Ooops. Forgot to alert, forgot to ask.

[jillybean]

The opponents have an auction in which they fail to alert a bid, or bids and this failure to alert results in the defenders not

making the optimum lead.

 

Where in the laws does it say that the NOS should protect themselves by asking about the auction? And, if it does indeed say this

doesn't it create a situation where a failure to alert has very little risk because you will either get a ruling in your favour or the

results will be adjusted as if the optimum lead was made?

[LH2650]

In the ACBL Alert Procedures you will find:

 

"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 a mere suspicion does not meet this requirement, but there have been complaints that some ACBL directors interpret it that way.

[Mbodell]

I think the ACBL does this pretty poorly and too often protects the offending side at the cost of the non-offending side. I'd interpret that ACBL language to mean something like if the auction goes, unopposed and unalerted and unannounced other than nt range, 1nt(15-17)-2♥-2♠-3nt and you now fail to lead a heart because you argue that the failure to announce a transfer meant that you thought the heart bid was natural, and it turns out the heart lead is what is best, that you could reasonably be expected to ask "so was the 2♥ a transfer" before your lead. But it has to be pretty obvious to me.

[paulg]

The EBU policy is more explicit:

 

3A3 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side's interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

This area will always require a subjective assessment by the TD. But at least the EBU makes it clear that it has to be obvious and that you should not put your own interests at risk. Perhaps rulings would be more consistent in the ACBL if the same advice was given to its TDs.

[Cyberyeti]

I thought that after the auction finished, before you led, if partnership agreement is that the bid was conventional that the person who made the bid that his partner should have alerted was supposed to inform you of this. You may under some circumstances get the final pass back too.

 

Otherwise as others have said.

[jillybean]

I think the ACBL does this pretty poorly and too often protects the offending side at the cost of the non-offending side. I'd interpret that ACBL language to mean something like if the auction goes, unopposed and unalerted and unannounced other than nt range, 1nt(15-17)-2♥-2♠-3nt and you now fail to lead a heart because you argue that the failure to announce a transfer meant that you thought the heart bid was natural, and it turns out the heart lead is what is best, that you could reasonably be expected to ask "so was the 2♥ a transfer" before your lead. But it has to be pretty obvious to me.

I agree. The OS is not only protected but I have never witnessed a warning given, never mind a penalty.

 

 

The EBU policy is more explicit:

 

"3A3 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side's interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled."

 

This area will always require a subjective assessment by the TD. But at least the EBU makes it clear that it has to be obvious and that you should not put your own interests at risk. Perhaps rulings would be more consistent in the ACBL if the same advice was given to its TDs.

The Brits are so much smarter with their wording of the laws. I like the addition of "no risk UI" in the NOS asking questions, which has been a concern of mine.

 

I thought that after the auction finished, before you led, if partnership agreement is that the bid was conventional that the person who made the bid that his partner should have alerted was supposed to inform you of this. You may under some circumstances get the final pass back too.

 

Otherwise as others have said.

I failed to mention, I am talking about 2 offences. 1. failure to alert. 2. failure to disclose the agreement before the opening lead.

[barmar]

I failed to mention, I am talking about 2 offences. 1. failure to alert. 2. failure to disclose the agreement before the opening lead.

If they didn't realize it was alertable (offence #1) why would they think it required disclosure after the auction is over (#2)?

 

Although #1 and #2 would be committed by different players, so that requires BOTH players in the partnership to be misinformed about a convention's alertability. But that's not so unlikely -- one of them might have been told by the other.

[blackshoe]

Doesn't matter if they didn't realize, those are both still offenses.

[barmar]

20F4 refers to a player "subsequently realizing" that his explanation was incorrect. So at least in this case, if you don't realize the mistake, it's not an offense to fail to call the TD about it.

 

20F5 refers to a partner's misexplanation (which includes failure to alert). It doesn't include the word "realize", but I don't know how we can expect someone to comply with this law if they don't realize it.

