Not asking

[bluejak]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt87ht965d75cj74&w=sj64hkj87daqcqt32&n=sk952h3dkjt9432c5&e=sa3haq42d86cak986&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1n(12-14)2d(Alerted)ppp]399|300|[/hv]

2♦ made. It was teams. North's bid was natural and thus not alertable.

 

East felt if he asked and thus showed an interest, presumably getting the normal answer of "spades and another" then South would be more likely to find a pass over 2♦. So he did not ask, just passed.

 

When East discovered he had missed 6♥ and 2♦ was not alertable, he asked for a ruling.

 

How would you rule?

 

A correspondent sent me this out of interest. He was East, but the ruling did not affect the final result, which was an easy win for his team.

[barmar]

Passing with a 17 count seems like East stopped playing bridge, and the disaster was entirely his own fault.

 

There are enough different NT overcall conventions that asking for an explanation is not likely to imply interest in that suit.

[TimG]

East felt if he asked and thus showed an interest, presumably getting the normal answer of "spades and another" then South would be more likely to find a pass over 2♦. So he did not ask, just passed.

East seems to acknowledge that there was some chance 2♦ would get passed out regardless of whether he asked. I don't understand what he was hoping to accomplish with his pass. I'm kind of curious what his options were over 2♦. And, would the meaning of 2♦ have affected the meaning of his calls?

 

All this wondering is basically in an attempt to understand to what degree east stopped playing bridge. Unless he comes up with something very convincing (what I can't imagine) I would not be inclined to adjust the score.

[blackshoe]

Dear East: You shot yourself in the foot. Sorry, but result stands.

[gordontd]

I can't imagine why East would have wanted to pass over 2♦ even if it had been showing spades and another - I would have thought he would be wanting to make some sort of spade cue-bid, depending on what his methods are.

 

Nor can I see how East asking a question about the 2♦ bid would tip South off that North has diamonds.

[pran]

Is there any reason at all to discuss East's action or lack of action?

 

Can anybody point to any kind of misinformation from North and/or South?

 

No misinformation, no cause for adjustment of any kind, result stands.

[bluejak]

If you alert something that is not alertable that is MI.

[pran]

If you alert something that is not alertable that is MI.

Where does OP tell that it was alerted?

[nige1]

If you alert something that is not alertable that is MI.

Where does OP tell that it was alerted?

I think that was Bluejak's point :)

[Cyberyeti]

Where does OP tell that it was alerted?

It's highlighted in yellow and says "alerted" if you click it.

 

Since the explanation could have been "diamonds and another", east needed to ask. I would ask the 2D bidder's partner why he alerted the bid and then passed.

[pran]

It's highlighted in yellow and says "alerted" if you click it.

OK. I wasn't aware of that and saw no reason to click it.

One more "hidden" feature that I learn on BBO Forum :unsure: :rolleyes: :)

Since the explanation could have been "diamonds and another", east needed to ask. I would ask the 2D bidder's partner why he alerted the bid and then passed.

Sure, once the call was alerted then East has every reason to ask, no problem.

 

And thanks for the clarification.

[nige1]

It's highlighted in yellow and says "alerted" if you click it. Since the explanation could have been "diamonds and another", east needed to ask. I would ask the 2D bidder's partner why he alerted the bid and then passed.

Duh :( Thanks cyberyeti! Agree :)

[Poky]

Who alerted 2♦? South?

What thought South about the meaning of 2♦?

 

Anyway, maybe I could rule MI. But "no damage" I do rule for sure.

 

2♦ could have been DONT/Meckwell and thus - an easy passable bid.

 

East gets all fault. When you play antibridge, you usually get what you deserve.

[paulg]

You just have to ask here. Even looking at your own hand there is a fair chance that 2♦ is diamonds and a major and it is about to be passed.

 

Unlike some I do have some sympathy for East. There are many situations where it seems that asking will only help the opponents and give away your hand, but I'm afraid that he has misjudged the auction this time.

 

Result stands.

[NickRW]

Isn't the crux of the matter this: Is alerting, but actually not misexplaining (because you were not asked and your CC was not asked for) actually an instance of giving MI?

 

The alert *could* have been explained as diamonds and another - in which case of course it was not forcing - in which case East's failure to ask is, arguably, shooting himself in the foot.

 

Anyway, regardless of what the laws say, I like really mega have no sympathy for East. With 17 opposite at least 12 what the devil was he thinking that pass would be the best option?!

 

Nick

[mycroft]

Well, this is one position where (assuming the overcall is Alerted) I *always* ask. Maybe in NA the variety of things played is larger than in that area of England, but the only thing that the ask shows here is that we have 13 cards, and might want to bid something over some meaning from (one major/hearts/spades/diamonds and another/major+minor/red suits/oops, sorry, not Alertable).

