ACBL Regional/Appeal

[jjbrr]

2♦* - (3♦) - Dbl - (3♠)

 

P - (4♠) - P - (P)

 

Dbl - All pass

 

2♦ shows 4-4 in the majors and a singleton in one of the minors and a minimum opener (mini roman with 4-4 majors always.) It was alerted.

 

LHO quickly bid 3♦. Dbl was penalty, the rest natural. The opponents never alerted anything, nor did anyone ask what any of the other bids meant.

 

Dummy flopped with a strong hand with 5-5 majors, and after a few questions about the auction (this is when declarer found out 2♦ opener was most likely 4414) the director was summoned by 2♦ opener. After declarer quickly took 10 tricks (3♠ bidder had 3♠ and 5 ♦, so he obviously correctly interpreted his partner's bid), director was resummoned and 2♦ opener argued that there was a failure to alert 3♦, given it is very unusual for a cuebid of a bid promising majors to show the majors. Had he known this was majors, he argued he wouldn't double. He thought the opponents' bids were all natural; lefty's diamonds weren't a source of tricks (partner doubled), trumps and the other suits were all splitting badly. Neither opponent asked about the 2♦ bid yet, and both admitted they didn't realize the bid was mini roman. 3♦ bidder argued that opener could have asked at any time about any of the bids.

 

Director ruled result stands.

 

The 790 vs 620 ended up mattering to the result of the match, so captain appealed.

 

The important issues that arose were that the 3♦ bid was made very quickly and without having asked for an explanation of the alert of 2♦. This seemed like the best way to make sure partner understood 3♦ as michaels. If he asked and found out 2♦ showed majors and then bid 3♦, his partner probably would not have taken it as michaels. Again, appealers argued that michaels in this auction is unusual enough to warrant an alert. Committee asked 3♦ bidder about other cuebid auctions like (2♣) 3♣ (they said natural) and (1NT) P (2♣) 3♣ (again natural).

 

Committee felt that 3♦ michaels was not alertable, 2♦ opener could/should have asked about 3♦, and director's ruling stands. No penalty against 3♦ bidder for the tempo of his bid and not asking for an explanation of the alert.

 

I guess there are a lot of issues that could be discussed here.

 

Agree/disagree with the director/committee? Should 3♦ be alerted? How do you feel about 3♦ bidder quickly bidding 3♦ so that his bid isn't ambiguous?

[kfay]

Where was this regional held? Remind me never to go there.

 

They're all idiots. I can't believe this ruling was upheld by committee... Seriously cannot believe it.

 

Sure, no cuebids have to be alerted, but what IS a cuebid? There probably is a definition somewhere, but to me it's a suit which the opps have bid naturally.

[jjbrr]

It was a few years ago. Somewhere in the MABC. Greenville SC or Atlanta or something? Can't remember. I feel less strongly that this was a bad ruling than you seem to. I personally think they got it wrong, but I'm willing to admit I'm not very smart about this stuff. I was the doubler of 3♦. I had like AKJ9x in diamonds and out. So I had nothing to say in anything of this; I was merely an observer.

 

And I won't remind you not to go there; rather I encourage you go there. Great regionals.

[bluejak]

A bid of the same suit as an opponent's artificial bid is not a cue-bid under ACBL definitins. 3♦ over 2♦ is natural without an alert, so opener had a good case. I cannot say I would have adjusted without seeing the full hands, but I probably would have.

 

As a TD or AC I would ask searching questions as to why 3♦ was Michaels in such an unusual posiiton. I would be somewhat suspicious of it being bid quickly. Everyone plays 3♦ as natural, so the opponents have no reason to ask when it was not alerted.

 

On the evidence submitted I really doubt whether the TD was correct, and I feel the AC was ill-advised as to the regulations.

[kfay]

It was a few years ago. Somewhere in the MABC. Greenville SC or Atlanta or something? Can't remember. I feel less strongly that this was a bad ruling than you seem to. I personally think they got it wrong, but I'm willing to admit I'm not very smart about this stuff. I was the doubler of 3♦. I had like AKJ9x in diamonds and out. So I had nothing to say in anything of this; I was merely an observer.

Yeah, now that I've had a few minutes to calm down I realize that the doubler of 4♠ had two opportunities to ask what 3♦ meant. In fact this seems kind of auto since if the explanation is right, very good, if wrong we can probably get a double via ruling anyway.