 

On the other hand, it seems obvious that ignorance of the alert regulations should not be a valid excuse. Otherwise, everyone could simply avoid learning them and be off the hook.

[McBruce]

The opponents have an auction in which they fail to alert a bid, or bids and this failure to alert results in the defenders not making the optimum lead.

 

It's not always that simple. I have seen defenders make the dumbest leads imaginable, then claim that with the alert they would have led the right card from the right suit instead of the wrong card from the wrong suit. The correct answer to the implied question is you are likely to get an adjusted score here but not certain to.

 

Where in the laws does it say that the NOS should protect themselves by asking about the auction? And, if it does indeed say this doesn't it create a situation where a failure to alert has very little risk because you will either get a ruling in your favour or the results will be adjusted as if the optimum lead was made?

 

The non-alerters are certainly at risk if their failure to alert causes damage and the assigned result lowers their score. As others have pointed out, the Laws allow NCBOs to create their own regulations for how partnership agreements are to be communicated. And yes, there are ACBL TDs who have moments of exasperation when a player claims damage after an auction and explanation that screams that something is off. But most of the time, the adjusted score will be given. With club TDs you may find it harder to get the adjusted score in a dubious case, because many feel that the customers will not come back if they get the impression that they will always get penalized for missing an alert. (That's just laziness; with tact and patience, and sometimes a few rounds pretending you are considering what to do to let them cool off, a TD can almost always explain why a score is being adjusted.)

 

It would be better if you gave an actual example. As a TD I get questions like these all the time, without a specific example. If I say "yes, the ruling should have been thus-and-so" I invariably soon find the player applying my answer to any number of situations that are not even close to relevant. So I avoid answering questions which do not have a specific example.

[blackshoe]

I failed to mention, I am talking about 2 offences. 1. failure to alert. 2. failure to disclose the agreement before the opening lead.

 

Doesn't matter if they didn't realize, those are both still offenses.

 

20F4 refers to a player "subsequently realizing" that his explanation was incorrect. So at least in this case, if you don't realize the mistake, it's not an offense to fail to call the TD about it.

 

20F5 refers to a partner's misexplanation (which includes failure to alert). It doesn't include the word "realize", but I don't know how we can expect someone to comply with this law if they don't realize it.

 

On the other hand, it seems obvious that ignorance of the alert regulations should not be a valid excuse. Otherwise, everyone could simply avoid learning them and be off the hook.

Your last is on the button. Failure to alert is an infraction of law 40. Failure to correct partner's failure to alert is an infraction of law 20F5, whether the player realizes he's supposed to correct it or not — unless in the latter case the TD determines that they actually didn't have an alertable agreement, since neither partner remembered it, which ought to be very rare.

[blackshoe]

The opponents have an auction in which they fail to alert a bid, or bids and this failure to alert results in the defenders not

making the optimum lead.

 

Where in the laws does it say that the NOS should protect themselves by asking about the auction? And, if it does indeed say this

doesn't it create a situation where a failure to alert has very little risk because you will either get a ruling in your favour or the

results will be adjusted as if the optimum lead was made?

Nowhere in the laws. The Alert Regulation says " 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 it does not say that such players are expected to recognize a failure to alert, so the TD has to have some evidence that they did in fact recognize it. As McBruce says, adjustment is not automatic, and the TD's handling of these cases is not always perfect. Also, each case is different, and must be handled individually — and we don't want people to say "but so-and-so told me…" when the situations are different.

[mrdct]

On the other hand, it seems obvious that ignorance of the alert regulations should not be a valid excuse. Otherwise, everyone could simply avoid learning them and be off the hook.

