Did I get hosed by the director?

[the_dude]

I haven't played much offline bridge in the last 20 years, so the current ACBL alert standards are a bit foreign to me. Nevertheless I have been able to fake my way through and I try to be as ethical as possible. Then this came up yesterday in a regional knockout match:

 

Me Partner

1NT 2C

2H 2NT

3NT P

 

With the opps passing, we had this vanilla auction, a club was led, and we made 4. After the hand the opponents claimed that they should have been alerted that partner might not have 4 spades and if they had, a spade lead would have resulted in down 2. The director agreed and changed the result from +630 to -200. She claimed that because we play 4 way transfers we must alert 2NT on this auction.

 

My position: since the day I learned bridge, standard stayman stipulates that with 8-9 points and 4 spades, you bid 2S over 2H on the above auction. 2NT categorically denies 4S in standard stayman, which is what we play. At least that's how I learned it. 4way transfers doesn't have anything to do with it because 2S is a standard bid with or without 4way transfers. Therefore responder can never have 4 spades on this auction.

 

I wasn't trying to hide info, I just thought this was normal bidding. It never even occurred to me that I would have to alert my opponents to this. Is it my fault the opponents don't know standard bidding and failed to ask?

 

Thanks for any feedback. I was going to appeal this decision, but the margin of victory made this swing irrelevant so we dropped it. However I'd very much like to hear some educated opinions on the subject.

[MickyB]

If you played 1N:2N as natural, invitational, then there would be no need for 1N:2C, 2H:2N to deny four spades. That is why four-suit transfers are considered relevant.

[barmar]

I haven't played much offline bridge in the last 20 years, so the current ACBL alert standards are a bit foreign to me.

The same alert standards apply to online ACBL tourneys, how is this specific to offline bridge? The Simple Rulings forum might be more appropriate.

 

The Director's ruling was correct. From the ACBL Alert Procedure:

However, when it becomes evident that the two-club bidder either does not have or tends not to have a four-card major, an Alert is required at that time.

As MickyB said, the "standard" way to bid an invitational hand with no 4-card major is with a 2NT response. You only need to go through non-promissory Stayman if you've given some other meaning to that bid, such as using it for 4-way transfers.

[Phil]

The same alert standards apply to online ACBL tourneys, how is this specific to offline bridge?

 

The Director's ruling was correct. From the ACBL Alert Procedure:

 

I've also been told by many knowledgeable directors that because an artificial 2N response to 1N is so common, that the opening leader needs to protect himself by asking about the OP's auction.

 

What was the opening leader's hand? Is a spade lead obvious with the alert?

[ArtK78]

It may be that the Stayman that you learned and that you assumed was "standard" is not standard.

 

In the Stayman that I learned, as it was played before Jacoby Transfers, 2♣ followed by 2 of a major was natural and invitational showing 5 cards in the major. This may have changed after the nearly universal adoption of Jacoby Transfers over 1NT openings, but it was standard at one time.

 

That seems to be reflected in the alert procedure, since in the old "standard" method, 2NT over 2♥ would not deny 4 spades. In fact, it would promise 4 spades assuming that 2NT over 1NT was natural and invitational.

 

By the way, if the experience level of the opening leader is anything above beginner, he should be aware of the fact that this common sequence often denies 4 spades and should have protected himself by asking the question before making the opening lead. I am not happy with the TD's ruling.

 

Sounds to me like the opening leader was taking a double shot - if the non-spade lead works, fine. If not, he would call the TD and attempt to get an adjustment. Doesn't smell right to me.

[mgoetze]

This belongs in the "Laws and Rulings" forum, not the "Offline Bridge" forum. I don't know much about ACBL alert regulations, but I do know they have some funny "experienced players must protect themselves" rule so it would seem to me that the experience level of your opponents might be relevant.

 

That said, your argument is a bit, well, distorted. Standard Stayman absolutely promises a 4-card major. If you are really playing Standard Stayman, then 2NT does not deny that you have 4 spades, it just denies that you remember what the auction so far has been.

