Alerting Insufficient bid

[rwbarton]

But is it illegal to have an agreement about an IB?

 

I thought it was illegal in the ACBL, though I'm not sure where I got that idea or where I should look to check. I don't know whether it is illegal in other places.

[pran]

you still haven't answered my question.

I have stated my opinion on correct procedure in the situations where a correct procedure exists.

 

However I cannot find any "correct procedure" defined for the specific case where a player notices that his partner's bid is insufficient and decides to keep quiet about it as permitted in Law 9A4.

 

This should not cause any problem for instance in Norway because (as far as I know) nobody can claim damage from an alert of a call that need not be alerted. The alert here simply "alerts" opponents that they may have a reason to ask about the call.

[blackshoe]

Okay, Sven, you don't want to answer the question. Fair enough. I give up.

[RMB1]

Okay, Sven, you don't want to answer the question. Fair enough. I give up.

Does Sven have an obligation to answer questions posed here?

[barmar]

you still haven't answered my question.

It seemed to me that he did. You asked "if he's going to draw attention to the IB, should he alert/announce first?". Sven said no, because once attention is drawn you must call the TD, and must not take any action until the TD explains the situation. What's missing from that answer?

 

If there's a detail that's not clear, say so -- don't just passive-aggressively repeat the question.

[pran]

Okay, Sven, you don't want to answer the question. Fair enough. I give up.

If there is any question to me that I haven't answered now I must have overlooked or completely misunderstood it.

[blackshoe]

Does Sven have an obligation to answer questions posed here?

No one has an obligation to post anything here.

 

If a player has a choice between alerting before calling the director in an IB situation, and not alerting before calling the director, which should he do and why?

[barmar]

If a player has a choice between alerting before calling the director in an IB situation, and not alerting before calling the director, which should he do and why?

It doesn't seem like the Laws specify this, so he can do them in whichever order he wishes.

 

It's unlikely that he'll gain either way, since the most likely result when the TD is called is that the IB will not be accepted and partner will have to make it sufficient.

[pran]

No one has an obligation to post anything here.

 

If a player has a choice between alerting before calling the director in an IB situation, and not alerting before calling the director, which should he do and why?

Either.

 

Personally I would probably not alert if (at the time) I already have noticed the irregularity, decided to draw attention to it, and therefore call the Director. But that would be my own choice and nobody's business.

[bluejak]

I thought it was illegal in the ACBL, though I'm not sure where I got that idea or where I should look to check. I don't know whether it is illegal in other places.

You are probably right about the ACBL. But the OP said nothing about the ACBL, and it is not a general rule.

[McBruce]

Another approach to this:

 

Suppose you play Landy-only against a strong 1NT opener, but DONT against a weak 1NT opener. LHO opens 1NT, RHO fails to announce the range (if required) and partner, who is more familiar than you are with these opponents and their system, bids 2♥. Should you alert this because it may show both majors, or should you not alert it because it may be natural (and it's not your fault you don't know if playing somewhere where the 1NT range is announceable)?

 

I think you should alert, because partner's call MAY be alertable. If they ask, you can give them the whole story. If you don't alert and RHO bids 2♠, I guess the ethical thing to do would be to ask the range and own up if partner has shown both majors. RHO will be allowed to withdraw the 2♠ call but you might get penalized if the TD decides you have gained an advantage from the withdrawn call somehow.

 

Second example: partner makes a call and you cannot remember the specifics of your agreement about it, but you are fairly sure that it is conventional. Damage is less likely if you alert than if you do not.

 

So if the principle is 'alert anything that is or MAY be alertable,' I see no problem with alerting partner's insufficient bid, if you think any of the possible intended meanings of the insufficient bid is alertable. Called to a table where this happened, I would remind the next player that the alert may simply mean the alerter believes that the intent of the illegal bid may be conventional in some way, then rule on the insufficient bid.

[aguahombre]

Another approach to this:

 

Suppose you play Landy-only against a strong 1NT opener, but DONT against a weak 1NT opener. LHO opens 1NT, RHO fails to announce the range (if required) and partner, who is more familiar than you are with these opponents and their system, bids 2♥. Should you alert this because it may show both majors, or should you not alert it because it may be natural (and it's not your fault you don't know if playing somewhere where the 1NT range is announceable)?

Let's say the announcement of range is required where we are playing, just for this discussion. My question is about your partner's dilemma. He knows what you might not know about their NT. The opps have already committed the irregularity of failing to announce. Does partner have the right to insist on compliance? Is he doing so for the benefit of partner, or is he doing it for everyone's benefit ---to avoid the confusion you point out in your post?

 

The fact that nobody will really know partner's intention is not really germain; she will know and does not want to be in violation of the rules.

