Not asking

[wank]

since when is spades and another the normal meaning for 2♦? it may be normal for people who play that themselves. it certainly isn't normal for me or anyone else I know.

 

east's an idiot. i've regularly played against people for whom 2♦ is both reds or diamonds and a major. unless east can produce an argument for why he would do something different over 2♦ as the reds or 2♦ as ♦ and a major (and I'm sure he can't), no damage

[blackshoe]

Yhe law does not use "wild and gambling" or "wild or gambling" as if it were one action. It's two. If an action is wild, the law applies. If the action is gambling, the law applies. If it's both, the law applies. If it's neither, the law does not apply (leaving aside questions of 'serious error').

 

That an action has risk does not necessarily make it gambling. It certainly does not, of itself, make it wild.

 

I have never liked the attitude, common in some countries, that an alert of a call tells players something positive about the caller's hand. An alert is a warning that opponents may wish to ask about the meaning of the call, nothing more. Since it conveys nothing about the hand, it can hardly be MI.

 

Failure to alert when an alert is required is MI, true. Alerting when not required is not. I think people may confuse the situation with UI considerations, wherein both an unexpected alert and an unexpected failure to alert may convey UI to the caller, but that's a completely different situation.

[NickRW]

This discussion is all very well, but I am none the wiser about how one should rule!

[nigel_k]

I have never liked the attitude, common in some countries, that an alert of a call tells players something positive about the caller's hand. An alert is a warning that opponents may wish to ask about the meaning of the call, nothing more. Since it conveys nothing about the hand, it can hardly be MI.

I wouldn't call it an 'attitude'. I would call it a necessary consequence of the assumption that opponents are acting legally. If they alert 2♦ then their agreement is that it shows something other than a one suited hand with diamonds. There could easily be situations, though this one is not a good example, where you might wish to rely on such an inference rather than ask why the bid was alerted.

 

The alternative is that opponents can alert the natural 2♦ or not, as they please. This would obviously raise UI issues so I think it's much better for alerting regulations to divide calls into those that must be alerted and those that must not be alerted.

[bluejak]

since when is spades and another the normal meaning for 2♦? it may be normal for people who play that themselves. it certainly isn't normal for me or anyone else I know.

Indeed. And how do you know it is not normal where this was played?

[kevperk]

Anyone else think that NS might deserve an adjustment, even if EW don't?

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't call it an 'attitude'. I would call it a necessary consequence of the assumption that opponents are acting legally. If they alert 2♦ then their agreement is that it shows something other than a one suited hand with diamonds. There could easily be situations, though this one is not a good example, where you might wish to rely on such an inference rather than ask why the bid was alerted.

 

The alternative is that opponents can alert the natural 2♦ or not, as they please. This would obviously raise UI issues so I think it's much better for alerting regulations to divide calls into those that must be alerted and those that must not be alerted.

 

I dunno about anybody else, but I haven't memorized the ACBL alert regulations (the ones pertinent to my play) — nor will I. So I don't think it necessarily follows that if someone alerts he has a particular type of hand, and that I will know what it is. I certainly won't assume that it's anything in particular.

 

I don't see where you get that alternative. The regulation says they should alert certain things. Failure to do so is an infraction. "Ipso facto colombo espresso", as I heard on "Bones" the other night. :P

[gordontd]

Instead of considering how East might have avoided the mess, perhaps we should consider what would have happened had there not been misinformation - ie if 2♦ had not been alerted.

 

Would East have passed? I doubt it - he would probably have some convenient forcing bid (like a 3♦) available. Where would they have ended up? Probably 4♥, though 3NT or 5♣ are possible depending on what East-West say they would have done without the misinformation. Even a small portion of 6♣-1 or an even smaller portion of 6♥ making are possible.

 

So a weighted adjustment seems called for.

 

Then the question comes of whether East West should be denied redress - if East's Pass was Wild or Gambling. As nigel_k commented above, while that's a possibility it's probably not the most likely explanation for the Pass. I'd like to be able to talk to East to find out a bit more, but I most likely would end up giving the same adjustment to both sides.