 

Sitting on the committee I wouldn't feel very obligated to protect someone who could have helped themselves, but that doesn't change that I feel that 3♦ should be alerted.

[bluejak]

Why should they "protect themselves"? Sure, in a position where it is normal to play something, but this is a position where the world and his dog play 3♦ as natural: why do you have to ask?

 

It is reasonable to expect players, especially experienced ones, to protect themselves in posiitons where they are likely to have a good idea what is happening. But if you rule in favour of the offenders here, you are encouraging people to break the rules. Why bother to alert if you are going to get windfalls supported by TDs and ACs if you ignore the rules?

 

I do not know why there is this feeling in North America to support rule-breakers but it is bad for bridge.

[jjbrr]

IIRC, the short answer from the committee was something like

 

1) cuebids aren't alertable

2) this auction is strange enough that it can't hurt to ask anyway before making the final pass or double (surely there would be no UI from asking and doubling, etc)

3) without asking, you don't get two bites at the apple. you can't take your doubled undertrick if it goes down but claim you wouldn't double if it makes.

 

Clearly erroneous, but that's not so important now. I was just genuinely interested in your opinions of the cuebid and whether it was alertable. The director and AC were not sympathetic at all that we didn't get the information we needed, since either of us could have asked at any point. Just wondered how you felt.

 

Greatly appreciate your input.

[awm]

I've noticed that ACBL directors and committees seem to go too far in the direction of "protect yourself." It often seems that one side fails to alert, and the other side subsequently errs due to the lack of knowledge of the meaning of unalerted bid, and the ruling is "too bad, you should've asked." If rulings are going to be made this way, why even bother having an alert policy?

 

It seems like the right thing to do would be to answer the following questions:

 

(1) Is the 3♦ bid showing majors alertable?

 

Evidently the committee decided not, based on "cuebids are not alertable." But I bet if you polled some players, they'd all say this bid is natural. This meaning of cuebid really should fall under "highly unusual and unexpected" and such cuebids are alertable in ACBL.

 

(2) Assuming the bid was alertable, was there damage?

 

It certainly seems like there was damage, in that the doubling was due to a belief that responder's diamond values would be somehow useful on the hand. The committee also would have to rule on whether the double was "irrational or gambling" but it seems likely it was not, based on the information given.

 

At the very least, I would think a split score should be assigned. But apparently the committee ruled (contrary to all logic) that this meaning of cuebid is not alertable. The ruling seems to endorse playing "quick 3♦ no ask" as michaels and "think, ask, then 3♦" as natural!

[Phil]

I've noticed that ACBL directors and committees seem to go too far in the direction of "protect yourself." It often seems that one side fails to alert, and the other side subsequently errs due to the lack of knowledge of the meaning of unalerted bid, and the ruling is "too bad, you should've asked." If rulings are going to be made this way, why even bother having an alert policy?

In last weeks BAM in the 1st session we had this auction:

 

1♥ - (2N) - 4♣

 

obviously a splinter but not alerted by my pard. The director came over and consulted with each of the EW pairs about what they would have done had they known it was a splinter.

 

Both were new players and didn't make a good case to the director (they told us after the hand what they said). The partner of the 2N bidder held a 2344 and KJxx of clubs, but didn't say she'd double. The 2N bidder actually said she'd bid 5♣ (which makes) on her 1255 17 count, but no one, including the director believed her, although she did make her statement prior to seeing dummy, so who knows LOL.

[jjbrr]

We actually did poll the Famous World Champion who frequents MABCs and asked him 1) if he thought this was alertable, and 2) if 3♦ michaels is highly unusual here.

 

He said 1) probably, though he would definitely make sure the opps had information before the lead, and 2) not highly unusual. he thought it was entirely conceivable to have a bid to show majors in this auction.

 

just fwiw.

[Codo]

There is one part in this case I do not understand.

 

Assume you are one of your opponents.

 

You have a quite strong hand with 5512.

 

Your rho opens 2 ♦ (alert!).

You now "know" that he obviously has the weak two in diamonds. No rocket science needed to know this.

Nobody in this world, not even a dog, now plays 3 ♦ as natural. So, you use the cuebid to show the majors.