In Australia, ignorance of the alert regulations is quite often successfully used as an excuse for inadequate disclosure. The concept is touched-on in the ABF Alerting Regulations:

 

11.1

Tournament Directors will not allow players to manipulate these Regulations to their advantage. For example, opponents must be allowed enough time to alert; a speedy action out of tempo followed by a claim for a late alert will receive little sympathy. Likewise, experienced players claiming damage through a technical failure to alert will need to present a strong case. (my emphasis added)

 

When you are worried about potentially generating UI for partner and/or AI tells for declarer, a nonchalant "was everything natural?" or "can you explain the whole auction please?" by the guy on lead would rarely impart anything that could be reasonably inferred, particularly if you are in the habit of asking such a question whenever you are on the opening lead.

[barmar]

In Australia, ignorance of the alert regulations is quite often successfully used as an excuse for inadequate disclosure. The concept is touched-on in the ABF Alerting Regulations:

 

11.1

Tournament Directors will not allow players to manipulate these Regulations to their advantage. For example, opponents must be allowed enough time to alert; a speedy action out of tempo followed by a claim for a late alert will receive little sympathy. Likewise, experienced players claiming damage through a technical failure to alert will need to present a strong case. (my emphasis added)

That sounds like Australia's version of the ACBL and EBU regulations that say that experienced players should protect themselves. But in general, only novices can get away with claiming ignorance -- you shouldn't be able to use the excuse for many years.

[jillybean]

When you are worried about potentially generating UI for partner and/or AI tells for declarer, a nonchalant "was everything natural?" or "can you explain the whole auction please?" by the guy on lead would rarely impart anything that could be reasonably inferred, particularly if you are in the habit of asking such a question whenever you are on the opening lead.

 

The last time I tried this I was told "you can't ask that, you have to ask about a specific bid?!!" I am beginning to think it is much better as a player to remain ignorant of the laws, knowledge can be a constraint and a disadvantage.

[Mbodell]

The last time I tried this I was told "you can't ask that, you have to ask about a specific bid?!!" I am beginning to think it is much better as a player to remain ignorant of the laws, knowledge can be a constraint and a disadvantage.

 

"Director please!" It can feel awkward to do this, but when someone is lecturing on the rules at the table, and that person isn't directing this game, call the director. This is especially true if you think/know they are wrong.

[mycroft]

Not relevant to the thread, but -

Laying 3-1 on Ed's story coming up... not that he's the only one that it happens to. Just not in *my* games :-)

 

 

I do wish the TD was called more often in these cases, and earlier. There's a UI situation as well as the potential MI, *and* the "protect yourself" regulation, *and* the explanation to the opponents about their requirements, and the "but partner, you know it meant <this>" *after the hand*, and ... Earlier stops the "teaching disclosure regulations at the table", which always leads to a bright sunny disposition *before* the TD arrives[/sarcasm].

[Fluffy]

If you are responsible for not protecting yourself it doesn't mean that opponents aren't guilty of not alerting, so a split score should apply, but I have the feeling that this almost never happens.

 

The rule is very silly because to protect yourself you have to transmit UI almost always.

[barmar]

The rule is very silly because to protect yourself you have to transmit UI almost always.

The EBU version of the rule makes it clear that you don't have to ask if you think it will cause UI problems.

 

But I think there are plenty of times when it doesn't cause a problem. E.g. 1NT-2♥(no alert/announce)-2♠ -- it's reasonable to confirm that 2♥ was a transfer, and I don't think it suggests much about your holding. But I suspect you're more concerned about someone asking about the 2♥ bid before hearing the 2♠ bid. While this might be due to their holding hearts, it could just be that they're surprised the opponents might not be playing transfers like most people.

[blackshoe]

If I were in fourth seat, and heard the auction (1NT)-P-(2♥) to me, and I have spades and a hand which might want to compete, I probably want to know if RHO has spades. Do I really have to "protect myself" by asking? Forget the regulation for a minute. What does the law say? Well, it says that if I bid on the assumption that RHO has hearts, and I get a bad board because there was a failure to disclose properly, I'm entitled to a score adjustment. Why have a regulation that takes away that right? More importantly, is there anything in the laws that authorizes a Regulating Authority to make such a regulation?

[mycroft]

Law 40B2a, in part: The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods.

