Lack of Alert that Shouldn't Cause Damage

[aguahombre]

My bad. Used a one syl word same as four syl word, wrong.

[nige1]

I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

I agree with Karen that is the main question but under EBU jurisdiction, there is an additional problem: even if you are aware that the 1N bidder is a passed hand, it is still dangerous to "protect" yourself by asking about the 1N overcall. If you ask and pass, you transmit unauthorised information that will handicap partner: he must then eschew normal actions, suggested by the UI, if there is a reasonable logical alternative.

 

"Protect-yourself" is one of those superfluous rules that damage non-offenders and encourage and reward offenders.

[aguahombre]

but under EBU jurisdiction, there is an additional problem: even if you are aware that the 1N bidder is a passed hand, it is still dangerous to "protect" yourself by asking about the 1N overcall. If you ask and pass, you transmit unauthorised information that will handicap partner: he must then eschew normal actions, suggested by the UI, if there is a reasonable logical alternative.

 

Jurisdiction does not matter for that purpose. Whether alerted or not, the bid itself carries its own alert because it is unusual, even if not "unusual", and should be asked about --always.

 

Asking and then passing could cause opener to not rebid 2H with 5-5 in the majors for fear that responder might have a long minor which she would have bid unless 1NT was for the minors. That would be the reason for always asking.

 

Now you only have to be believed when you say that you always ask. But, you could add that you discovered on BBO fora some people who actually treat 1NT as natural.

[blackshoe]

Jurisdiction does not matter for that purpose. Whether alerted or not, the bid itself carries its own alert because it is unusual, even if not "unusual", and should be asked about --always.

Interesting theory. What's its legal basis?

[aguahombre]

The basis of protecting one's self in a possible ui situation by always asking, so as to not give any ui? That needs to be a written law?

 

Would you prefer that there be no way to avoid being litigated? You also need to know what the NT is, so you will know whether your bid will be unus/unusual, and/or what partner's bid will mean if you pass

[blackshoe]

No. "The bid itself carries its own alert..."

[aguahombre]

Doesn't a NT bid by a passed hand alert you that something is probably artificial? Isn't that one way of expressing the reasoning behind (at least in some places) not wasting time alerting cuebids, or this bid?

 

But the fact that some misinformed players apparently think 1NT is natural by a passed hand, and might be playing it that way, is reason enough to ask --making sure.

 

It would be equally important where 1NT is not alertable by a passed hand, but is alerted anyway. Maybe they are alerting you to the fact that they are not playing it as unusual by a passed hand, or maybe they are just alerting it anyway.

 

Hence, one should always ask, no matter what the jurisdiction --no matter whether alerted or not.

[blackshoe]

One always has a right to ask about opponents' auction - see Law 20. Whether a particular call requires an alert is a matter of regulation. Whether a particular call should raise a red flag even when not alerted is a matter of opinion (in most jurisdictions).

[aguahombre]

Ok, so other than establishing that when someone asks about legal basis they might be refering to laws or to regulations, and I shouldn't use "law" interchangably with "regulation" ---and establishing that "a bid carries its own alert" is not quite the same as "a bid which jumps up and bites us on the butt as very likely to be conventional", how does any of that suggest I was wrong when I stated that it would be best to:

 

Ask about the meaning, whether the bid is alerted or is not alerted (and whether it is alertable or is not)

Ask, every time, so that no UI can be inferred from the question.

[blackshoe]

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying it's an opinion - and hence not a basis for a ruling.

[aguahombre]

As previously noted, it would not be a good thing if I ever made a ruling.

 

It was brought up that the alleged NOS should protect themselves. I agree.

It was brought up that asking and passing would cause UI. I suggested how that could be avoided.

 

Lord help us all if I ever tried to make a real ruling. There probably isn't a paragraph I could cite to back up, "Come on, guys: what are you trying to get away with, now?"

