Alert procedure

[karin_aut]

Hi all !

I have a question: You play with your standard partner and agreed on a special system. Standard system is strong ♣, 5Majors.

Partner opens 1 ♦ which can be short as void.

You bid 2 ♦ which means to shorten discussion 14+ balanced, partner bids 2 ♥ which is relais. Now you hold:

[hv=s=sajxhq10dkq10xckjxx]133|100|[/hv]

System now says: 3nt bid means 14-18, both Major stoppers, 3 ♥ or 3 [♥ would mean 14-18, stopper in this major but no stopper in other Major.

I decided to bid with this hand 3nt, having Q,10 in !H and promising for my partner a stopper.

I alerted my 3nt bid, informing opps that it means 14+ balanced, both Major stoppers.

What do you think about it ?

 

TD has stolen me the game, as after ♥ lead (from AKxx in ♥ you shd lead Ace and king) and partner shd then take immediaterly ace of diamonds...

 

My general question: if i wd have alerted my 3nt bid only saying 14+ blanced, nothing would have happened. But as I said 14+ balanced, both Major stoppers TD has stolen the game. I am a serous and fair player, well known in my country, and just gave explanation according to our CC. Having a semi !H stopper. Besides, correction from TD was -7,8, our opps were very weak, but almost everyone made 3nt. WAS I PUNISHED BECAUSE I EXPLAINED FULLY SYSTEM? In international team tourneys (not in inernet) opps get my cc, and can read what my bid means in advance and I wd behave same with my hand and explain same and nothing wd happen.

 

Thx for your comments

[mike777]

I have some sympathy for the TD here.

 

If you are playing some homegrown system and the first time the TD ever sees this bid in real life you psyche it, it raises other issues.

 

I do not know all the possible laws/ethics that may now come into play, I assume many.

 

All of this is not to say the ruling was correct, maybe you may even argue this is not a psyche, just that I have some sympathy for the TD here.

[ArtK78]

First of all, one is under an obligation to announce to one's opponents the partnership agreement. The fact that your heart stop is QT is not the issue. You complied with the requirement to announce your partnership agreement.

 

Second of all, the proper bid holding these cards and with the set of partnership agreements that you have is something on which reasonable players would differ. Is QT a stopper in the true sense of the word? No. Is it possibly sufficient to produce a stopper for the partnership? Sure. Partner could have Jxx or 9xxx. So I would not call the 3NT bid a psyche. A better term would be a judgment call.

 

The idea that the TD would uphold any protest from the opps based on the information that you provided is absurd.

[jtfanclub]

First of all, one is under an obligation to announce to one's opponents the partnership agreement. The fact that your heart stop is QT is not the issue. You complied with the requirement to announce your partnership agreement.

Maybe. If the reality is that he promises at least a half-stop in each suit, and his partner knows it, then what the system 'officially' says isn't an issue. You need to explain the actual agreement between you and your partner, not what it's supposed to mean.

 

I agree with Mike777 on this one. When a person's first use of a new system is a lie, it's very difficult to take at face value that it's a psyche.

[barmar]

While it might be suspicious, I can't see any justification for adjusting the score. The problem with psyches isn't when it fools the opponents, it's when partner does something that caters to the possibility that you don't have what you showed (i.e. he "fields" the psyche). That suggests a concealed partnership understanding, and THAT is illegal.

 

So if partner pulled you out of 3NT because he didn't have help in ♥, that would be suspicious. But if he left it in, I don't see any problem.

 

Actually, I should qualify this. If you have a history of doing this, partner might suspect that you don't really have a ♥ stopper, and be willing to take the same gamble you took when you made the bid. In that case, the opponents are entitled to the information, to help them plan their defense.

 

If you have a tendency to make such bids, perhaps you should describe it as "at least a half-stopper in each major", or maybe "one major stopped, the other at least half-stopped."

 

But even if you had given a description like this, it's hardly clear that the opponents would have found the killing defense. As long as a ♥ stopper is likely, he's probably not going to lead away from his AKxx. In case your stopper is Qxx, he'll probably try to get to his partner's hand, and hope that his partner can lead through your Q. He might only cash AK if he had good reason to believe that you DON'T have ♥ stopped.

[gerry]

Given the system as described 3nt is perfectly reasonable. Typical rubbish ruling from director. Consider a natural auction : 1♠-2♥-3♣-3nt, would one ever bid this with ♦QT or would one call 3♦? if asked does partner have to say "usually a stop but might be Qx or so"?

[karlson]

I agree with the people that say you got a ridiculous ruling.

 

If you really wanted to change your alert, you could say, "14-18, not interested in partner's major suit stoppers," but I've never heard anyone do this.

[Free]

The TD was wrong on this one imo. You explained your agreement, not what you hold in your hand. You're allowed to deviate from your agreements. Holding QT instead of QTx is a small deviation, but no infraction...

 

Perhaps you can explain it in the future as "usually both majors stopped", just in case :blink:

[Codo]

I am not sure, but I think the first posters missed one point:

 

Can you prove (By system notes) that 3 NT shows both stoppers? If you can, there is no case, the ruling is silly.

 

If you cannot prove your explanation, it gets tricky:

Now the TD must judge whether you made a wrong explanation or a deviation from your system.

Opposite the other posters I do not see, why he should rule in your favour.

I had been wrong before, but I think he should rule in favour for the non offending side if he is in doubt and ask you to call the AC to get this case clear.

[helene_t]

Opps and TD probably expect the explanation of an answer to a relay to be more accurate than a similar bid in a "natural" (~standard) sequence. Answers to relays are generally not judgement calls. One doesn't respond 2M to Stayman on a 3-card either.

 

OTOH I have frequently been in the situation where I made a judgement call and found it difficult to explain it. The problem is that although "at least a half-stop" might be a more accurate description of your de facto agreement than "a stop", it is not unlikely that opps might guess that you wouldn't have used the phrasing "at least a half-stop" if you held a more typical hand. So there is a danger of giving them more information than they are entitled to.

 

I would not have adjusted the score but I don't think the ruling was absurd.

[gwnn]

I wholeheartedly agree with Barmar and Helene on this one.

[bhall]

A missed point: You should not be explaining your own bid. That is your partner's duty. If he had said 3N shows both majors stopped, there could be no basis for the TD adjusting the score - unless your notes say otherwise.

[ArtK78]

A missed point: You should not be explaining your own bid. That is your partner's duty. If he had said 3N shows both majors stopped, there could be no basis for the TD adjusting the score - unless your notes say otherwise.

In online play, you explain your own bids. Also, if you are playing with screens, you explain both your partner's bids and your own bids to your screenmate.

 

In a normal live situation, it is your partner who explains your bids.

[bhall]

A missed point: You should not be explaining your own bid. That is your partner's duty. If he had said 3N shows both majors stopped, there could be no basis for the TD adjusting the score - unless your notes say otherwise.

In online play, you explain your own bids. Also, if you are playing with screens, you explain both your partner's bids and your own bids to your screenmate.

 

In a normal live situation, it is your partner who explains your bids.

If this incident occurred online, you are stuck. You don't want to mislead the opponents, but you don't want to damage your own side by qualifying your explanation, saying something like "normally shows a balanced hand with both majors stopped," if that is not your precise agreement.

 

The TD is stuck, too. On the evidence, you misdescribed your holding to the opponents. Neither they nor the TD can verify the details of your actual agreement. Since they may have been damaged by misinformation, the TD has a duty to protect them.

[keylime]

I have great sympathy here and I think the TD really dropped the ball on this one.