failure to alert

[jillybean]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=saxxhxxdaqxckt982]133|100|Scoring: IMP

P (P) 1♣ (P)

1♠ (P) P (1N*)

2♣ (2♥) AP[/hv]

 

ACBL 0-1500 game. N/S have <50 MP, E/W 200-300

 

Before the opening lead East announced there had been a failure to alert 1N, by agreement 1N shows 'other 2 suits'.

TD was called, south was taken away from the table and asked what they would have done differently with correct information. South said she would have bid 3♣.

TD told the table to play and call at the end if we think there was damage.

2♥ made, TD called back to the table by N/S who claimed damage, as above.

How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

Oooh, sneaky. West, who bid 1NT, is a passed hand. His 1NT bid is not alertable (ACBL Alert Regulations). Therefore, there was no failure to alert. Therefore, there was no MI. Therefore, there was no infraction. So what South would have done if EW had told her before she passed, ending the auction, that 1NT was the other two suits is irrelevant. Result stands. TD's instruction to call him back if NS felt they were damaged was an error, but not one requiring the invocation of Law 82C. B)

[aguahombre]

Oooh, sneaky. West, who bid 1NT, is a passed hand. His 1NT bid is not alertable (ACBL Alert Regulations). Therefore, there was no failure to alert. Therefore, there was no MI. Therefore, there was no infraction. So what South would have done if EW had told her before she passed, ending the auction, that 1NT was the other two suits is irrelevant. Result stands. TD's instruction to call him back if NS felt they were damaged was an error, but not one requiring the invocation of Law 82C. B)

i don't understand. West is not a passed hand within definition. West was 4th chair and did not act after third chair opened. West could easily have an opening bid and a balanced hand. A balancing 1NT on the given auction, as opposed to double, would normally show the balanced hand, not the other two suits. If their agreement was, in fact the other two suits, the opponents should have been given that information.

 

this is not a sandwich NT situation. However, South should listen to partner and bid 3c anyway. How much I hate dropping 1/1 cannot be described in words, but south has a clear 3c bid now. Self-inflicted damage.

 

If, in the play of the 3C contract, South assumed a different distribution because of the failure to alert the unusual agreement, an adjustment might be in order.

[Trinidad]

I am with aquahombre on this one (but I must admit that I didn't read the ACBL alert regulations). This is not a 1NT bid by a passed hand. This 1NT could be a hand that warrants a 1NT overcall of 1♠, but can't take any action over 1♣ (e.g. ♠AQx ♥AQ ♦Axxx ♣xxxx).

 

As to the question whether there was damage to the failure to alert, I feel strongly that there wasn't. You have an obvious 3♣ bid, whatever 1NT meant.

 

Rik

[dan_ehh]

From the ACBL website, http://www.acbl.org/play/alertProcedures.html

Systemically unbalanced or conventional 1NT openings or overcalls by an unpassed hand, when permitted, and openings at the two level or higher with an unusual range or conventional meaning require an Alert.

 

EXAMPLE: 1-P-1-1NT

If this shows the other two suits, an Alert is required.

 

However, after P-1-P-1- 1NT

no Alert is required.

It is true that the 1NT bidder does not fit the common "passed hand" definition. I think this is not a perfect alert regulation seeing as it does not address this specific issue.

However, I also think that the 1NT bidder cannot have a 15-17 (or similar) range because then he most probably would have overcalled 1NT at his first turn or made some other noise.

 

I believe the "no alert for passed hand unusual NT" rule was designed because passed hands do not usually bid NT to play, therefore it is "normal" to expect they are "unusual" (sounds a bit like an oxymoron, doesn't it?). B)

So as I understand it, the spirit of this regulation is that the opponents are supposed to ask what sort of NT bid this is, when it is made in a situation where it is pretty obvious that it is not a "regular" NT overcall.

I agree this is murky and in my partnership the 1NT bid would indeed be a balancing (11-14ish) one.

[jillybean]

This happened in a tournament. Perhaps I should have acted, the 3level had been costly on previous boards and I was playing cautiously. Failing to alert when its likely the opps “should know” is risk free, a smart choice if you can do it.

Sour grapes sure, but it will make me think twice before alerting some bids in future.

