Pre-Alert Required?

[TimG]

In the NABC Casebook from Summer 2009, Case #6 involves balancing action after

 

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - P

(1N) - P - P

 

The side that balanced claimed "with both sides not vulnerable at matchpoints [we] are extrememly aggressive in balancing position over 1NT (except with poor 4333 hands)...[we] almost never let declarer play a 1NT contract at this vulnerability."

 

The committee "based upon guidance from the screening director, [told the balancing side] that such a treatment needed to be listed on their convention card and that they needed to pre-Alert their opponents regarding their aggressive balancing style."

 

No rule or regulation was cited. I wonder if others agree with the instructions to pre-alert.

[Old York]

This ruling was about UI available to the doubler. Obviously he would have to use aggressive balancing style as an excuse for actually using UI, to do otherwise would be to admit using unauthorised information from partner's questions and scrutiny of cc. It can make no difference whether North opens 1♣ or 1♦, East had nothing to say, and should not ask for explanations

 

The instruction to pre-alert such a style seems odd, but may be the only way to prevent a repeat performance, and may deter this pair from making frivolous appeals in future

 

Tony

 

Edit

Maybe someone could give a reasonable example of E/W cards that might follow this auction? What is the "normally expected" balancing hand (without UI) ?

[MFA]

I wonder if others agree with the instructions to pre-alert.

I don't know ACBL rules, but I hope not. B) :o :o

 

Adjusting the score was fine (automatic) though.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL Alert Regulations in respect of this case are not easy to understand. My reading makes me view the screening TD's claim that this treatment requires a pre-alert as dubious, at best. I'd like to know on which part of the Alert Regulation he based his opinion. If I'd been on the committee, I'd have asked.

 

I'm not sure I understand why looking at the SC gives more, or is more likely to give, UI than is asking questions.

 

That East asked questions at all (or picked up the SC, I suppose) gives UI, and if West had an LA (I think he does) to doubling, then the score should be adjusted. But it seems to me that the questions East asked are not out of line given the answers he got. Nor is looking at the SC — although I might have done so before asking questions, myself. Whether the timing of the look would make any difference to a committee I don't know.

[kenberg]

I didn't like this ruling when I saw it in the bulletin. The explanation seems to have been edited since then or else my memory is faulty.

 

 

About UI and asking questions: I can ask questions only if I I might enter the auction if I get certain answers? It would seem to me then that asking a question passes information, and for that matter not asking a question passes information. Certainly asking a question and then passing passes the information that I would (not might have, but would) have acted had the answer been different. If I sometimes ask when I will not act regardless of the answer, that would seem to be the way to pass no information by my asking of a question.

 

I also do not understand the committee's point in saying that the EW pair play the same system as does NS. So what? If I am playing, say, Bergen raises that does not mean that I understand the auction 1H-pass-3C until my opponents tell me that THEY are playing Bergen raises. If it had gone 1♣-alert-please explain-Could be short, our diamond bids promise a good four card suit, then further questioning might be suspect, but that definitely was not the answer that was given. "We play five card majors" is definitely stonewalling. Such a response cannot possibly be seen as responsive and anyone giving it should not at all be surprised that more questions ensue and that the opponent checks the cc, since S has made it crystal clear he will not be explaining what they are actually playing. Notice that even reading the explanation it is not entirely clear what hapens when opener has a bad 4 card diamond suit and a stiff club. He needs a good diamond suit to bit 1D, he needs two cubs to bid 1♣. Does he leave the table?

 

It seems to me the committee decided what they wanted to ruyle and just made something up to justify it.

 

My own policy at the table is basically to never ask a question. You rarely get a straight answer, as happened here, and directors and committees are of little help, as happened here.

[blackshoe]

So it's a crap shoot - either you don't ask, and get stuck by their strange bidding, or you do ask, and you get stuck by a ruling. Hell of a game, bridge. :wacko:

[Phil]

This reminds of the other silly statement a pair mentioned in another appeal that they ALWAYS reopen after 1x - (1y) - p - p.

 

I've never heard such blatant self-serving nonsense in my life. At the table I would be willing to bet there were all kinds of tempo issues created by the doubler's partner.

