no alert

[jillybean]

ACBL South opens 1N

 

1N (X*) 2♣ (2♦)

P   (P) 2♥ (P)

2N  (P) 3N

 

1N 15-17, X* was alerted and explained as single suit, no other bid in the auction was alerted.

 

During the play, the 2♦ bidder showed up with ♦Jxxx and ♠Q. After the hand was over defenders (EW) were asked about the 2♦ bid. East (the 2♦ bidder) said I alerted X!, West (the doubler) said 2♦ is asking for my suit.

 

Declarer had played East for the ♦ honors, for -1

 

Does NS have a case to call the director and how should a call be handled?

What are dummy's rights here after the play has concluded, to call attention to the apparent failure to alert?

[hrothgar]

Hi Kathryn

 

Are you sure that there was a failure to alert?

 

Assume for the moment that the auction starts

 

(1N) - X* - (P) - ???

 

where double shows a single suited hand...

 

I know all sorts of pairs who have an explict agreement that 2♣ is an artifical bid asking the player who doubled to show their suit.

 

Now assume that the auction starts

 

(1N) - X* - (2♣) - ???

 

where double once again shows a single suited hand...

 

I don't know anyone who plays 2♦ as an artificial, asking that the hand that doubles to show their suit.

 

Its entirely possible that East thought that 2♦ was an artificial asking bid, however, its far from clear that this is the actual systemic agreement...

[ahydra]

Could you clarify your post a bit - put NSEW directions on the auction and also explain/correct the "East said I alerted 2♣" - should it be 2♦?

 

Thanks

 

ahydra

[jillybean]

Hi Richard, I agree it is unusual to play 2♦ as an asking bid here but this makes West either more confused than East or a lier when he said it was asking for his suit.

[jillybean]

Could you clarify your post a bit - put NSEW directions on the auction and also explain/correct the "East said I alerted 2♣" - should it be 2♦?

 

Thanks

 

ahydra

 

Done. When East was asked about her 2♦ bid she said 'I alerted X! Which I assume indicated that we should have known 2♦ was now the relay. The explanation IS correct now, sorry for the stupidity.

[hrothgar]

Hi Richard, I agree it is unusual to play 2♦ as an asking bid here but this makes West either more confused than East or a lier when he said it was asking for his suit.

 

Here's a famous quote (which might evoke a grin from Blackshoes)

 

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

[jillybean]

Here's a famous quote (which might evoke a grin from Blackshoes)

 

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity

 

It doesn't seem right that some people can play frequent, tournament bridge and still get off scott free because of stupidity. :)

[mycroft]

I play one-suited X with several partners, and we have discussed this auction (p is quiet, XX is "pass or correct", and suits are "mine is better than yours, partner"). I have seen people play 2D "pass or correct" (because they think 2C is natural, I don't know?), but I've seen people play stolen bid doubles (against whom my DONT overcalls are even more Bergenesque than normal - I like it when they can't double).

 

From a laws perspective, I don't care what East did or said (but I'm going to explain to East that "I Alerted the double" doesn't maean anything about the Alertability of 2D) - it's what the agreement is (if there is one) and what West did after 2D.

 

2D "bid your suit" doesn't show diamonds, and it doesn't fit with the ACBL's rules on "unAlertable conventional calls"; it's Alertable. Assuming West agrees that 2D means "bid your suit", then we've got a MI case. If West doesn't agree (he thinks 2D is "my suit is better than yours"), then we have "no agreement" on 2D, and we need to rule based on that. If West can give evidence that 2D isn't P/C (which I highly doubt, but still) that meets the Lawful limit, then we're in mistaken bid territory, and at that point, you have no redress.

 

Unfortunately, there is a belief of "they did something wrong, we deserve a good score" - which isn't always correct. Don't worry, you'll have enough time for them to give you more good scores when they continue to do these things wrong. Here, however, there's a case, and I'd of course want to be there to do the investigation before I made a ruling.

 

Ah, rereading the OP, I see that West agreed that 2D was P/C; so my first case applies.

[jillybean]

Thanks mycroft. I dont want a "we deserve a good score because they did something wrong" but I want a fair hearing, something I didn't get this time. For future reference I`d like to know what should happen next if the TD had decided that this was MI. And what does a player do if they disagree with a decision, as was the case here.

[blackshoe]

I did smile — at Richard's parenthetical expression more than the quote. :P

 

I agree that this seems like an MI case. After the play is over, dummy is no longer dummy, and has the same rights as any other player, including the right to call attention to an irregularity. After such attention is drawn, of course, all four players are responsible to see that the director is called.

