partners alert is wrong

[jillybean]

Sent to me from the NABC

 

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1hp2np3d]133|100[/hv]

 

Partner erroneously alerted the 2nt bid as Jacoby.

3♦ carries a special meaning in a jacoby auction but in this auction is a second suit, game try.

 

Do I alert the 3♦ bid and if asked, explain the meaning in a J2nt auction or do I wait until the end of the auction to disclose to the opps that there has been MI? (assuming that we are declaring the hand)

 

What information should I give is the opponents ask about the 3♦ bid, without an alert?

[sfi]

The opponents are entitled to the systemic meaning of 3♦, not what partner thinks it is. If a game try is not alertable in the ACBL, you should not alert it, and if asked you should explain what the bid actually means. You should not explain what 3♦ would normally be in response to a Jacoby 2NT, and given that you don't play it partner may have different responses than normal anyway so your explanation may simply be misleading. This will provide partner with unauthorised information, but it is up to partner to handle that appropriately.

 

At the end of the auction (assuming your side becomes declarer), you need to inform the opponents of the incorrect alert and explanation. You should also summon the director at this point, but in practice I would only do that if the opponents are inexperienced (otherwise I tend to ask if they want the director).

[blackshoe]

At the end of the auction (assuming your side becomes declarer), you need to inform the opponents of the incorrect alert and explanation. You should also summon the director at this point, but in practice I would only do that if the opponents are inexperienced (otherwise I tend to ask if they want the director).

Law 20F5{b}: The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous…

Introduction to the laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to … “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed).

 

ACBL directors are highly unlikely to apply the principle expressed in my second quote from the law book. On the contrary, they are highly likely to either be unaware of this provision and its implications, or to be aware and to ignore them. This is, however, no excuse for not following the laws. So I would always call the Director and then explain the problem, as the laws require.