 

How convenient to tell the director, "oh it doesn't matter, we NEVER sell out to 1N".

 

Frankly I'd love to hear a pre-alert. Does that mean I can safely pass partner's 1N with a 14 count 'knowing' the opponents will re-open? Yum.

[PrecisionL]

I play such a style also, it is winning pairs strategy.

 

However, in pass out position I would pass without 4-4 in the unbid suits. Partner would have come in over 1♣ if he was short in clubs and had 3+ cards in the other suits. This is NOT the hand to double on even though partner might leave it in.

 

This pre-alerting is nonsense. This is style and strategy well known.

[kenberg]

I think that more than a few people would play the double as showing a good hand that had no convenient bid over 1S. The four card spade suit is typical. But I would indeed have a better hand.

 

 

I can entertain the possibility that something is a little fishy here. I would have preferred a different approach to dealing with any suspicion. I would think it would be possible to discreetly monitor the pair to see when questions are asked. If questions are asked only when the asker has good values, with the questions followed by a pass, then more serious action should be taken beyond rejecting their appeal. If, however, questions are regularly asked with a good hand or bad, it's hard to see that any information was passed. So it would be my view that either the behavior was either more improper than suggested, or not improper at all. Depending on their actual style in asking questions.

 

As I say, I don't much ask questions. Saves me from the sort of hassle encountered here. When I do ask, I am almost certainly going to act, pretty much regardless of the answer I get. Or I wait until the auction is over and ask at my proper turn. But I have encountered pairs who seem very unwilling to give a satisfactory explanation, and the "We play five card majors" response really gets my goat. I think that that sort of response should very greatly diminish the pairs rights to complain about further questioning.

[kenberg]

Just a few more words about this idea that asking for an explanation of an alerted call is improper unless action is contemplated. Suppose I tentatively accept this and see where it leads. Here I am, second hand, with a decent six card club suit and my rho opens 1C, alerted. If it is precision I can bid 2C natural, if it's just "could be short", where short only arises on 4-4-3-2 hands, then 2C would show (in all partenrships where I have discussed it) the majors. So I must and do ask the meaning. Well, it's "could be short", so I pass, and lho ends up declaring 3NT. Can partner lead a club? Probably not, unless it is clearcut.

 

Now suppose that quite often when 1C is opened and alerted I ask for the meaning, whether or not my hand warrants any action. Again it's "could be short", again they land in 3NT, again my partner, listening to the auction, decides to try a club. No problem, as long as my question about the alert is made not only when I might wish to bid 2C over a precision club but also when I have a flat non-interesting hand.

 

Imo, this is not an academic issue. At one time I think the general view agreed with what I suggest but somehow it has evolved to the view where I should not ask unless I might act. The result is that I often go for a 24 board session asking no questions at all. Too much suspicion, too much hassle.

[MFA]

Just a few more words about this idea that asking for an explanation of an alerted call is improper unless action is contemplated. Suppose I tentatively accept this and see where it leads. Here I am, second hand, with a decent six card club suit and my rho opens 1C, alerted. If it is precision I can bid 2C natural, if it's just "could be short", where short only arises on 4-4-3-2 hands, then 2C would show (in all partenrships where I have discussed it) the majors. So I must and do  ask the meaning. Well, it's "could be short", so I pass, and lho ends up declaring 3NT. Can partner lead a club? Probably not, unless it is clearcut.

 

Now suppose that quite often when 1C is opened and alerted I ask for the meaning, whether or not my hand warrants any action. Again it's "could be short", again they land in 3NT, again my partner, listening to the auction, decides to try a club.  No problem, as long as my question about the alert is made not only when I might wish to bid 2C over a precision club but also when I have a flat non-interesting hand.

This is not about asking a single question. If you ask once what an alerted 1♣ is, then no problem. On the actual hand east started an inqusition:

 

Q. What's the Alert?

A. Could be short.

Q. What kinds of hands?

A. Five-card Majors (unclear due to South's accent).

Q. It can contain a 5-card major?

A. We play five-card majors.

Q. What kinds of hands would be short clubs?

A. Those with a bad diamond suit.

Q. Could you clarify?

A. It could be 4-2 in the minors since we need a good diamond suit to open 1♦.

 

If he bothers to do that with a yarborough, he will be the first opponent I have met to do so.