 

Your partner, seeing the bidding and the penalty double of 3 diamond, looking at 5 diamonds himself does not need to be a hero to understand that you have the majors, so he bids his better major.

 

Which law do you break, when you act like this?

Is there any law which forces you to ask about aleertable bids?

[Jlall]

There is one part in this case I do not understand.

 

Assume you are one of your opponents.

 

You have a quite strong hand with 5512.

 

Your rho opens 2 ♦ (alert!).

You now "know" that he obviously has the weak two in diamonds. No rocket science needed to know this.

Nobody in this world, not even a dog, now plays 3 ♦ as natural. So, you use the cuebid to show the majors.

 

Your partner, seeing the bidding and the penalty double of 3 diamond, looking at 5 diamonds himself does not need to be a hero to understand that you have the majors, so he bids his better major.

 

Which law do you break, when you act like this?

Is there any law which forces you to ask about aleertable bids?

Weak 2D is not alertable in ACBL. So when it goes 2D ALERT you know it is not a weak 2 in D.

[Mbodell]

This was definitely incorrect reasoning and likely an incorrect ruling.

 

The 3♦ bid is not a cuebid for the purposes of the ACBL alert chart. The definitions of the ACBL alert chart define a cuebid as:

 

Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards.

 

This is from ACBL online alert definitions.

 

Here the opponents have not bid diamonds naturally and have not shown 4 cards in diamonds. A bid of 2M over this 2♦ would be a cuebid, but 3♦ isn't.

 

Similarly, 1♠-(2♠)-3♥ is a cue bid when 2♠ shows hearts. And likewise, 1nt-(P)-2♥-(3Y), where 2♥ is a transfer is a cue bid only if Y is ♠ not if Y is ♥.

 

I see this sort of thing a lot when I play a strong club system that people double low level artificial bids for takeout when they don't ask the alerted meaning and for lead direct when they do ask the alerted meaning.

[matmat]

Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards.

so what does that say about

 

(1♣) - 2♣ when 1♣ is Polish club or something similar,

 

or

 

(1♦) - 2♦ when 1♦ is 2+,

 

etc?

[Mbodell]

Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards.

so what does that say about

 

(1♣) - 2♣ when 1♣ is Polish club or something similar,

 

or

 

(1♦) - 2♦ when 1♦ is 2+,

 

etc?

It is unambiguous that those are not cuebids.

 

Neither promises 4 cards in the suit bid and neither is a natural bid. A natural bid is also defined in that link as:

 

Definition of expected length for natural bids for the Alert Procedure are:

 

          o Suit bids:

                - 3+ in a minor and 4+ in a major for opening bids, rebids and responses.

                - 4+ for an overcall at the one level, 5+ for higher levels.

                - 5+ for a weak two-bid.

                - 6+ for a weak three-bid.

 

So 1♣ "could be as short as 2" - (2♣) is not a cuebid for the alert chart, and likewise for a 2+ precision diamond.

[bluejak]

Your rho opens 2 ♦ (alert!).

You now "know" that he obviously has the weak two in diamonds. No rocket science needed to know this.

Nearly, but not quite. Perhaps this is slightly more accurate.

 

Your rho opens 2 ♦ (alert!).

You now "know" that he obviously has not got the weak two in diamonds because of the alert. No rocket science needed to know this.

[suprgrover]

Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards.

so what does that say about

 

(1♣) - 2♣ when 1♣ is Polish club or something similar,

 

or

 

(1♦) - 2♦ when 1♦ is 2+,

 

etc?

The ACBL Tech files say to alert 2♣ over a 1♣ bid that could be short, or a Polish 1♣ bid only if the 2♣ bid shows clubs. (Similarly, 2♦ over a 1♦ call that could be short is alerted only if it shows diamonds.)

 

The logic seems to be that these bids are natural often enough that it makes sense to treat them as natural for alerting purposes.

[Gerben42]

Weak 2D is not alertable in ACBL. So when it goes 2D ALERT you know it is not a weak 2 in D.

 

What about an Acol 2 in ♦? Or intermediate with ♦?

 

I'm still struggling to find the law that overcaller and his partner have broken...

I do realize that it's unsatisfactory that 3♦ with asking is natural, but without asking is Michael's. But since no opponent would see both sides of this, it seems hard to catch.