 

So for me, I have no sympathy. There's just too much it could be. Passing is insane if 2D isn't forcing (which, even when I played 2D=single-suited hearts, it wasn't - partner *frequently* had "better diamonds than my hearts"). Do this pair have agreements on D showing hearts, such that a direct 2H, a direct double, and a double of 2H have different meanings? If so, if nothing else, failing to ask means that either partner is going to misunderstand East's next call, or that they have agreements over these bids when partner doesn't ask that are different from when partner does ask (which probably isn't exactly legal, and almost certainly isn't explicit, to be fair to E-W). And that doesn't count what happens if it *is* spades and another, and south bids spades.

 

I would investigate what South thought 2D was, and why he Alerted it, however. But East's decision is massively wild and incredibly gambling.

 

And Nick, of course Alerting a clearly non-Alertable bid is MI. It's information to the opponents, and it's wrong. What else could it be? But as you say, that's not what caused the damage.

[bluejak]

I think the player with 17 points had no agreements and was playing with a strange partner.

[pran]

I think the player with 17 points had no agreements and was playing with a strange partner.

I don't see how this can be any (acceptable) reason for not asking about an alerted call?

[mfa1010]

When he doesn't ask about an alerted call he is on his own.

 

For all we know south might have decided to alert to point out some unusual style issue concerning the overcall. It is possible for instance that south just wanted disclose that their overcalls are limited to, say, a bad opener because they would double with more. Or whatever.

 

In any case it is east's problem when he doesn't ask. Even if south was wrong to alert.

[barmar]

While alerting a non-alertable call is technically MI, it's generally considered a pretty minor infraction, and will rarely be punished. Many players forget or misunderstand the alert regulations (a common complaint in the ACBL is that they change frequently, and people can't keep track), and the general advice is "if you're unsure, alert it."

[pran]

While alerting a non-alertable call is technically MI, it's generally considered a pretty minor infraction, and will rarely be punished. Many players forget or misunderstand the alert regulations (a common complaint in the ACBL is that they change frequently, and people can't keep track), and the general advice is "if you're unsure, alert it."

I know that other jurisdictions apparently see it different, but in Norway we (to my best knowledge) never punish an alert of a non-alertable call. (A popular "translation" of alerts is: "You may have some interest in asking about this call".)

[blackshoe]

Yes, that's a common complaint, and not only in the ACBL. Unfortunately, it's bull. What they really mean is "I went to the trouble to learn the alert regulations in 1973, and I don't expect to have to do it again!"

[barmar]

Yes, I didn't mean to legitimize the complaint. They really only change every 5-10 years, it only seems like it's more often to these people because they find any change annoying. And it's not like you have to relearn everything, there's usually an article in the Bulletin that describes the changes; there's just a few, it shouldn't be hard to learn them. And everyone understands if you make mistakes for the first few months, since old habits die hard.

 

Yet I still encounter people alerting weak jump raises in competition, even though it's been several years since ACBL made them non-alertable. Old dogs, new tricks.

[nige1]

I know that other jurisdictions apparently see it different, but in Norway we (to my best knowledge) never punish an alert of a non-alertable call. (A popular "translation" of alerts is: "You may have some interest in asking about this call".)

A sensible interpretation. A pity that it is not specified in the laws. Locals are usually familiar with local practice. Strangers and foreigners are most in need of sensible disclosure rules and they may not be familiar with local idiosyncratic regulations. So too much alerting is preferrable to too little :)

[nigel_k]

There was misinformation (alert of a non-alertable call) and the non-offending side suffered damage, because East would have acted differently without the alert and could easily have obtained a better score.

 

So the question is whether 12C1b (serious error, wild or gambling) applies:

 

Based on East's comment, I am guessing his thinking was as follows: North probably has spades and diamonds. If I double, it may well go all pass. If I don't double, it will probably go 2♠-P-P or 2♥-P-2♠ or even 2♥-P-3♦. I would prefer to defend 2♠X than 2♦X and would obviously like 3♦X even better.

 

It seems to me there are two possibilities here:

 

1) East understood that South might well pass and chose to take that risk. In that case it is probably 'wild or gambling'.

 

2) East didn't understand this and fully expected to be doubling 2♠ or 3♦ on the next round. In that case it isn't wild or gambling and is some other kind of error. Even if that error is serious it is not unrelated to the infraction.

 

IMO scenario two seems more likely. Though I agree the pass was a very poor call and was the main reason for E/W's bad result, I'm not convinced there are grounds for denying rectification (but I really wish the 'unrelated to the infraction' condition wasn't in there).

 

It could be argued that 'wild or gambling' is based on an objective standard, i.e. it doesn't rely on the player understanding the risks involved. But I don't favour that interpretation because it doesn't seem to fit with the way the words 'wild' and 'gambling' are normally used and it also makes 'wild and gambling' almost the same thing as 'serious error'.