 

The point is to get neutral and relaxed questioning habits - then it's possible to ask about all alerted lowlevel bids without giving UI.

 

I would have preferred a different approach to dealing with any suspicion. I would think it would be possible to discreetly monitor the pair to see when questions are asked. If questions are asked only when the asker has good values, with the questions followed by a pass, then more serious action should be taken beyond rejecting their appeal. If, however, questions are regularly asked with a good hand or bad, it's hard to see that any information was passed. So it would be my view that either the behavior was either more improper than suggested, or not improper at all. Depending on their actual style in asking questions.

I think it's not an either-or thing. More likely west was negligently not being careful enough when his partner had transmitted UI. Losing an appeal such as this will help to educate the pair if this was indeed the problem.

[cherdanno]

I think "this requires a pre-alert" was just a polite way of saying "We believe you are lying".

[blackshoe]

If the unusual thing about 1♣ was that it "could be short", then this requires an announcement, not an alert. So NS started off confusing the issue by not following proper procedure. The follow on question "it can contain a five card major?" was asked because the explanation was again unclear.

 

Questioning habits aside, when the player answering the questions doesn't do so fully and clearly, asking more questions should not be unexpected.

[kenberg]

I think "this requires a pre-alert" was just a polite way of saying "We believe you are lying".

This is the message I got from the decision and the write-up. My preference would be that if they think a pair is cheating then they discreetly monitor their actions at other tables rather than make a ruling that insinuates cheating but has the accusation too hidden to be dealt with forthrightly.

[MFA]

I think "this requires a pre-alert" was just a polite way of saying "We believe you are lying".

If so it's very bad behaviour from the committee. They should not get carried away like this in an everyday case.

When somebody has just lost an appeal it's not the time to play tricky word games. That somebody is usually confused enough already. The committee should be very careful to explain everything straight and clear, so the player knows what's behind the ruling and knows what to do the next time.

[MFA]

I think "this requires a pre-alert" was just a polite way of saying "We believe you are lying".

This is the message I got from the decision and the write-up. My preference would be that if they think a pair is cheating then they discreetly monitor their actions at other tables rather than make a ruling that insinuates cheating but has the accusation too hidden to be dealt with forthrightly.

Sorry, but I would hate to death such sneaky things. Also it's completely overkill in this case, just because the committee might have thought that the appealing side happened to be a little fresh in the self-serving departement with their system explanations.

[kenberg]

Sneaky things, while generally wrong, are exactly right when cheating is suspected. The following happened with me many years ago. Between rounds, a director approached me. She said that an opponent had noted that I stared at my partner during the auction, she had monitored me, and agreed that I did this. I said that I had no idea I was doing it, she accepted this, and now I try to remember to avoid eye contact with partner, or anyone, during the auction. I was not insulted, I appreciated the handling of it, I have, I hope, corrected it. In this case at hand, the committee, I think, rather strongly insinuated that these guys were cheating. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. With a little more work, it would all have been much clearer.

 

BTW: If anyone has the write-up that appeared during the tourney I would like him to comment. As I recall the write-up, it really was somewhat different than the write-up now. I don't much care for that way of doing things either. Maybe I am wrong on this.

[TimG]

You should be able to find the original write-up by going through the Daily Bulletins from the Washington DC NABC which are available at the ACBL website.

[PrecisionL]

BTW: If anyone has the write-up that appeared during the tourney I would like him to comment. As I recall the write-up, it really was somewhat different than the write-up now. I don't much care for that way of doing things either. Maybe I am wrong on this.

I checked and they are identical wording.

[kenberg]

BTW: If anyone has the write-up that appeared during the tourney I would like him to comment. As I recall the write-up, it really was somewhat different than the write-up now. I don't much care for that way of doing things either. Maybe I am wrong on this.

I checked and they are identical wording.

Thanks. My bad memory.