 

If the TD decides there was MI, then he must decide if the MI damaged the NOS. If so, then he adjusts the score. Law 47E applies.

 

If the TD does not seem to know the law, ask him to read it from the book.

 

If a player disagrees with the decision of the TD, he can (should, in most cases, imo) appeal.

[mycroft]

Ed's got your questions covered, sorry I elided them.

 

Yes, until the correction period is over, the TD can be summoned and the case presented. Of course, the later it is the harder it is to present and to do anything about it. Dummy can't say anything, as Ed says, until the hand is over, but if declarer didn't query it then, at the right time, dummy can.

 

If they both are saying that 2D is obviously pass/correct (I'd love to know what they're going to do if west's suit is clubs - or maybe East is happy playing 3C in that case), then somebody should call the TD (remember, East can't say anything about the failure to Alert until after the hand (not that it's going to matter here)).

 

The TD will follow the Laws - figure out if there was an agreement, whether there was MI, and whether or not there was damage (lots of reasons why there might not have been: either because the losing play was still the right play with correct information, or whether the "self-protection regulation" applies, or whether the play made no sense even with the MI, or if there was no winning play, or whatever), and rule accordingly. One would hope that the TD would also point out the Alertability of an artificial 2D in this sequence, and that not everybody plays this the same way (so it's not obvious, even after "I alerted the double").

 

And while Ed is right about appeal, I would ask the TD away from the table about the ruling I don't agree with, and could she explain it to me more carefully? before lodging an appeal. I'm sure I've told this story before, but I have only had one ruling I planned on appealing, because it was clearly insane. We asked the CTD for an appeal form, and he was somewhat surprised. When we explained the ruling we were given at the table, he was less surprised, and said that that wasn't the ruling they had agreed on. When he gave us *that* ruling, it was reasonable (even though we disagreed), so we dropped the appeal. I've had 4 or 5 times people were going to appeal my rulings, until I had time to explain it more fully away from the table; and then they didn't (even though, as with the above, they still didn't agree with my/our judgement).

[blackshoe]

I think it's incumbent on a TD to explain his rulings in such a way as to minimize appeals on the basis of misunderstanding. Of course, players aren't always willing to "waste time" listening to such explanations. :rolleyes: :blink:

[mrdct]

A problem with these sorts of hands is that the normal thing for declarer to do if the location of the ♦ honours is so important is to ask a question or two about the style and range of the dbl and whether or not EW play pass/correct after intervention; so in this case declarer is seeking obtaining a free hit because she can play east for the honours at the table and if she's wrong, get a second chance with the TD. A nice way of combining your chances. Can you post the full hand? Edited April 5, 2011 by mrdct

[jillybean]

I can't post the full hands because I can't remember the hands, this was a TM and for some reason HR's are never provided for team games, except in McBruce's games.

 

Declarer was not seeking a free hit here, I was dummy and called the director at the end of the hand. While it may be normal for a certain level of player to ask questions about style, range, p/c after intervention it is not normal at all levels. I find it somewhat alarming that the NOS can be regarded as the offenders!

[mrdct]

I can't post the full hands because I can't remember the hands, this was a TM and for some reason HR's are never provided for team games, except in McBruce's games.

 

Declarer was not seeking a free hit here, I was dummy and called the director at the end of the hand. While it may be normal for a certain level of player to ask questions about style, range, p/c after intervention it is not normal at all levels. I find it somewhat alarming that the NOS can be regarded as the offenders!

I've edited my previous post as I agree that "seeking" is a bit harsh; particularly as I have no idea what the standard of the player in question is and nor do I know the full layout.

 

On the limited information that we have I'm not entirely convinced that 2♦ is alertable. As it was freely bid I think it most likley conveys something along the lines of "I have a willingness to play in ♦ but if your single-suiter is a nice major - bid it". This could a 40B6(a) situation of "need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players". What would double of the non-alerted and presumedly natural 2♣ bid have meant?

[jillybean]

I find it hard to believe that 2♦ could be natural, willing to play with Jxxx, I think East bid 2♦ thinking it was 'show your suit'. West confirmed 2♦ was asking for his suit but I wouldn't be surprised to find there was no agreement.

 

To add a wrinkle to the puzzle, there was a second failure to alert - 2♣ was stayman.

[bluejak]

Hi Richard, I agree it is unusual to play 2♦ as an asking bid here but this makes West either more confused than East or a lier when he said it was asking for his suit.

No, it doesn't. People often answer questions very badly, and one of the most common 'wrong' answers to questions so to say something as an agreement which is not really. That is a far cry from being a liar.

