this far, you have to play the hand until the end and then the director has to assess possible damage.

[blackshoe]

Since the ACBL alert regulation contains a definition for "cuebid", that is the one to use. Frances and others are correct: the 2 ♦ bid in this sequence does not fit the definition, therefore is not a cuebid, and therefor falls under "most conventions are alertable". It's alertable; there was a failure to alert. TD was incorrect. Tell Gweny, let her deal with it as a training issue. One thought: it might be useful if the ACBL games at bbo had a "Chief TD" - a knowledgeable, experienced TD who can oversee the rulings of table TDs. Or maybe not. <shrug>

[brianshark]

*rant*

 

I don't think anyone playing either online or in person has ANY obligation to ask for the meanings of bids that should be alerted and aren't. Not only does it slow down the play waiting for a response (sometimes in vain) but it encourages the strategy of reluctant disclosure of methods, and not everyone has the patience, or cares enough, to wait to squeeze every piece of information out of them.

 

I think they are entitled to assume that the bid is natural. And if/when any damage is done, they are entitled to whatever compensation they get, and the no-alert culprits deserve any punishment they get, and then some.

 

*rant over*

[hotShot]

Asking about bids create UI, so you should avoid asking unnecessary questions.

Alert is a short form of: "Opps, please ask about this bid!", so if you ask about an alerted bid, no UI is generated.

 

If I were a natural 2♦ bidder, after this inquiry i would check whether the question was used to show a ♦ control or to ask for one. And if there is indication of this, i will ask the TD for a score correction, because of use of this UI.

 

An opponent teaching me about the meaning of my bid or about alert rules is a violation of Zero Tolerance. I think the ACBL is enforcing ZT.

[pbleighton]

"If I were a natural 2D bidder, after this inquiry i would check whether the question was used to show a D control or to ask for one. And if there is indication of this, i will ask the TD for a score correction, because of use of this UI."

 

I disagree with you, because of the context. Bids after a strong club or a 1NT opener are frequently artificial. The opener's partner has every right to ask about an unalerted bid.

 

Peter

[paulg]

Asking about bids create UI, so you should avoid asking unnecessary questions.

Alert is a short form of: "Opps, please ask about this bid!", so if you ask about an alerted bid, no UI is generated.

 

If I were a natural 2♦ bidder, after this inquiry i would check whether the question was used to show a ♦ control or to ask for one. And if there is indication of this, i will ask the TD for a score correction, because of use of this UI.

I knew this thread would work out alright in the end. A post that can only generate sympathy for the job facing the Tournament Directors.

 

p

[fred]

*rant*

 

I don't think anyone playing either online or in person has ANY obligation to ask for the meanings of bids that should be alerted and aren't. Not only does it slow down the play waiting for a response (sometimes in vain) but it encourages the strategy of reluctant disclosure of methods, and not everyone has the patience, or cares enough, to wait to squeeze every piece of information out of them.

 

I think they are entitled to assume that the bid is natural. And if/when any damage is done, they are entitled to whatever compensation they get, and the no-alert culprits deserve any punishment they get, and then some.

 

*rant over*

I agree with this, but unfortunately I have had some bad experiences in which the TDs told me that the onus was on me to ask. I can recall 2 such experiences from relatively recent ACBL National Events where the TDs who were called to my table are widely considered among the best in the world.

 

In my opinion the onus should be on the opponents to know their system and to know when to alert. If they don't and if the other side is damaged then there should be a score adjustment.

 

I have to admit that there have been times (plenty of them in fact) that a combination of my hand, the auction, and my table presence have strongly suggested that the opponents did not know what they were doing. In such cases I generally ask some questions (as opposed to just assuming that the alert/lack of alert/convention card/explanation was accurate and later calling the TD if I turned out to be right and perceived damage as a result).

 

Not only does this approach feel like good sportsmanship to me, it is in the best interest of my score to behave this way (because otherwise a TD might rule "you should have known enough to ask").

 

As an extreme example of this I would not have much sympathy for a player who assumed 2D was natural in the auction in question if he held something like:

 

x

x

AKQJxxx

AKxx

 

However, I think it would be best if the rules were set up so that a TD's judgment never had to come into play in these kind of situations. The TD should not be placed in a position of deciding whether or not a player should start asking questions (instead of assuming that his opps know what they are doing).