 

Law 40B4: A side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play as these Laws require is entitled to rectification through the award of an adjusted score. (my emphasis)

 

The first makes clear that how disclosure happens is up to the RA. The latter says that whatever regulations are set up by the RA are "required disclosure".

 

I'm not sure I am happy about it - especially when I don't play transfers, and have to endure the endless questions and stares - but it's the way it works. I do understand the mindset of the ACBL, having had more than its share of "win by all legal means" pros-partnering-clients. I do think they've gone too far, but I've had my share of "come on, *you* of all people know better than that, and the regulations require you to not play these sorts of games" calls.

[blackshoe]

Methods of disclosure are one thing. A requirement to "protect yourself" is something else again. Absent the "protect yourself" stuff, it is absolutely clear that if one contestant fails to properly disclose their methods, through failure to alert or inadequate explanation, the other is entitled to a score adjustment if damaged. With it, whether one is entitled to that rectification is considerably less clear. It seems that, sometimes, the offender gets a free pass for his irregularity. :(

 

Question: if I protect myself by asking, thus give UI to my partner, and his attempt - successful or otherwise - to ethically deal with that UI damages us, who caused the damage? I would maintain that it was caused by the opponents who failed to alert properly.

[gnasher]

If I were in fourth seat, and heard the auction (1NT)-P-(2♥) to me, and I have spades and a hand which might want to compete, I probably want to know if RHO has spades. Do I really have to "protect myself" by asking? Forget the regulation for a minute. What does the law say? Well, it says that if I bid on the assumption that RHO has hearts, and I get a bad board because there was a failure to disclose properly, I'm entitled to a score adjustment. Why have a regulation that takes away that right? More importantly, is there anything in the laws that authorizes a Regulating Authority to make such a regulation?

If we interpret the ACBL's regulations as reading "Try to remember to announce transfers, but it doesn't matter if you forget", forgetting to announce the transfer is legal, and not misinformation.

 

Question: if I protect myself by asking, thus give UI to my partner, and his attempt - successful or otherwise - to ethically deal with that UI damages us, who caused the damage? I would maintain that it was caused by the opponents who failed to alert properly.

The way to deal with the UI problem is to avoid it: make a point of always asking in such a situation, regardless of whether you're actually considering action.

[blackshoe]

If we interpret the ACBL's regulations as reading "Try to remember to announce transfers, but it doesn't matter if you forget", forgetting to announce the transfer is legal, and not misinformation.

WhyinHell should we interpret the regulations that way? Certainly the ACBL doesn't say that.

 

The way to deal with the UI problem is to avoid it: make a point of always asking in such a situation, regardless of whether you're actually considering action.

Maybe. I can see this happening:

 

Player: We always ask in these situations.

TD: Can you prove that?* No? See ya. :(

 

*The answer to this question is "of course not".

[bluejak]

Where in the laws does it say that the NOS should protect themselves by asking about the auction?

 

If I were in fourth seat, and heard the auction (1NT)-P-(2♥) to me, and I have spades and a hand which might want to compete, I probably want to know if RHO has spades. Do I really have to "protect myself" by asking? Forget the regulation for a minute. What does the law say? Well, it says that if I bid on the assumption that RHO has hearts, and I get a bad board because there was a failure to disclose properly, I'm entitled to a score adjustment. Why have a regulation that takes away that right? More importantly, is there anything in the laws that authorizes a Regulating Authority to make such a regulation?

 

The answer to jillybean's question lies in Ed's post. Ed writes "... I get a bad board because there was a failure to disclose properly ...". The critical word is "because". If it is felt that you could and should have protected yourself - as in the example of the unalerted transfer - then the legal basis for not giving you an adjustment is that it is the failure to ask the question that led to the result, not the failure to alert/announce.

 

If you are responsible for not protecting yourself it doesn't mean that opponents aren't guilty of not alerting, so a split score should apply, but I have the feeling that this almost never happens.

I have given split scores as a TD in such situations.