Failure to alert ; EBU

[One Short]

Declarer opens 1NT and his partner bids Stayman.

Fourth in hand cuebids 3 clubs which is not alerted but should have been.

Declarer and partner bid on and play in 4 spades.

Contract fails and declarer claims an adjustment because his failure was based on his RHO having a club suit when he did not.

Declarer did not ask what the 3 clubs bid meant

The director was told by the defenders that the cue bid was a convention called “Crow”

The director did not ascertain what the convention meant

 

How should the director have dealt with the claim and

How should the director have ruled

[blackshoe]

I don't know what "claims an adjustment" means, but I do know that players don't get to tell the director whether, or how, to adjust the score. The existence of misinformation does not in itself entitle a contestant to a score adjustment, either.

 

The director should investigate, telling all four players he wants only the facts pertinent to the case. Having ascertained the facts, if there is agreement amongst the players involved that those are the facts, he rules as the law directs. If there is disagreement as to the facts, and the TD cannot ascertain to his satisfaction what they are, he shall make a ruling that will allow play to continue. See Laws 84 and 85.

 

In the instant case, I would, as the director, want to know more about this "Crow" convention. I would want to see all four hands, and see how the play went. I would take into account OB 5H1:

A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk.

I would want to know why declarer didn't ask about the bid (yes, I'm aware that in the EBU it is permitted to assume that if there's no alert, the bid is natural). I would want to know specifically how declarer would have played the hand differently had he been aware of the meaning of 3♣.

 

Not having all that information, I cannot say to what ruling the TD should finally have come. I will say that if there was MI, and if the MI caused damage, then the score should be adjusted. Law 21B3, I believe.

[RMB1]

Its not really relevant but I would not call 3♣ a cue bid when 2♣ was artificial. The EBU alerting regulations do not mention "cue bid". (1NT)-P-(2♣)-3♣ is alertable if it is artificial (does not show clubs).

 

Did both defender's agree that 3♣ was artificial (I assume "Crow" = CRO, a system of two-suited overcalls)?

 

The director investigates what are the defenders' agreements, and finds out how the play went, and how declarer would have played differently if he had known the 3♣ bidder did not have clubs.

 

Even if the other player says it is not their agreement (which is why he did not alert), the director is likely to rule that he is mistaken: Law 21B1(B) "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

 

So declarer has received misinformation from the failure to alert 3♣ (declarer does not need to protect himself by asking). If his claim as to how he would have played differently is at all reasonable, then the director should adjust to the outcome of declarer playing the hand differently.

[barmar]

I don't know what "claims an adjustment" means,

I'm guessing he meant "requests an adjustment" or "claims he's entitled to an adjustment". Of course, it's up to the TD to decide whether this is correct.

[bluejak]

I think the basic reason for 5H1 is when a cunning player tries a double shot. If the bidding goes 1♥ 2♥ by an opponent the 2♥ bid is alertable if it is not natural. However, an experienced player that assumed it was natural without asking would be unlikely to get an adjustment.

 

The actual case is different. 3♣ is not a cue bid in the normal meaning of the term [as against the ACBL meaning :P] and it is extremely rare in England for it to be anything but natural. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for declarer to assume it is natural when it is not alerted without asking.

 

My guess is that the problem arose because three people at the table know that 3♣ is usually natural, and one person thought it was a cue-bid! :o

[Chris L]

So what sort of hand would bid a natural 3♣ rather than make a (non-alertable) double of 2♣?

[lamford]

So what sort of hand would bid a natural 3♣ rather than make a (non-alertable) double of 2♣?

Some will play that a double of 2C is a hand that would double 1NT, and such players would use 3C as natural. But even playing double as lead-directing, one would want to bid 3C with seven of them, especially with little defence against a major contract.

[bluejak]

I believe giving the opponents room unnecessarily is losing policy. So double shows typically KQxxx or KQJx while 3♣ shows something like QJ9xxx.

 

What do you mean, seven, Paul? :P