[mfa1010]

Instead of considering how East might have avoided the mess, perhaps we should consider what would have happened had there not been misinformation - ie if 2♦ had not been alerted.

I don't think that that would be particular relevant, since whatever damage EW have suffered is outside of NS's liability. It wasn't the (maybe - we don't even know) mistaken alert that caused the damage. East is on his own, when he didn't bother to hear what message south had for him. That, in combination with east's "cunning" plan, caused the damage. Just too bad.

[blackshoe]

I don't think the damage, if there was any, was caused by the alert. Nor, necessarily, was it caused by East's pass. If there was damage, it was caused by South's pass, which deprived East of his expected "second shot' to bid. So I want to know why South passed. I can think of one reason that would put the blame on NS here: if South realized that 2♦ was natural, and thus did not require an alert. If that was the case, then he failed to call the TD and inform the opponents of that fact (in which case East could change his pass). So I want to know why South passed.

[mfa1010]

...south might have decided to alert to point out some unusual style issue concerning the overcall.

Comments?

 

I'm used to a style with all sorts of alerts of fundamentally natural bids. For instance: To disclose that a better overcall was available, or a worse one, that it denies a three-card support for partner's suit, that a different suit may be longer or may have been bypassed, that the suit length shown is either surprisingly long or surprisingly short, etc. etc.

 

Here south might have alerted to disclose that this overcall has a lower range than usual for 2-level overcalls (because a strength showing double was available). That may be a needless alert (perhaps - perhaps not, depends on the range I guess), but we encourage people to alert if in doubt. We can't then go about and give so much weight to an superfluous alert that it alone entitles opponents to speculate (not ask) and then get redress. It just isn't coherent.

 

In other words: An alert gives away so little concrete information (since it can be based on many different things) that it can hardly lead to a MI ruling by itself.

Absence of an alert is different, since that is equivalent to saying: "Natural, nothing special" about the bid. That can very easily be sufficient MI.

[NickRW]

Here south might have alerted to disclose that this overcall has a lower range than usual for 2-level overcalls (because a strength showing double was available). That may be a needless alert (perhaps - perhaps not, depends on the range I guess), but we encourage people to alert if in doubt. We can't then go about and give so much weight to an superfluous alert that it alone entitles opponents to speculate (not ask) and then get redress. It just isn't coherent.

 

Yes, that was my feeling about it.

 

My main p and I play a version of Keri. Our red suit transfers are sometimes based on a 4 card suit. We (rightly or wrongly) alert because of this. I would be extremely narked if a director ruled MI because an opponent did not bother to ask what the alert meant if it could possibly be relevant to them.

 

Nick

[mgoetze]

Comments?

 

I'm used to a style with all sorts of alerts of fundamentally natural bids. For instance: To disclose that a better overcall was available, or a worse one, that it denies a three-card support for partner's suit, that a different suit may be longer or may have been bypassed, that the suit length shown is either surprisingly long or surprisingly short, etc. etc.

 

I recently alerted partner's 4♣ overcall of 1♥. LHO asked and I said "natural preemptive overcall, but it could be weaker than normal because 3♣ is artificial for us".

 

I guess that means I agree with you. ;)

[Trinidad]

I agree for 100% with Michael. An alert only says that there is something about the bid that you may not expect. This could range from completely conventional (e.g. spades and a minor) to "It's natural, but...", where the but may be a variety of things.

 

If you do not ask about an alerted call, that is your responsibility and yours only.

 

But one thing really confuses me in this case... East didn't want to ask, since his question might hint at South to pass the 2♦ bid. Why oh why didn't East take a glance at the convention card? Then he would have known. (This was not the ACBL where CC's are in the opponent's handbag. This was in the UK.)

 

Rik

[campboy]

My main p and I play a version of Keri. Our red suit transfers are sometimes based on a 4 card suit. We (rightly or wrongly) alert because of this. I would be extremely narked if a director ruled MI because an opponent did not bother to ask what the alert meant if it could possibly be relevant to them.

It is correct to alert these in the EBU.