[mycroft]

Yes, it is hard to catch, especially as they may not even know that that's what they're playing.

 

Doesn't stop it from being illegal. Doesn't stop it from happening, either.

 

And in the ACBL, if 2D isn't Alerted, it's a weak 2. All other meanings - including Acol 2 or Matchpoint Precision 2 (11-16, 6+D) are Alertable. Of course, in our inimitable fashion, Strong (natural or artificial) 2C is not Alertable, anything else (including a weak 2 in clubs - I play EHAA) is.

 

Which drives me nuts when people ask over our (unalerted) 2D. Especially ask and bid. We all know what they have now...Of course, the people who don't Alert Flannery or mini-Roman or whatever are non-zero, so I can see their point. But still.

[Apollo81]

Your partner, seeing the bidding and the penalty double of 3 diamond, looking at 5 diamonds himself does not need to be a hero to understand that you have the majors, so he bids his better major.

Why can't this be exactly what happened on this hand? Advancer was going to bid 5♦ (or 4♦ or pass) until he was tipped off by the double of 3♦. Now he's 100% sure what's going on, and doesn't alert partner's bid because (1) if they had an agreement, the agreement would be natural which is unalertable (2) they don't have an agreement anyway.

[jjbrr]

Honestly don't remember if advancer asked about the double of 3♦. I suspect that could be relevant info.

[awm]

Why can't this be exactly what happened on this hand? Advancer was going to bid 5♦ (or 4♦ or pass) until he was tipped off by the double of 3♦. Now he's 100% sure what's going on, and doesn't alert partner's bid because (1) if they had an agreement, the agreement would be natural which is unalertable (2) they don't have an agreement anyway.

This really shouldn't matter. When deciding between "mistaken bid" and "agreement" in the absence of evidence, the director should assume "agreement" -- especially when both partners appear to have been on the same page. In the absence of substantial documentation, director obviously cannot tell whether their agreement was majors, or the 3♦ bidder mistakenly thought their agreement was majors and then his partner was awakened to this possibility by the double. But given that both players appear to have been on the same page in the auction, the right thing to do is assume that this is their agreement. There is also no indication that arguments were made by the bidding side that they have no such agreement -- it is their burden to prove what their agreements are or are not; not the director or committee's job to assume whatever agreements lead to the best result for the offending side. It may also be worth noting that when it becomes clear to the bidding side both that the 3♦ bidder intended his bid as majors and that his partner is going to play him for majors, there should be some effort to inform the opponents.

 

The only way the committee ruling here is reasonable is if you accept their reasoning that a 3♦ bid showing majors would not be alertable in this auction. The other arguments (maybe they had no agreement, maybe the non-offending side should have asked about an unalerted bid, etc) all seem irrelevant to me. Assuming this meaning of 3♦ is alertable, the facts remain that:

 

(1) A bid which should have been alerted was not alerted.

(2) The opponents received a poor result to a great degree because they assumed the unalerted bid had its normal non-alertable meaning.

(3) While the double may be somewhat speculative, it was not "irrational or gambling" based on the information received.

 

Note that asking about an unalerted bid in the middle of a live auction could easily give partner unauthorized information (i.e. "I have diamonds partner") and lead to issues for the non offending side.

[Apollo81]

I'm disagree with #1 because to me, it makes sense to assume that people don't have an agreement about this auction. If advancer said he was going to assume the 3♦ bid was natural until the double occurred, that would be good enough for me.

 

BTW I'm curious exactly what opener had -- I may not agree with #3 either.

[jjbrr]

BTW I'm curious exactly what opener had -- I may not agree with #3 either.

 

 

Sorry, don't remember that either. Again, probably relevant. But like I said, I'm less interested in the AC's decision and more interested in the 3♦ bid.

[Finch]

We actually did poll the Famous World Champion who frequents MABCs and asked him 1) if he thought this was alertable, and 2) if 3♦ michaels is highly unusual here.

 

He said 1) probably, though he would definitely make sure the opps had information before the lead, and 2) not highly unusual. he thought it was entirely conceivable to have a bid to show majors in this auction.

 

just fwiw.

As a general rule, Famous World Champions (or other great bridge players) are not necessarily particularly knowledgeable about alert regulations, or other aspects of the Laws.