Cheap Tactics

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak654hkqt3dj3cqj&w=sj7hj852dq85ct753&n=sqt932ha64daT92c2&e=s8h97dk764cak9864&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1sp4cp4s5cppdppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints; Table result NS+500.

 

This was an interesting hand from a North London club on Tuesday, and West's imaginative sacrifice in Five Clubs needs some explaining. After North splintered with 4♣, East called the TD and stated that he thought there was a failure to alert. He recalled from a previous hand that NS played splinters over 1M; he also struggled to construct a non-alertable meaning of 4♣. The TD rushed over and asked South whether his partner's bid was alertable. "I don't think so," replied South, "it is a splinter but it is over 3NT, isn't it?" "That has changed", replied the TD, "please alert any bids over 3NT on the first round of the auction if they are artificial". When the auction came round to SB, West, all was clear. He had agreed with this partner that doubling a splinter said "don't lead this suit", so his partner could well have good clubs for his pass. They played that a double of Gerber said "Lead a club", so his partner had to call the TD when there was an infraction; his partner clearly would have doubled if 4♣ had been Gerber (or even Swiss or similar), but did not want to double a splinter. He thought that the TD call was authorized information, and he backed his judgement by saving in Five Clubs. North made a forcing pass, but it was tough for South to go on to Five Spades. South thought that SB had used the UI of the TD call, but SB claimed that he used information arising from the legal procedures authorized in the Laws, and this was AI. He began to quote 16A1c in full, but the TD told him not to do his job for him. How do you rule?

[RMB1]

"That has changed", replied the TD, "please alert any suit bids over 3NT on the first round of the auction if they are artificial".

(fixed)

[lamford]

(fixed)

Agreed. I was only quoting the TD, and there was director error!

[Bbradley62]

Not sure that it has anything to do with the ruling, but why did East call the director rather than simply asking what 4♣ showed?

[lamford]

Not sure that it has anything to do with the ruling, but why did East call the director rather than simply asking what 4♣ showed?

Because the question would give UI to his partner, but a TD call would not. And because he was aware of a breach of the last sentence of 21B1a.

[GreenMan]

Because the question would give UI to his partner, but a TD call would not. And because he was aware. And because he was aware of a breach of the last sentence of 21B1a.

 

Is this still true when attention has NOT been drawn to an irregularity?

 

(edited a bit for clarity)

[Bbradley62]

Because the question would give UI to his partner...

I don't see how this is true. EW have opposite meanings for double and pass, depending on what 4♣ means; therefore, East must know what 4♣ means before he makes his call, regardless of what he holds.

[broze]

I don't see how this is true. EW have opposite meanings for double and pass, depending on what 4♣ means; therefore, East must know what 4♣ means before he makes his call, regardless of what he holds.

 

I think this is correct. However UI would be conveyed by the question when it is combined with subsequent inaction, surely?

 

In any case I always thought a director call was UI - isn't is a "remark" and so covered by 16B? I now assume I am wrong about this otherwise the topic is a bit of a non-starter.

[blackshoe]

When someone (anyone) draws attention to an irregularity, a director call does not convey UI - it's simply conforming to one's obligation to call the director.

 

When attention has not been drawn to an irregularity, a director call may convey UI. Depends on why the call was made.

 

I suppose one might ask "what if the person who drew attention to the irregularity calls the director?" I don't think that matters.

 

I suspect (I haven't completely thought it through) that if a player wants to call the TD and ask to speak to him away from the table, he probably shouldn't do that.

[pran]

[...]

I suspect (I haven't completely thought it through) that if a player wants to call the TD and ask to speak to him away from the table, he probably shouldn't do that.

One possibility could be that he needs to confer with the Director on some strictly personal matters that are none of the other players' business?

[lamford]

East drew attention to the irregularity when calling the TD to state that he believed an alertable bid had not been alerted. That is surely within his right. If he was mistaken in his belief that there was an irregularity (for example if 4C had been natural and forcing, and therefore not alertable and correctly not alerted) he might well have conveyed UI. The mess was caused by the opponent.

 

It would be irregular to ask about a non-alerted bid, as East had no desire to bid anything if 4C was natural and forcing, the only non-alertable meaning.

[blackshoe]

One possibility could be that he needs to confer with the Director on some strictly personal matters that are none of the other players' business?

In that case, does he really need to do it in the middle of a hand?

[lamford]

I don't see how this is true. EW have opposite meanings for double and pass, depending on what 4♣ means; therefore, East must know what 4♣ means before he makes his call, regardless of what he holds.

If 4C is natural, which is the only non-alertable meaning of 4C, then double would be takeout. East had no obligation to ask whatsoever. NS had an absolute obligation to read the alerting regulations and follow them. I get irritated when we have an auction 1C-(Pass)-1H-(2H) or 1C-(Pass)-1S-(2S) and the opponents ask "What is that?". "Natural", I reply, "which is why I didn't alert it".

