Alert came a little late...

[Hanoi5]

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sqj764ha92d84ct93&w=s85hq765daqj93c84&e=st92hk3dkt7ca7652&s=sak3hjt84d652ckqj]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Bidding goes:

 

Pa Pa Pa 1♣

1♦ 1♠ 2♣* 2♠/Pa**

3♦ 3♠*** All Pass

 

The 2♣ bid wasn't alerted till South had already bid 2♠. When South asked and was told it was a support-showing cue-bid the 2♠ bid was changed to Pass. North bid 3♠ and the Director was called to the table by West.

 

So:

 

1. What should the ruling be on the present situation?

2. What should the ruling be had the Director been called after the late alert and allowed the change of call?

3. Is 16.D.1 applicable in this situation?

[JoAnneM]

Is this ACBL? Why should the 2C be alerted in the first place? I think it is not alertable. So the infraction is the change of bid without the director being called. That would not happen in my club, so I will leave it to others.

[VixTD]

If the change of call is permitted by the laws, then I can't see why law 16D1 shouldn't apply, and North may use the information that South would have bid 2♠ over a natural 2♣ overcall, but not over a support-showing cue-bid. However, something about this troubles me:

 

[L21B] Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent

1. (a) Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner

has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other

rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision

to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation

given to the player by an opponent (see Law 17E). Failure to alert

promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is

deemed misinformation.

 

Was the decision whether to bid 2♠ or pass really influenced by the failure to alert? Was South asked (afterwards) why they wanted to change their call?

 

I'm also not happy with the failure on the part of both sides to call the director. There is a common misconception that a late alert gives the next player an automatic risk-free opportunity to change their call; the director could have put them all straight on this matter if called on time. To some extent EW have colluded in the home-made ruling, but I might excuse them if they are particularly inexperienced.

 

I would want to ask South why the misinformation made them want to change their call, and why they felt they couldn't protect themselves by asking about the 2♣ bid. I know they're the non-offending side and should be given the benefit of the doubt, but there are limits.

[bluejak]

Is this ACBL? Why should the 2C be alerted in the first place? I think it is not alertable.

We do ask OPs to state the jurisdiction. While I am not sure, I think it may be Venezuela.

 

1. What should the ruling be on the present situation?

"Since you seem to be getting on very well without me and with your own Law book, I shall just go away, shall I?"

 

2. What should the ruling be had the Director been called after the late alert and allowed the change of call?

As VixTD points out, it seems a pretty strange change of call to allow. Still, if he does, bidding proceeds: what is a ruling being sought for?

 

3. Is 16.D.1 applicable in this situation?

Yes.