 

But as far as I can tell the current thinking of ACBL TDs (even the best ones) is that the laws do indeed place them in this position.

 

I don't like this much, but as long as it is the case it is impossible to evaluate the quality of a ruling like this one without more information (the actual cards that everyone held for example).

 

To clarify something, I have no problem with Forums posts that discuss rulings from ACBL games as long as those posts are (sincerely) along the lines of "This was an interesting situation, what do you think?". The type of posts I would like to see stop are along the lines of "Look at how the idiot TD screwed me (again) on this board".

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[bid_em_up]

To clarify something, I have no problem with Forums posts that discuss rulings from ACBL games as long as those posts are (sincerely) along the lines of "This was an interesting situation, what do you think?". The type of posts I would like to see stop are along the lines of "Look at how the idiot TD screwed me (again) on this board".

Fred,

 

I didnt mean to put words in your mouth, sorry. But unfortunately, since it is hard to distinguish the two types of posts sometimes, and you have, ummm, chewed at least two forum users out that I am aware of for a post of this nature (yes, I saw the last thread on this subject before it was pulled), I assumed that it was your position that you would prefer to have TD rulings appealed properly, as opposed to discussed on the forums. My mistake.

 

Since the poster stated "he didnt know if this was the appropriate forum for this question or not", I was trying to give them the alternative of "appealing the ruling" through the proper venue.

 

I also suspect that as the forums get advertised more and more (with the new release), we will see more new members and more posts of this nature. I think it might be best if you or the moderators could make it clear (somehow) that posts regarding ACBL TD's rulings need to be addressed to the proper channels.

 

A forum policy of sometimes its ok, and sometimes its not, will not work, imo. Who makes the decision? (Of course you or the mods do, but thats not what I mean.) Just because a user is frustrated with a decision and says "I got a stupid ruling", does that immediately mean the thread is not allowed? Even if they are correct in their assessment of the situation? Additionally, new posters will usually not know that it is/isnt allowed, and post accordingly. Do "we" (as a group) alienate them by coming down hard on them for unknowingly doing something that isnt acceptable?

 

Rather than allowing these types of questions deginerate into "well, you should have done this" or "your methods were bad" or "insert whatever else occurs", personally, I believe they should be halted immediately (or at least as soon as possible), and the original poster directed to send the complaint via the proper established methods.

 

As always.

 

jmoo.

[kenberg]

I plan to never, ever, direct. It must be easier to deal with Mideast problems. When 1D need not show any diamonds at all it is reasonable for a bid of 2D by the opponents to show diamonds. If 2D shows, instead, something else then it needs alerting. If this common sense answer requires hours of legal research to determine if it is in fact the ruling required by the laws there is something seriously wrong with the laws.

[ohioply]

I would assume that the 2♦ bidder here thought the bid was michaels. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but michaels isn't alertable online. I know in club it is not alertable.

I think that the bidder was not aware of whether or not it should be alerted. If he and his partner have no agreement for a defense against a strong 1♣ system, then he has not damaged you because his partner was also in the dark about whether his bid was natural or michaels.

I think this would be the ruling at my club.

[glen]

I think its fairly clear that some damage was incurred (or at least the poster feels that there was), or we wouldnt be seeing this post here.

I disagree with the assumption that the starting post implies that "some damage was incurred (or at least the poster feels that there was)". Why couldn't the poster just be asking the question to sort out the rules and regulations, for future play? Personally I've started multiple threads dealing with policies and rules (to the endless joy of Fred) where the policy applied or ruling given did not actually damage me at that time - however the policy or rule might have damaged me and/or others in the future, so one brings it up for hopefully calm discussion (though overreaction followed by overreaction can be fun until a thread is deleted). The starting poster has not stated they were damaged (actually states "we did get a decent score, fwiw"), so let's not assume so until further details are provided, if they are. The question was whether 2♦ should have been alerted and this has now been established that it should have - though see posting just above for a ruling that might be given in a f2f club game where ACBL rules are not clearly understood, and just below for the unwritten ACBL rules.

[awm]

Yes, 2♦ should have been alerted.