 

Where I come from, 2♣ itself is alertable if it does not promise a 4-card major. That seems reasonable enough to me.

[barmar]

Since two of us have suggested that this thread belongs down here in IBLF, I've moved it.

[stevenagy]

Where I come from, 2♣ itself is alertable if it does not promise a 4-card major. That seems reasonable enough to me.

 

I've run into this a couple of times. In ACBL-land, is it the 2♣ bid or the 2NT bid which should be alerted in this auction? I've confused my opps a few times trying to explain this at a club where 4-way wasn't terribly common in the NLM game.

[bluejak]

That said, your argument is a bit, well, distorted. Standard Stayman absolutely promises a 4-card major. If you are really playing Standard Stayman, then 2NT does not deny that you have 4 spades, it just denies that you remember what the auction so far has been.

Standard Stayman asks for a four-card major and promises nothing. That is the way that it was invented by Rapee and Marx, and sufficient people have always played it as non-promissory for nothing else to be considered Standard.

 

:ph34r:

 

The idea that if you play something in a standard way it should not be alerted is wrong. Alerting regulations have changed over the years, very much because people cannot agree on what is standard [see above :)].

 

:ph34r:

 

I have moved this thread into its correct place!

[paulg]

barmar has referenced the Alert Procedures, but it is also clear from the Alert Chart (PDF) which states that "Continuations by responder after the use of Stayman which do not promise a major" require an alert.

[blackshoe]

I've run into this a couple of times. In ACBL-land, is it the 2♣ bid or the 2NT bid which should be alerted in this auction? I've confused my opps a few times trying to explain this at a club where 4-way wasn't terribly common in the NLM game.

The 2♣ bid does not require an alert. 2NT does require an alert.

[blackshoe]

I concluded long ago that there's no such thing as "standard". Too many people interpret the word to mean "what I play".

[aguahombre]

Just to be clear, your 2NT denying spades requires an alert in your jurisdiction --Florida being part of the ACBL. When asked, you disclose that it denies 4 spades (not that it might not contain 4 spades).

 

1N-2C

2S-2N...As you play it, this is alerted also, but here the explanation is "might or might not" contain 4 hearts.

 

Suggesting you were "hosed" is not quite as beneficial as simply reading the alert procedure, and you won't be getting much sympathy with that opinion of what the TD ruled.

[pigpenz]

The 2♣ bid does not require an alert. 2NT does require an alert.

in ACBL quite a few pairs play 2/1

so 2♣ to start invitational process is pretty standard

 

I would find it hard to believe that a Tournament TD would find any of this objectionable unless we were playing in some limited game like 0-300 masterpoints.

[paulg]

I think the previous post was supposed to read ...

 

 

The 2♣ bid does not require an alert. 2NT does require an alert.

in ACBL quite a few pairs play 2/1

so 2♣ to start invitational process is pretty standard

 

I would find it hard to believe that a Tournament TD would find any of this objectionable unless we were playing in some limited game like 0-300 masterpoints.

 

I concluded long ago that there's no such thing as "standard". Too many people interpret the word to mean "what I play".

[aguahombre]

in ACBL quite a few pairs play 2/1

so 2♣ to start invitational process is pretty standard

 

I would find it hard to believe that a Tournament TD would find any of this objectionable unless we were playing in some limited game like 0-300 masterpoints.

1---"2/1" has nothing to do with opening NT and the follow-up sequences.

2---A TD should find it objectionable that someone won't follow the ACBL alert procedures, which are clear on the subject.

[blackshoe]

in ACBL quite a few pairs play 2/1

so 2♣ to start invitational process is pretty standard

 

I would find it hard to believe that a Tournament TD would find any of this objectionable unless we were playing in some limited game like 0-300 masterpoints.

We're talking about 2♣ in response to a 1NT opening. This has nothing to do with 2/1.