[bluejak]

Can you give me any examples of partnerships that play a 1NT overcall by a passed hand as 10-11 balanced?  I've played a fair bit of bridge in my life in everything from a senior citizens daytime duplicate to a world championship and I've never come across it.

Sure. At some of the clubs I play in some pf the players do not play the unusual no-trump. To them a no-trump is a no-trump.

 

If such a player heard his partner overcall 1NT he would take it as natural.

 

Are you sure that all your 'senior citizens daytime duplicate' played a no-trump overcall as other than natural?

 

:)

 

Having read some but not all the posts in this thread I am amazed that none of them seem to consider the level of players. If a very poor player relies on an alert he should get redress when there is none, passed hand or no. If an international tried that argument we would all laugh at him.

 

Also, of course, if we do decide it is a serious error that does not mean no adjustment, just that we adjust differently for the two sides.

 

:ph34r:

 

I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

I think it is. The damage was caused at least as much by his own inattention as by the lack of alert.

No doubt true, but so? Several posts in this and other similar threads seem to try to give a reason for the event, assuming there can be only one reason. But most things in this life happen because of a combination of reasons, and this is a good example. Would the player have gone wrong if there had been an alert? No. Would the player have gone wrong if he had noticed the 1NT bidder had passed? Probably no.

 

So the reason he went wrong is not because of the MI solely nor his inattention solely. No is there any reason to argue which led to the happening more: it needed both for the error to occur.

 

The error occurred because of MI, even if only in part. There was MI, there was damage, there was a causal link. So you adjust in full for the offending side, and consider Law 12C1B for the other side.

[karen4]

Doesn't a NT bid by a passed hand alert you that something is probably artificial?  Isn't that one way of expressing the reasoning behind (at least in some places) not wasting time alerting cuebids, or this bid?

 

But the fact that some misinformed players apparently think 1NT is natural by a passed hand, and might be playing it that way, is reason enough to ask --making sure.

 

It would be equally important where 1NT is not alertable by a passed hand, but is alerted anyway.  Maybe they are alerting you to the fact that they are not playing it as unusual by a passed hand, or maybe they are just alerting it anyway.

 

Hence, one should always ask, no matter what the jurisdiction --no matter whether alerted or not.

 

I assume this is not a response to the original problem. In the original problem South thought the situation was that West overcalled 1NT as a non-passed hand. I personally would never consider asking whether an unalerted 1NT overall by I hand that hadnt originally passed was natural (though I hope I would notice that he had passed originally :blink: )

[nige1]

You may judge it ridiculous to agree a no-trump overcall by a passed-hand as natural, but some partnerships do have that agreement ...

Can you give me any examples of partnerships that play a 1NT overcall by a passed hand as 10-11 balanced?  I've played a fair bit of bridge in my life in everything from a senior citizens daytime duplicate to a world championship and I've never come across it.

Many have encountered such bids. Ordinary players like me make such bids with say

♠ AJx ♥ KQJx ♦ xxx ♣ xxx in auctions like

_P (1♠) _P (_P)

1N

It's more dangerous in the auction we're discussing...

_P (_P) _P (1♠)

1N

But at favourable vulnerability, we've seen worse bids. Whether or not MrDct or anybody else approves of them, these are legal agreements. Undiscussed, some of us would regard them as default agreements, especially in protective positions.

[aguahombre]

nig1: Yes, the first case --a balancing action by a passed hand ---1N is played as natural by us. Partner passed 1S, but is not a passed hand.

 

that is not the OP's auction.

[blackshoe]

What 1NT should mean in any particular auction, according to any particular person's ideas, is not relevant. What's relevant is whether the pair in question had an agreement as to the meaning, and whether that meaning was not properly disclosed according to the laws and regulations in force at the time. In order to discover the answer to the first question, the TD when called to adjudicate must investigate. From the evidence in the OP, the agreement was that 1NT showed the minors. This bid requires an alert in England. The alert was not given. So the NOS were misinformed. I don't understand why people are spending so much effort trying to find reasons to let the OS off the hook.