[blackshoe]

If partner knows, or should know, because of familiarity with opponents or from looking at their card, the range of their NT, she should not ask, because it could be construed as asking for your benefit. If you have doubt about whether partner's 2♥ requires an alert, the alert regulation, in the ACBL at least, tells you to alert. If they ask, you say "it depends on your NT range", and call the director, because now attention has been called to an irregularity, and all four players are responsible to call the TD. B-)

[aguahombre]

O.k., that was the question. The answer seems to be that if I have knowledge about them, I lose my right to call attention to the irregularity because doing so would result in my committing an irregularity. Awkward, and prone to confusion ---but probably best.

[barmar]

Asking them their NT range could be construed as asking solely for partner's benefit, so could be prohibited. But calling attention to the fact that they failed to announce their range, and calling the TD about it (since it's an infraction), is not asking a question.

 

This would be a more difficult problem if the alert regulation were that you must announce some NT ranges, but not others (the situation that many ACBL players either wish for, and some actually think is true). Then you don't even know if there's been an infraction without knowing their range (which may be why ACBL hasn't given in on this).

[aguahombre]

Asking them their NT range could be construed as asking solely for partner's benefit, so could be prohibited. But calling attention to the fact that they failed to announce their range, and calling the TD about it (since it's an infraction), is not asking a question.

Maybe it isn't asking a question. But, we have never seen anyone ever call the TD unless there is an actual refusal to announce the range, and it would certainly arrouse suspicion that the commotion was all for partner's benefit.

 

Perhaps the practical solution would be to never assume they are playing the same range they did the last time we played against them, and routinely request the announcement. I don't believe asking the opps to comply with the rules is the type of question which might be prohibited ---unless done rudely. A quick glance at LHO with eyebrows raised and a smile is usually sufficient to wake him up and get an announcement.

[barmar]

don't believe asking the opps to comply with the rules is the type of question which might be prohibited ---unless done rudely.

I agree.

[mycroft]

In certain cases, I have Alerted calls, and explained the equivalent (for that call) of

 

"if your NT range could contain 16 or more, it's two-suited with clubs. If not, it shows both majors." - and then asked at my turn.

 

And when they ask "well, which one is it?" I ask "what's your NT range?"

 

Obviously, in my games, this shouldn't occur (and frankly, I can tell that it's clubs-and-higher because only pairs who play 15-17 "forget to Announce". Frankly, I'm almost at the point (at least with a couple of inveterate "why should we have to..." pairs) of teaching WeaSeL to a few select troublemakers and let them learn the hard way. But I won't, much as it tempts me) - but in other similar auctions, it does.

[blackshoe]

Law 90A: The Director, in addition to implementing the rectifications in these Laws, may also assess procedural penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure or requires the award of an adjusted score atanother table".

 

No need for WeaSel.

 

"But players won't like that," you say? No, they won't. So?

[jh51]

I hate to confess to this, but on more than one occasion I have put put a 2♦ or 2♥ bid card after my partner opened 2NT. She would then announce my bid as an insufficient transfer! (If the opponents accepted my bid, I suppose she could bid 2♥ or 2♠ and superaccept at the 3 level.)

[Vampyr]

Under Law 40B3 (d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by

either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought within the criteria of Law 27B1 (b).

 

I believe that guidance has been issued on this issue to the effect that players are not permitted to have agreements following their own irregularities, only the opponents; but that you can shade a replacement bid and partner is permitted to take this into account.

[Vampyr]

Any player may call attention to an irregularity. No one is required to do so.

 

Huh. Law 9A4 fails to mention Law 20F4, which requires a player who notices his own misexplanation to call the TD immediately. An error, IMO.

 

Yes, there is an error, and it is yours. This situation is different, because it is not an irregularity (such as an insufficient or out-of turn bid) that the whole table would notice. Your opponents would have no knowledge at all about this irregularity, so it is your responsibility to rectify the situation.

[blackshoe]

Yes, there is an error, and it is yours.

1. How kind of you to put it that way. :angry:

2. I disagree. :o :ph34r:

[aguahombre]

Blackshoe: How can you possibly disagree with Vampire on that point?

[bluejak]

Let's say the announcement of range is required where we are playing, just for this discussion. My question is about your partner's dilemma. He knows what you might not know about their NT. The opps have already committed the irregularity of failing to announce. Does partner have the right to insist on compliance? Is he doing so for the benefit of partner, or is he doing it for everyone's benefit ---to avoid the confusion you point out in your post?

 

The fact that nobody will really know partner's intention is not really germain; she will know and does not want to be in violation of the rules.

I always ask players to make an announcement when they forget. One of the advantages in England/Wales is that 1NT and 2 of a suit openings are always alertable or announceable, so it is safe to assume an alerting/announcing error by opponents. Sadly, this is not true for 2♣/♦/♥ responses to 1NT - weak takeouts are neither alertable nor announceable - so while "no-one" plays weak takeouts it is more difficult if they do not announce. In practice, looking enquiringly at opener seems to work.