[Mbodell]

This happened in a tournament. Perhaps I should have acted, the 3level had been costly on previous boards and I was playing cautiously. Failing to alert when its likely the opps “should know” is risk free, a smart choice if you can do it.

Sour grapes sure, but it will make me think twice before alerting some bids in future.

You have to alert bids that are alertable. You don't have to (and probably SHOULD not) alert bids that are not alertable. I'd never alert this 1nt because:

 

1. I know the alert chart says don't alert it.

2. I'd expect it to be the two suited hand since a passed hand 1nt doesn't make sense as a strong balanced hand.

 

If it was 1♣-P-1♠-1NT meaning the unbid suits, I would always alert that, and indeed the alert chart require it.

 

I think the real lessons to take away from the hand are:

 

1. When in doubt about the auction ask your opponents.

2. Know the alert chart, and learn from cases where you are surprised by an alert (or lack of one).

[jillybean]

I dont know the alert rules well enough, 1n showing 2 suits here is not alertable but a balancing 1nt is ? Apparently the opps thought it should have been alerted too, the 1nt bidder was the one who brought it to our attention.

I wasnt in any doubt about the auction, I thought 1nt was 12-14, unsuitable to get in first round.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Mbodell*. As for "not a passed hand by definition", there is no definition of that term in the alert regulation. We are left with standard English - he passed originally, and then later bid, therefore he is a passed hand. 1NT by a passed hand is not alertable, whatever it means.

 

Jilly, as a general rule, if you felt you were not inappropriately incautious on those previous hands, you should probably not let bad results on them deter you on the current hand, particularly at pairs.

 

Yes, failing to alert when the opponents "should know" is risk free, particularly when the call is not alertable. But if it's not alertable, and that causes problems, then it's the regulation (and by extension the regulators) which is at fault, not the player who "failed" to do something he's not required to do.

 

*with this one caveat: the suggestion was not that West had a strong balanced hand, but that he had a "weak notrump" hand type (some 12 to a bad 15, say) that could not act initially, but now wishes to come in. I'm not sure I agree that 1NT makes sense at this point in the auction, though. Even with half the deck, 1NT may have problems. I suppose that's why people play it as the other two suits.

[jillybean]

Let me clarify - a 1nt bid by a passed hand is NOT alertable, regardless of the meaning?

[blackshoe]

That's what the regulation says.

[jillybean]

Thank you :)

[Cascade]

That's what the regulation says.

I don't think that is what the alert chart says"

 

"Conventional overcalls by a passed hand"

 

Those don't require an alert

 

but

 

"A natural notrump overcall with an expected lower limit of less than 14 HCP and/or an upper limit of more than 19 HCP"

 

Those do require an alert.

 

There is no specific mention of natural overcalls by a passed hand.

[aguahombre]

I guess I am never too old to learn. For all these years, and for all the people I have ever discussed auctions with, "passed hand" has always been understood to mean a hand that did not choose to open the bidding. Thanks for the clarification.

[jillybean]

That's what the regulation says.

I don't think that is what the alert chart says"

 

"Conventional overcalls by a passed hand"

 

Those don't require an alert

 

but

 

"A natural notrump overcall with an expected lower limit of less than 14 HCP and/or an upper limit of more than 19 HCP"

 

Those do require an alert.

 

There is no specific mention of natural overcalls by a passed hand.

I'm confused.

[bluejak]

The trouble with assuming what the regulations say and ignoring what they do say [as was normal for 60%+ of English players where alerting of doubles was concerned: it is getting better, but slowly] is that you just put yourself in the wrong.

 

A conventional 1NT by a passed hand is not alertable. A hand that passes one round and bids 1NT the next is a passed hand. Whether the ACBL intended this rule to be so in this position is irrelevant.

 

A natural 1NT overcall that may by agreement be on fewer than 14 HCP is alertable, whether by a passed hand or not.

 

Now, you may not approve of that, but that is not the point: if you are playing in the ACBL, that is how you should alert and can be penalised if you do not, and if you are directing in the ACBL you must rule on that basis.

 

So

 

P P 1♣ P

1♠ P P 1NT

 

is alertable if it shows a weak no-trump, and is not alertable if it shows the other two suits.