[Bbradley62]

I get irritated when we have an auction 1C-(Pass)-1H-(2H) or 1C-(Pass)-1S-(2S) and the opponents ask "What is that?". "Natural", I reply, "which is why I didn't alert it".

Funny... my understanding is that in ACBL it's only alertable if it is natural.

[lamford]

Funny... my understanding is that in ACBL it's only alertable if it is natural.

Interesting. The general rule in the UK is that natural bids are not alerted unless they have an unexpected meaning.

[Bbradley62]

I'm not sure about the auction you gave... but 25 years ago the rule was "cue bids are never alertable", and now "Natural" is in red in the Direct Overcall box of the ACBL convention card.

[Trinidad]

If 4C is natural, which is the only non-alertable meaning of 4C, then double would be takeout. East had no obligation to ask whatsoever. NS had an absolute obligation to read the alerting regulations and follow them. I get irritated when we have an auction 1C-(Pass)-1H-(2H) or 1C-(Pass)-1S-(2S) and the opponents ask "What is that?". "Natural", I reply, "which is why I didn't alert it".

Of course, you would never forget to alert an alertable bid, but your opponents don't know that. And, as you show with your OP, forgetting alerts is quite common. In addition, in many situations experienced players are supposed to protect themselves against misinformation by asking.

 

This all means that there is no reason for you to be irritated when an opponents asks about these kind of auctions. You just reply "Natural". The 'smart' comment "which is why I didn't alert it" is uncalled for. Remember that the opponents didn't write the regulation that says that they are supposed to protect themselves.

 

Rik

[pran]

One possibility could be that he needs to confer with the Director on some strictly personal matters that are none of the other players' business?

In that case, does he really need to do it in the middle of a hand?

Isn't that possible?

[blackshoe]

Isn't that possible?

I suppose anything is possible, but it doesn't seem very likely.

[pran]

I suppose anything is possible, but it doesn't seem very likely.

My point is that if a player, for whatever reason and at whatever time, wants a private consultation with the Director then that is a matter between the two of them and no business for anybody else.

 

If the Director then finds that the player has acted out of order then that is a matter for him to sort out, and again no business for anybody else unless the Director rules that it is.

[lamford]

I'm not sure about the auction you gave... but 25 years ago the rule was "cue bids are never alertable", and now "Natural" is in red in the Direct Overcall box of the ACBL convention card.

That is for direct overcalls. I think that means after only one opponent's bid.

[gnasher]

When someone (anyone) draws attention to an irregularity, a director call does not convey UI - it's simply conforming to one's obligation to call the director.

That's not true in general. If you always call the director in this situation, the director call doesn't convey UI. If you sometimes call the director and sometimes don't, calling the director does convey UI. It's UI because it derives from the illegal practice of sometimes not calling a director when you are required to do so.

[toukie]

I don't think the failure to alert 4C is particularly material to this hand.

Attention was drawn to it in time and EW's actions were the same as if it had been alerted.

 

EW Methods are are follows

X of Gerber means lead clubs

X of splinter means don't lead the suit

pass over splinter means what? EW did not say it means lead the suit so it could be neutral.

 

Was the pass over 4C alerted? There is no mention of an alert, and I think it is alertable.

 

The methods EW play almost obliges them to ask the meaning of an alerted 4C. The only time they don't need to ask is if they have a hand that knows what action it would take irrespective of the meaning of the 4C bid, there can't be many of those.

 

If EW ever bid over 4C without asking the meaning of 4C it would be highly suspicious. Of course, most oponents won't be aware of their methods so they would get away with it unnoticed most of the time.

 

So, why did West assume East's pass showed club length? All it says is that I don't want to double to say don't lead the suit. Either the 5C bid is a wild punt or it looks like EW have an undisclosed agreement.

[blackshoe]

That's not true in general. If you always call the director in this situation, the director call doesn't convey UI. If you sometimes call the director and sometimes don't, calling the director does convey UI. It's UI because it derives from the illegal practice of sometimes not calling a director when you are required to do so.

The problem with this approach is that sometimes one player will be first to call the TD, and the other players then keep mum because the director's already been called. How do you know why a particular player "didn't call"? If nobody calls, then fine, but that's because that should never happen.

 

Aside from that, how can you know that a player actively chooses not to call sometimes? How can you identify what information the choice to call (or not call, for that matter) conveys? Or are we getting into the realm of "there was UI, adjust the score"?

[gnasher]

The problem with this approach is that sometimes one player will be first to call the TD, and the other players then keep mum because the director's already been called. How do you know why a particular player "didn't call"? If nobody calls, then fine, but that's because that should never happen.

 

Aside from that, how can you know that a player actively chooses not to call sometimes? How can you identify what information the choice to call (or not call, for that matter) conveys? Or are we getting into the realm of "there was UI, adjust the score"?

I was discussing whether the director call conveys UI.

 

"What do the rules say?" is a different question from "How do we catch people who break the rules?" And the rules should be obeyed even when it's easy to get away with breaking them.

Edited March 15, 2015 by gnasher