Possible UI from a non-alert

[mrdct]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj93hj3d942ck6432&w=sakq65ht94daq8ca9&n=s8742hq65dt76cjt8&e=sthak872dkj53cq75&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1sp2hp2n(18-19%20bal%20not%20alerted)p3dp3hp4hp4np5hp6hppp]399|300[/hv]

This hand was played in a moderately serious event in Australia without screens with all four players having international representative experience. East-West play a modified version of Acol with a 12-14 1NT opening in all positions together with opening suit lengths of 5443 and 2/1 F1; but their system card was not sufficiently detailed to disclose the point ranges of their NT rebids. At the start of the 12-board match South began giving some pre-alerts as North-South were playing a short club system with lots of transfers and few other unexpected treatments. East said, "don't bother pre-alerting" to which South said "I'm fairly sure pre-alerting is compulsory - best we ask the TD". The TD was called and he told East that just like you aren't permitted to ask your opponents to not alert during the auction, you are not permitted to ask them to not pre-alert prior to play. South proceded to give all of his side's pre-alerts and East-West gave no pre-alerts (even though they had several things in their system requiring pre-alerts including a brown sticker convention which came up during the match). There was a little bit of tension at the table after this early chest-beating by South and East, but nothing over the top.

 

The ABF Alerting Regulations were in force, with the most relevant clauses being:

 

2.2.2 A natural NT bid is a bid that shows a preparedness to play in NT, and conveys no specific information about your suit holdings.

 

3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz.

 

(a) The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples:

•Responder’s first round jump shift on weak hands.

•A non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid (whether or not after intervention).

•A pass which forces partner to take action (e.g. SWINE).

 

(b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples:

•A natural NT overcall in the direct position, which does not promise a stopper in the overcalled suit.

•A jump raise of opener’s one-level bid which may be weak or pre-emptive.

•A single raise of partner’s suit which may be strong or forcing e.g. 1♦ - 2♦ forcing.

•The rebid in a canapé sequence where the second suit may be longer than the first.

•A 1♥ opening which denies holding 4+ spades.

 

Prior to the opening lead, South enquired about the range of the 2NT rebid and East said "15-17 balanced" which West immediately corrected to "18-19 balanced" and East apologised and said "oh sorry I forgot". South then called the TD saying that it appeared very unusual for the 2NT rebidder to make a slam try after partner's sign-off in 4♥ when she'd shown such a narrow point range. The TD asked that play continue and 6♥ duly made 12 tricks on the ♣6 lead. The TD returned to the table and South argued that East's failure to alert the unexpected point-range of the 2NT rebid gave UI to West that East might be playing her to be a bit weaker than she actual is and she used that UI to make a move after East had signed-off in 4♥. South also argued that assuming East-West follow the principle of fast arrival, West had already shown slam interest by bidding 3♥ rather than 4♥ and East did admit that they were in a game forcing auction after the 2NT bid. South also claimed that West took a long time before she bid 4NT so she was clearly contemplating passing 4♥, but East-West did not admit that the 4NT bid was slow.

 

Questions:

 

1. Do you think 2NT is alertable under the Australian Alerting Regulations?

 

2. How would you rule?

[alphatango]

1. Do you think 2NT is alertable under the Australian Alerting Regulations?

 

No. All of 2NT (15-17), 2NT (15-19), and 2NT (18-19) would be forcing, and the opponents would expect it to be so. That eliminates clause 3.2.2a. Nor is the agreement as to strength sufficiently unexpected to qualify under 3.2.2b.

 

I assume they do not normally alert the 2NT rebid, but that would be worth investigating.

 

2. How would you rule?

 

There being no apparent UI, result stands.

 

Is the auction suspicious? Not enough info, but it will be highly dependent on other agreements. Do all hands with a second suit bid it over 2NT, or only hands with slam interest? What about extra length (e.g. ten cards in the red suits)?

[mrdct]

I assume they do not normally alert the 2NT rebid, but that would be worth investigating.

I was South as it happens and have only played against East-West a few times in my life and possibly seen them on Vugraph once or twice, but I can't recall ever seeing their 2NT rebid after a 2/1 so there not much I can add as to whether or they have previously alerted it. The TD didn't ask that question (perhaps he should have but the likely response would surely have been, "we never alert it").

 

Is the auction suspicious? Not enough info, but it will be highly dependent on other agreements. Do all hands with a second suit bid it over 2NT, or only hands with slam interest? What about extra length (e.g. ten cards in the red suits)?

Whenever a limited hand makes a slam try after partner has signed-off the auction is suspicious by definition imho. The TD didn't make any enquiries about other inferential information available to West from their other agreements as he was in the "2NT is not alertable so there is no UI" camp. No bids in the auction were alerted, but it was certainly a slow auction after the 2NT bid but I didn't allege that East's 4♥ bid was out of tempo at the time and won't now.

[aguahombre]

I assume they do not normally alert the 2NT rebid, but that would be worth investigating.

I would assume that as well. True, the 18-19 range is unexpected. But, although this might warrant an explanation at the end of the auction, consistently not alerting it must be right.