 

Incidentally, Mbodell, you said you would not alert it in part because:

2. I'd expect it to be the two suited hand since a passed hand 1nt doesn't make sense as a strong balanced hand.

Everyone around here that I know plays this sequence as a weak no-trump, and would double with the other two suits. But your #2 is irrelevant as to whether the bid should be alerted: it should be alerted if the ACBL alerting regulations say so.

[aguahombre]

it is truly sad that you think that is a NT overcall. It is a balancing action. Overcalls are calls over the person on your right. that is English language.

 

You are misusing terminology to come to an incorrect conclusion which seems to be part of ACBL regs only if you misuse the terms. a direct NT overcall, if less than....should be alerted.

[Blue Uriah]

it is truly sad that you think that is a NT overcall. It is a balancing action. Overcalls are calls over the person on your right.  that is English language.

 

You are misusing terminology to come to an incorrect conclusion which seems to be part of ACBL regs only if you misuse the terms. a direct NT overcall, if less than....should be alerted.

I think you're the one mistaken here. Have you never heard the term "balancing overcall" before?

 

Interestingly, this is so uncontroversial that they don't even feel the need to define the word 'overcall' in the EBU Orange Book Glossary.

[bluejak]

it is truly sad that you think that is a NT overcall. It is a balancing action. Overcalls are calls over the person on your right.  that is English language.

 

You are misusing terminology to come to an incorrect conclusion which seems to be part of ACBL regs only if you misuse the terms. a direct NT overcall, if less than....should be alerted.

Why do you need to write "a direct NT overcall"? Simple, because an overcall can be direct or balancing. Normal English usage in England, and in North America.

[rwbarton]

A natural 1NT overcall that may by agreement be on fewer than 14 HCP is alertable, whether by a passed hand or not.

1♣ - P - P - 1NT

 

I think the 80+% of people who play this "overcall" as 11-14 or so would be very surprised to learn they have been failing to alert it!

[blackshoe]

That's what the regulation says.

I don't think that is what the alert chart says"

 

"Conventional overcalls by a passed hand"

 

Those don't require an alert

 

but

 

"A natural notrump overcall with an expected lower limit of less than 14 HCP and/or an upper limit of more than 19 HCP"

 

Those do require an alert.

 

There is no specific mention of natural overcalls by a passed hand.

True, but you left out a pertinent part of the regulation you quoted (regarding natural NT overcalls): the regulation applies to such calls by an unpassed hand. By inference then, such calls by a passed hand are not alertable.

 

I will grant that the regulation is poorly written and so its meaning is subject to debate — but reading it as plain English, I believe my interpretation is correct. OTOH, I've been surprised before to learn that the plain English of a law or regulation doesn't mean what it says.

[blackshoe]

A natural 1NT overcall that may by agreement be on fewer than 14 HCP is alertable, whether by a passed hand or not.

Mmm. I came to a different conclusion, David, so I'd be interested in hearing your logic.

[cherdanno]

it is truly sad that you think that is a NT overcall. It is a balancing action. Overcalls are calls over the person on your right.  that is English language.

 

You are misusing terminology to come to an incorrect conclusion which seems to be part of ACBL regs only if you misuse the terms. a direct NT overcall, if less than....should be alerted.

Why do you need to write "a direct NT overcall"? Simple, because an overcall can be direct or balancing. Normal English usage in England, and in North America.

Still it's obvious that this is not what the authors of the ACBL regulations meant. It is impossible that they wanted to make 1C P P 1N alertable when it shows s.th. like 11-15 as everyone in the ACBL seems to be playing.

[dan_ehh]

cherdanno wrote:

Still it's obvious that this is not what the authors of the ACBL regulations meant. It is impossible that they wanted to make 1C P P 1N alertable when it shows s.th. like 11-15 as everyone in the ACBL seems to be playing.

 

You'd be surprised how many players play this as 15-17.

[bluejak]

A natural 1NT overcall that may by agreement be on fewer than 14 HCP is alertable, whether by a passed hand or not.

Mmm. I came to a different conclusion, David, so I'd be interested in hearing your logic.

I did not look up the reg but assumed Cascade had quoted it correctly and fully. If he had, I think the meaning is as I said.