 

The ACBL Alert Regulation requires that, in the auction 1NT-2♣-2any-2NT, opponents passing throughout, 1NT be announced "X to Y" where X and Y are the upper and lower limits of the agreed HCP range, and 2NT be alerted when responder denies or may not have a four card major. A TD who does not find violation of these requirements objectionable is not doing his job.

[aguahombre]

Thanks, Ed. That will give all those who have me blocked a second chance at the information.

[blackshoe]

Thanks, Ed. That will give all those who have me blocked a second chance at the information.

Heh. Cross posted. :P

[sfi]

Then this came up yesterday in a regional knockout match:

 

Me Partner

1NT 2C

2H 2NT

3NT P

 

With the opps passing, we had this vanilla auction, a club was led, and we made 4. After the hand the opponents claimed that they should have been alerted that partner might not have 4 spades and if they had, a spade lead would have resulted in down 2. The director agreed and changed the result from +630 to -200. She claimed that because we play 4 way transfers we must alert 2NT on this auction.

 

The question of the alert seems to have been dealt with fairly thoroughly, but nobody has questioned the adjustment itself. Is it likely that the opening leader would have led a spade had they known that dummy will not have four? This seems a common enough situation that if it mattered that much then the opponents could have done something to protect themselves.

 

Although we don't have the hand, I would like to see good reasons why the misinformation materially affected the lead before making an adjustment. And I would certainly like to be able to apply weighted scores here.

[the_dude]

Thanks for the feedback all .. the ruling seems as clear as possible and had the TD made it this clear on the spot I would not have made a fuss.

 

The question of the alert seems to have been dealt with fairly thoroughly, but nobody has questioned the adjustment itself. Is it likely that the opening leader would have led a spade had they known that dummy will not have four? This seems a common enough situation that if it mattered that much then the opponents could have done something to protect themselves.

 

Although we don't have the hand, I would like to see good reasons why the misinformation materially affected the lead before making an adjustment. And I would certainly like to be able to apply weighted scores here.

 

You up an interesting point. Opening leader had K10xx of spades and A10xx of clubs. Under those circumstances, I don't know a single player who wouldn't ask about the possibility of dummy's having / not having spades - and we were in a high enough bracket that they should have wanted to know. They certainly knew enough to call the TD the moment the play of the hand ended.

 

That makes me wonder ... once I failed to alert did he deliberately not ask, to game the system? Lead a club and if it beats the contract, great. But if a spade lead would have beaten it call the TD to get it via ruling. Best of both worlds?

 

I have no idea if this is what was happening, and furthermore if such gamesmanship is unethical or not. It just makes me say hmmmmmm :P

[blackshoe]

Weighted scores would be nice, but of course they're not available in the ACBL, even to ACs.

 

I want to see all four hands, and hear the legal basis for the TD's table ruling, including your "why the MI materially affected the lead".

[aguahombre]

Dude, your observations about free shots/double shots are valid, as is your question about whether they are ethical. I personally wouldn't be happy with myself or with my partner deliberately going for two bites of the apple. But, I have been on both sides of the accusation. The only way to avoid a double-dip by the opps is to not commit the irregularity ---easier said than done on occasion.

[nige1]

IMO:

• The director should adjust to 3N-2 for the offenders.
• It's hard to understand why victims should be expected to protect themselves against infractions like the failure to alert a call that the rules explicitly specify as requiring an alert. Under current rules, however, the director might rule that the actual 3N+1 score stands for the victims. One effect of such rulings is that they reduce the incentive for victims to call the director and hence reward and encourage law-breakers, in the long-term. And SEWOG rules exacerbate that effect.

[Antrax]

You up an interesting point. Opening leader had K10xx of spades and A10xx of clubs. Under those circumstances, I don't know a single player who wouldn't ask about the possibility of dummy's having / not having spades - and we were in a high enough bracket that they should have wanted to know.

Maybe he wanted to avoid giving his partner UI that might prevent him from switching to spades later on?