 

If South's failure to note that West was a passed hand was a serious error in the eyes of the law — a point with which I'm not sure I concur — then the NOS do not get redress for such part of the damage as was caused by the error, but the OS should still have their score adjusted to whatever the TD decides might have happened (probably a weighting of various possibilities) absent the MI, assuming that result is less lucrative for them than the table result. "No adjustment" is not right in such a case, unless the MI caused no damage. I do not think an argument that there was no damage because all the damage was caused by South's serious error (even if it is agreed to be a serious error) should let the OS off the hook. They committed an infraction, they should pay whatever rectification the law imposes.

[aguahombre]

Interesting. 40 replies. In ACBL, zero replies would be been needed. Conclusion: alert regulations suck, and it is clearly advantageous to not inquire about questionable sequences, so you can become the NOS.

[Trinidad]

I know at least one pair who plays a passed hand 1NT overcall as natural. They used it against us. Though this was a husband-wife pair, this wasn't the typical one. They were the reigning Swedish mixed pair champions.

 

Not only was the 1NT overcall by PH natural, it also was 8-10, since they would open any 11 point hand.

 

And yes, of course, I asked when the 1NT overcall was not alerted.

 

Rik

[Vampyr]

If South's failure to note that West was a passed hand was a serious error in the eyes of the law

This is the crux of the matter. And I think that it is easy to forget who is a passed hand -- is there anyone here who has never done the wrong thing because he has forgotten that partner is a passed hand? With the lack of the alert, there is no reason for the NOS to take additional notice of the early auction. If the NOS don't get ruled in their favour on this board, then I am not sure what purpose alerts are meant to serve.

[Lanor Fow]

and it is clearly advantageous to not inquire about questionable sequences, so you can become the NOS

 

They are the non offending side regardless of whether they ask or not. If the call requires an alert, not alerting is an infraction and the pair who didn't alert are the OS. Obvoiusly if the NOS ask, its unlikley to cause damage (i'm not going to comment on whether they should have asked, this has been covered by other posters), but ask or not OS and NOS don't change.

[aguahombre]

thank you. I will put smiley faces where appropriate, for your benefit in the future.

[bluejak]

I, for one, would appreciate it. In about three different threads I have recently read comments by you which seem designed to inflame. If they are meant humorously, please make it clear. My apologies if I have misunderstood your intentions in such posts. :)

[karen4]

and it is clearly advantageous to not inquire about questionable sequences, so you can become the NOS

South probably would have questioned it if he had considered it a questionable sequence. However, an unalerted 1NT overcall by a hand he did not realise had passed would not look strange.

[billw55]

It is hard to tell, since no hands are given. But, if NS are cold for 4♥, then it seems possible that north also has made a significant error by his final pass (he knows EW are both passed hands). How many errors are north-south allowed, before they are considered responsible for their own result?

 

Having read some but not all the posts in this thread I am amazed that none of them seem to consider the level of players. If a very poor player relies on an alert he should get redress when there is none, passed hand or no. If an international tried that argument we would all laugh at him.

I agree. I haven't read all the posts either, but from the below it would seem that NS have a detailed agreement about this uncommon auction:

 

N/S had the agreement that pass was forcing if the 1NT was natural, and that a forcing pass then pulling the double showed a good hand with shape, whereas an immediate bid over 2C showed a weak hand with shape. It was actually on their card so whether you think it is a sensible was of playing, I'm sure that it is actually what they do.

.. which to me suggests an experienced pair. To be honest I'm shocked they had the nerve to complain.

[blackshoe]

How many errors are north-south allowed, before they are considered responsible for their own result?

Wrong question. B)

 

The right question is "how serious does an error have to be before it's considered "serious" in the legal sense?"

 

If there was a "serious" error by the NOS, then they don't get redress for such part of the damage as is attributed to the error. That may or may not be all the damage.