 

Trinidad: I don't see why looking at the CC is any better than asking, since this information will be on an inside page and so all three other players will be aware that he looked.

[Trinidad]

It is correct to alert these in the EBU.

 

Trinidad: I don't see why looking at the CC is any better than asking, since this information will be on an inside page and so all three other players will be aware that he looked.

 

I don't know how the EBU CC is designed, but if it is designed like most "small cards" (A6 booklets or similar) then the basics of the system (basic system, 1 openings, NT ranges and leads & signals) will be on the outside. That is the part that I read when I get the card at the beginning of the round. In 99% of the cases it doesn't take more than 5 seconds to comprehend what is written on the outside. So you read it and open the card.

 

Then you will usually find a list of conventions, information on overcalls, etc. . I expect that the type of player who doesn't want to ask because he might give the opponents information puts himself in such a position that he needs to ask as little as possible. If he would have opened the CC at the beginning of the round, he would be in that position. Unless he has a problem with his eyesight, he will only need to look from the corner of his eye.

 

Rik

[RMB1]

I don't know how the EBU CC is designed, but if it is designed like most "small cards" (A6 booklets or similar) then the basics of the system (basic system, 1 openings, NT ranges and leads & signals) will be on the outside. ...

 

For information: various versions of the convention cards are available from the EBU web site, including the standard EBU 20B convention card, as PDF.

[barmar]

since when is spades and another the normal meaning for 2♦? it may be normal for people who play that themselves. it certainly isn't normal for me or anyone else I know.

It's part of the Astro and Asptro conventions (and Aspro has the minor variation spades and a minor). Is there a jurisdiction where these are common NT defenses?

[mjj29]

It's part of the Astro and Asptro conventions (and Aspro has the minor variation spades and a minor). Is there a jurisdiction where these are common NT defenses?

Around here (EBU/Cambridge) I'd expect if I had a scratch game with someone either they wouldn't want to play any system or they would know one of those (even if they preferred something like multi-landy).

[barmar]

I have never liked the attitude, common in some countries, that an alert of a call tells players something positive about the caller's hand. An alert is a warning that opponents may wish to ask about the meaning of the call, nothing more. Since it conveys nothing about the hand, it can hardly be MI.

It tells them it's NOT one of the non-alertable hand types. But that leaves a wide variety of possible meanings, so it doesn't narrow it down very much.

 

Failure to alert when an alert is required is MI, true. Alerting when not required is not.

20F5a says "'Mistaken explanation' here includes ... an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require."

[blackshoe]

20F5a says "'Mistaken explanation' here includes ... an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require."

 

So it does. :blink: Strangely, Law 21B1A refers only to failure to alert, not to alerting when not required, as MI. Yet the ACBL's alert regulation recommends alerting when you're not sure if it's required. It would seem the height of folly for an RA to suggest players do something, and then say "we're going to adjust the score because you did that".

[campboy]

I don't see why it is folly. While it is true that either alerting when you should not or not alerting when you should is MI, the former is very much less likely to damage opponents (since it doesn't give very specific information) and consequently very much less likely to lead to an adjusted score. That seems like a good enough reason to give the recommendation.

[blackshoe]

Well, all I can say is that I would expect most people who were told "the alert regs tell you to alert if you're not sure", then do that, and then were told "sorry, that's MI, so I'm adjusting the score" would not be happy - and it only has to happen once; the rumor mill will take it from there.

[bluejak]

That's all very well, Ed, but when we rule we do so as the Laws require, and not with the intent of keeping the ACBL rumour mill happy. If you alert when it is not clear whether you should alert or not, that ACBL regulation means such an alert is not MI. But if you alert when it is clearly not alertable, it is MI, whatever the regulation says, and if MI leads to damage, you adjust.

 

The other thing is that several posts refer to what is likely, probable, does happen and so forth, all of which is irrelevant, surely, to a particular ruling. Of course adjustments for MI for alerting when you should not are rare. But that does not mean you should not when they are MI and damage is caused.

[blackshoe]

I Never said you shouldn't.