 

However, ACBL directors have ruled fairly consistently that certain calls are very frequently alertable and that when such a call occurs it is the responsibility of the non-offending side to look at the opponents' convention card and/or ask questions, and that no adjustment will be made for a failure to alert in these instances. To give an example of this, at a regional my partner opened 1NT (15-17) and my RHO bid 2♦. Their convention card indicated that this showed diamonds and a major (DONT) which is alertable. The 2♦ call was not alerted. I jumped to 4♥ (transfer to ♠) and my partner was declarer in 4♠. After pulling trumps (spades were 2-2), partner had to decide how to play the heart suit. He played for a 3-3 break instead of for 4-2 (four on his left). This is a reasonable play in a vacuum but a terrible play if he knows that his LHO has shown "diamonds and a major." At the end of the hand I called the director to indicate there was a failure to alert (opponents didn't say anything after the hand, although they're supposed to). The director ruled that "overcalls of an opening 1NT are frequently artificial, and therefore partner should've known to ask and/or look at their card, thus no adjustment." This was the ruling despite the fact that partner was playing in his first regional open event and had very few acbl points (and no international experience).

 

Personally I'm troubled by this, feeling that at the very least a split score is in order, as the opponents should not effectively gain from their failure to alert, even if the director feels that our side "really should've asked." This sort of ruling encourages the (supposedly unethical) practice of pros who ask about opponents bids just to make sure partner knows what their calls mean (since inexperienced partner may not know to ask) as well as encouraging a lack of disclosure. But just like Fred, I've seen this kind of ruling from many ACBL directors. The 2♦ bid in question over 1♣!-P-1♦! may come under that category.

[fred]

To clarify something, I have no problem with Forums posts that discuss rulings from ACBL games as long as those posts are (sincerely) along the lines of "This was an interesting situation, what do you think?". The type of posts I would like to see stop are along the lines of "Look at how the idiot TD screwed me (again) on this board".

Fred,

 

I didnt mean to put words in your mouth, sorry. But unfortunately, since it is hard to distinguish the two types of posts sometimes,

It's not hard for the original poster to make this distinction.

 

I did not think you were trying to put words in my mouth. In fact, I appreciated you mentioning this in your post.

 

But I did not want SteelWheel to think he had done anything inappropriate since his post that started this thread was clearly in the "this was an interesting situation, what do you think?" category.

 

So I thought I should clarify.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[SteelWheel]

In the auction you come up with your partner shows ♦ so I wonder why you pass out opps.' 2♥. Again nobody but yourself to blame.

 

ok, I can't take this anymore. Claus, please do us all a favor and learn how to read, before offering more of your ridiculous opinions:

 

Not bothering to post rest of auction, or final result, since it's not relevant (we did get a decent score, fwiw).

 

If you had bothered to READ the original post, you would have seen that this was not asking for "lessons" about whom to "blame" as I consider myself quite capable of handling myself as a bridge player, thank you. I was merely trying to determine where the TD might have gone wrong in adjudication. It would seem that the general sense of the posters here is in agreement with my position.

[kenberg]

Awm's story concerns me greatly. An opening bid of 2D is frequently alertable. If there is no alert and I don't ask, I may have no redress if it turns out to be artificial?

 

Let me give two incidents:

 

1. A while back lho opened 2D, no alert, and my partner asked for an explanation. This upset me. Is partner trying to tell me he has a diamond stack? He should know better, or so I thought, than to ask for an explanation of a probably natural call that had not been alerted. It turned out he had no special holding (he's an ethical guy) and I have no idea why he asked. Maybe he heard of this policy.

 

2. In a recent competitive auction, over my suit bid, lho bid 2NT, partner passed, rho bid, my turn. The 2NT seemed unlikely so I asked rho: "I am unfamiliar with various good/bad meanings of 2NT, is this one of them?". Rho was indignant and told me icily that if it had been, then it would have been alerted. OK, I should have just said "please explain" but I just wanted to check that it was natural before proceeding.

 

The idea that players should take responsibility for knowing that maybe a bid should have been alerted but wasn't seems to me very bad. If this is actually acbl policy instead of some individual director's whim, I think the policy needs rethinking.

 

Bridge is supposed to be a complex game, but the alerting rules are not supposed to be the hard part.