[Codo]

I really think this is an everyday and ordinary problem, but the bad thing about it is, that it does not adress two problems which are everyday problems too.

 

1. There are players everywhere, even between the best who hate to answer questions. There is more then one pair who tries to answer as short as possible. Now what shall you do? Ask again and getting a PP after your partner made a suspicious double? There was no objection to N/S to make a clear statement. Everything could have been better if they had said: "We just met 15 min. before the event, but we are sure that 1 diamond shows real diamonds, so 1 club could be based on a low doubleton."

 

2. Like Ken wrote, if you just ask in case you want to bid, you always send an UI to your partner. This is accepted to make the game more fluent, but it is still far from an optimal solution.

[MFA]

Sneaky things, while generally wrong, are exactly right when cheating is suspected.

 

(snip)

 

In this case at  hand,  the committee, I think, rather strongly insinuated that these guys were cheating. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. With a little more work, it would all have been much clearer.

Where do you find justification fur such a claim about insinuation of cheating?

 

Every reasonably good TD (or appeals committee) usually goes out of his way to explain to the players that getting a UI judgement against you is NOT an accusation of cheating.

Misstepping is part of the game because these things are so tough to get right. We can't pull the C-word every time, makes no sense. And pulling the C-word was NOT what the AC did here.

 

The following happened with me many years ago.  Between rounds, a director approached me. She said that an opponent had noted that I stared at my partner during the auction, she had monitored me, and agreed that I did this. I said that I had no idea I was doing it, she accepted this, and now I try to remember to avoid eye contact with partner, or anyone, during the auction. I was not insulted, I appreciated the handling of it, I have, I hope, corrected it.

Nice story, but that has nothing to do with cheating either. You had a bad habit (like so many other players) which in this case was easy to spot and handle elegantly by the TD.

[kenberg]

It is not an accusation of cheating. True enough. Directors are all taught this, just as police officers learn to refer to a suspect in an alleged burgarly when they catch him walking out of the jewelry store with the diamonds in his pockets.

 

A few posts back, Cherdano said: I think "this requires a pre-alert" was just a polite way of saying "We believe you are lying".

 

That's the way it sounds to me also.

 

 

For example:

On the auction at hand, I probably would not have asked anything at all. Then, if partner had doubled as he did, I seriously doubt that a claim by the opponents that they should have been pre-alerted to the possibility of a light balance would have been taken seriously.

 

So maybe I should be skeptical of the players explanation, that's understandable, but I am also skeptical of the committee's announced reasoning. I don't believe they really think a pre-a;ert was necessary, rather thay are saying, As Cherdano said, we think you are lying.

 

 

It's true that I have known a few experienced players who have the remarkable ability to totally fail to understand the proprieties no matter how many times they are explained, but that is sort of rare. Here we are in the life master pairs at a Nationals, it seems to me we can trust that the players know they are not supposed to send UI to their partners by prolonged questioning. If they ignore this, cheating seems to me to be the correct word. So I see the issue as "What is their questioning style?" It's not my style, but as I have noted this is partly because I have pretty much given up expecting to be able to learn what the opponents are actually playing. Taking the auction as a whole, I can usually figure it out.

 

 

Let me make a constructive suggestion. The acbl could go further than they do in providing guidance about when questions are appropriate and what sort of answers are adequate. When answers are not adequate, and I think they were not adequate here, that would be a significant issue in the appeal. This committee totally ignored the inadequacy of the responses.

[blackshoe]

For a committee to claim that a pre-alert was required, when they do not believe that to be the case, is untenable.

 

I agree with Ken wrt the answers to the questions at the table.

[jdonn]

It seems like the pair is saying "We bid so aggressively in this situation that it would be virtually unthinkable for us to pass." This goes well beyond 'normal aggressive' so it's perfectly reasonable for the committee to say that style requires a pre-alert.

 

I also have no problem with the committee making that statement to insinuate they don't believe the pair. You come to a hearing claiming self-serving bologna like that and you deserve at least a very subtle insinuation in return. Probably the pair won't pre-alert in the future anyway because they 'know' they are only 'normal aggressive' in that situation, which may help them understand that their argument was rubbish.