 

The opponents would have no need to know that information at the time the bid was made; and alerting or not alerting it can only give the bidding side UI issues if there has been a mistake. Actually, even if there has been no mistake, elimination of doubt that they are on the same page is UI.

 

Australian alert regs are not in my sphere of knowledge, but there could be no damage from consistent failure to alert this. Without the atmosphere of chest pounding described in the OP, this should not have even come up.

[Rossoneri]

I do not see any reason why the 2NT call should be alert, neither do I see any UI being transmitted. Result stands.

[paulg]

I see no reason for 2NT to be alertable.

 

West seems to have one of the strongest nineteen count I've ever seen opposite a partner who has made a 2/1 response and shown at least nine red cards. He can cover all the black losers, has supporting honours in partner's suit and trumps are the only issue. Even opposite partner's sign-off he could be cold for a grand slam and using Blackwood is the bid I would expect every expert to make.

 

South is tilting at windmills.

[Cascade]

West seems to have one of the strongest nineteen count I've ever seen opposite a partner who has made a 2/1 response and shown at least nine red cards.

 

Add in a "balanced" qualifier and I agree.

[Cyberyeti]

I see no reason for 2NT to be alertable.

 

West seems to have one of the strongest nineteen count I've ever seen opposite a partner who has made a 2/1 response and shown at least nine red cards. He can cover all the black losers, has supporting honours in partner's suit and trumps are the only issue. Even opposite partner's sign-off he could be cold for a grand slam and using Blackwood is the bid I would expect every expert to make.

 

South is tilting at windmills.

Agreed, I'd have treated it as 20 first up.

 

xx, AKQxx, Kxxx, xx is sufficient for a decent grand, W is entitled to go on opposite any 2/1.

[mrdct]

Fair enough on the non-alertable consensus, but please bear in mind that in Acol a 2/1 is merely 10+.

[RMB1]

Fair enough on the non-alertable consensus, but please bear in mind that in Acol a 2/1 is merely 10+.

 

I don't understand this at all. Whether 2/1 is 10+ or GF, a 2NT rebid that is 15+ or 18+ is still forcing. If forcing 2NT is alertable then any of 15-17, 15-19 or 18-19 is alertable. So even if there should be an alert, and the lack of alert is UI, I don't see what is suggests.

[blackshoe]

It struck me when I read the OP that South was flailing at windmills, trying his damnedest to get EW's good result thrown out. I don't see anything suspect in EW's auction. Result stands.

[bluejak]

There seems a presumption amongst certain posters here, and in many other threads here and elsewhere, that someone who asks for a ruling does so in an unfortunate fashion. If your opponents give you the wrong information and there is some doubt as to whether there should be an alert, asking for a ruling is automatic, and does not involve tilting at windmills or anything else.

 

The TD did not do his job properly, which is a shame. The question as to whether this E/W pair believes 2NT showing 18-19 is alertable and whether they normally alert it is vital, and should have been asked. There can be no sensible decision as to whether UI was transmitted without knowing the answer to that. Whether the ABF believes it to be alertable is actually irrelevant: that would affect MI but MI is irrelevant. It does not affect UI.

 

Of course, one might believe that pass over 4♥ is not an LA. That means the question of whether there is UI is irrelevant, true.

 

Incidentally, please remember not everyone plays the same methods as yourselves. Assuming the 2♥ was GF is unhelpful: mrdct points out that in Acol it is 10+. Maybe for him: I play it as 8+ myself. It looks like another question that should have been asked.

 

Having read the regulations, I think 2NT alertable.

[aguahombre]

The question as to whether this E/W pair believes 2NT showing 18-19 is alertable and whether they normally alert it is vital, and should have been asked. There can be no sensible decision as to whether UI was transmitted without knowing the answer to that. Whether the ABF believes it to be alertable is actually irrelevant: that would affect MI but MI is irrelevant. It does not affect UI.

 

Having read the regulations, I think 2NT alertable.

Yes, whether this pair believes 2N is alertable and whether they normally alert it are the ONLY things important in this case. If they don't, next hand; no damage. If they do, UI might have occurred.

 

Whether we think it is alertable, or whether Australia thinks it is alertable, just plain doesn't matter here. Surely the opponents ---objective as they are--- would have this in mind when they called the TD, rather than just to quibble about whether the bid itself is alertable.

[blackshoe]

I read what was posted here about the regulations. I don't see a basis for 2NT to be alertable. What did I miss?

[aguahombre]

I read what was posted here about the regulations. I don't see a basis for 2NT to be alertable. What did I miss?

The only thing you might have missed is that, even if it is not technically alertable, there could be a problem if this pair normally alerts it.

[bluejak]

I read what was posted here about the regulations. I don't see a basis for 2NT to be alertable. What did I miss?

3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz.

 

(b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect.

In my view this makes it alertable. I cannot see any agreements that you are likely to expect that makes a 2NT rebid in Acol 18-19.

[blackshoe]

What is the "other agreement" here?