 

It doesn't seem right that some people can play frequent, tournament bridge and still get off scott free because of stupidity. :)

If tournament players did not make mistakes it would not be worth playing against them. If every time a player made a mistake they automatically lost on the board the game of bridge would die very quickly indeed. We should just accept that players make mistakes: some are redressed by Law, many are not. Some get the person who made a mistake a good score: far more get them a bad score.

 

A problem with these sorts of hands is that the normal thing for declarer to do if the location of the ♦ honours is so important is to ask a question or two about the style and range of the dbl and whether or not EW play pass/correct after intervention; so in this case declarer is seeking obtaining a free hit because she can play east for the honours at the table and if she's wrong, get a second chance with the TD. A nice way of combining your chances.

If you do not want people to get a very slight advantage this way there is an easy solution: follow the Laws. This anti-victim approach always annoys me: during the play how was declarer meant to know he had been misinformed?

 

I think more sympathy for victims would be good for the game.

 

On the limited information that we have I'm not entirely convinced that 2♦ is alertable. As it was freely bid I think it most likley conveys something along the lines of "I have a willingness to play in ♦ but if your single-suiter is a nice major - bid it". This could a 40B6(a) situation of "need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players".

Where on earth did this come from? You bid a suit of Jxxx which you are willing to play there when partner does not have diamonds? What is he meant to do - pass with a poor six card major and let you play a 4-2 fit?

 

Your suggestion is not general bridge knowledge, it is rash and a silly use of 2♦ and there is no evidence they were playing this.

[hrothgar]

I did smile — at Richard's parenthetical expression more than the quote. :P

 

Here I go to all the trouble to quote somethign that may or may not have been written by Heinlein, and what thanks do I get...

[blackshoe]

Here I go to all the trouble to quote somethign that may or may not have been written by Heinlein, and what thanks do I get...

 

:) I'm sorry, Richard, I do appreciate the effort — and Heinlein did say it, or something very similar. Rather one of his characters did. For those who may not know, Heinlein may or may not have originated it. See Hanlon's Razor.

[ahydra]

What about the "failed to protect himself" aspect - could declarer not have asked, after the opening lead was faced, what 2D meant?

 

Not a nice way to make friends with defenders though as when the MI is discovered, one or both of them now has UI and must tread lightly...

 

ahydra

[bluejak]

What "failed to protect themselves" aspect: where is that in the Laws? Do you ask about normal unalerted bids to see whether they are really conventions that opponents failed to alert?

 

If people do not want to get adjustments against hem perhaps they should follow the Laws.

[peachy]

I find it hard to believe that 2♦ could be natural, willing to play with Jxxx, I think East bid 2♦ thinking it was 'show your suit'. West confirmed 2♦ was asking for his suit but I wouldn't be surprised to find there was no agreement.

 

To add a wrinkle to the puzzle, there was a second failure to alert - 2♣ was stayman.

 

Sorry if this puts in more wrinkles but Stayman is not alerted in ACBL. The chart says under No Alert:

Stayman (next higher level of clubs) asking for a four-card major. (Also, Stayman after the NT opening has been doubled.)

[barmar]

"Protect oneself" appears in ACBL regulations, not the Laws. But it only applies when the player has experience that suggests that there may be failure to disclose properly.

 

In this case, it's unusual for 2♦ to be anything other than natural. While it's certainly within declarer's rights to confirm this, I don't see why he should be expected to. The non-alert matches his expectations.

[blackshoe]

ACBL General Conditions of Contest: Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.

 

Note that this does not say "if the TD thinks they should recognize…" so the TD should ask, and only if they say "yeah, I was pretty sure they should have alerted" or the like does this regulation kick in.

 

I couldn't find anywhere in the alert procedure a discussion of the specific auction 1NT-(X)-2♣. All the regulation says is "Stayman (2♣ over lNT or 3♣ over 2NT) does not require an alert". All the examples are of uncontested auctions. :huh:

[peachy]

Note that this does not say "if the TD thinks they should recognize…" so the TD should ask, and only if they say "yeah, I was pretty sure they should have alerted" or the like does this regulation kick in.

 

I couldn't find anywhere in the alert procedure a discussion of the specific auction 1NT-(X)-2♣. All the regulation says is "Stayman (2♣ over lNT or 3♣ over 2NT) does not require an alert". All the examples are of uncontested auctions. :huh:

 

It is stated in the Alert Chart in the section "Responses to NT openings and overcalls" which I presume - maybe wrongly ? - is just a condensed form of the regulation itself. But in this case gives more information, hehe.

Quote from the No Alert column:

Stayman (next higher level of clubs) asking for a four-card major. (Also, Stayman after the NT opening has been doubled.)