 

IIRC, the "standard" meaning of a 2NT rebid in Acol is that it is natural, balanced, and 17-18 HCP. Granted 18-19 is not 17-18, is this really so different as to require an alert?

[campboy]

IIRC, the "standard" meaning of a 2NT rebid in Acol is that it is natural, balanced, and 17-18 HCP. Granted 18-19 is not 17-18, is this really so different as to require an alert?

Not after a 2/1 it isn't.

 

The unexpected other agreement here is whatever they do with 15-17 balanced: it is (arguably) unexpected if a 3NT rebid is weaker than a 2NT rebid, for instance.

[blackshoe]

Okay, what is Acol "standard" after a 2/1? 15-17?

 

I don't care to guess what this pair does with 15-16 balanced in this auction. I'd rather ask them. Then we can decide whether that agreement is "unexpected".

[campboy]

Okay, what is Acol "standard" after a 2/1? 15-17?

 

I don't care to guess what this pair does with 15-16 balanced in this auction. I'd rather ask them. Then we can decide whether that agreement is "unexpected".

Either 15-17 or 15-19 I imagine.

 

Of course it would be nice to be able to ask the players what their agreement on handling 15-17 hands is, and that is what we would do if we were called to the table, but we can't.

 

I wasn't guessing what this pair do with 15-17 balanced. I was deliberately giving the only possibility where I thought the unexpectedness was arguable. If they have agreed to bid anything other than 2NT or 3NT on a flat 15-count then that is highly unexpected.

[mjj29]

Either 15-17 or 15-19 I imagine.

I don't think 'a reasonable subset of an expected range and the same shape' is really 'highly unexpected'. Certainly I could see alerting a 3NT that shows 15-16, but I don't see how 2NT is 'unexpected' to contain 18 or 19 points when 15-19 is an accepted common range. How differently are you as the other side going to treat 15-19 facing 10+ and 18-19 facing 10+ during the rest of the auction?

[mrdct]

In my view this makes it alertable. I cannot see any agreements that you are likely to expect that makes a 2NT rebid in Acol 18-19.

Well thanks for the lifeline David, and that was certainly my view at the time although we seem to be in the minority.

 

What made me suspicious at the table was East's initial explantion of 2NT of the more "normal" 15-17 which West quickly corrected to "18-19". I certainly got the sense that West was indeed worried that East had forgotten this unusual agreement when she went into the tank after East's 4♥ bid. I agree that West has a very good hand, but her partner didn't cue over 3♥ so why should she expect anything better than a filthy 10-count from East absent both minor kings?

 

After the match, I discussed the alertability of a number of other "unexpected point range" NT rebids with the ruling TD as I have a few in my own bidding system which I religiously alert, such as 1♣:1♦(showing ♥):1NT=18-19 balanced which is most certainly an unexpected point range which is affected by the agreement to accept the transfer on all 11-14 balanced hands with 2 or 3 ♥. The ruling TD (who is one of Australia's most senior directors and is on the WBF panel) opined that 1NT in that auction would not be alertable, but there's no harm in alerting it.

[bluejak]

I don't think 'a reasonable subset of an expected range and the same shape' is really 'highly unexpected'. Certainly I could see alerting a 3NT that shows 15-16, but I don't see how 2NT is 'unexpected' to contain 18 or 19 points when 15-19 is an accepted common range. How differently are you as the other side going to treat 15-19 facing 10+ and 18-19 facing 10+ during the rest of the auction?

I do. I have been playing Acol and against Acol players for what? 40 years? I have never run into anyone who plays a 2NT rebid to not include 15, and I don't believe you have, mjj, either.

 

So the incredibly unusual agreement, whatever it is, that this pair have on what they do with 15-17 [rebid 3NT is my guess, and miss 5-3 spade fits] makes this 2NT alertable.

[campboy]

I don't think 'a reasonable subset of an expected range and the same shape' is really 'highly unexpected'. Certainly I could see alerting a 3NT that shows 15-16, but I don't see how 2NT is 'unexpected' to contain 18 or 19 points when 15-19 is an accepted common range. How differently are you as the other side going to treat 15-19 facing 10+ and 18-19 facing 10+ during the rest of the auction?

It is not what is shown but what is denied that is unexpected. Wouldn't you alert if you were playing 6-card majors?

 

Of course, the questions "do the regulations require an alert" and "is alerting going to help opponents" are not the same. In the EBU even the standard meanings of this rebid are alertable!

[sfi]

What made me suspicious at the table was East's initial explantion of 2NT of the more "normal" 15-17 which West quickly corrected to "18-19".

 

Treating 2NT as stronger than 3NT when both are game forcing is standard here (same country, few hours drive away), so I would certainly not have expected an alert. Nor would I expect one in national events.

 

Bluejak, it may not be an agreement that you have come across in England, but there are pockets of Australia where it is common (I accept that this may be rather more "modified" Acol than would be seen in England). In general, there is enough variety here that this sort of a difference does not seem to be alertable. They both mean "balanced, narrowly defined point range".

 

On the actual hand, East forced to game with 2♥, so it's unreasonable to expect West to sign off over 4♥.