Cheap Tactics

[blackshoe]

From a practical standpoint, if you don't have evidence that something happened, then it didn't happen. So in most cases of alleged UI from a director call, I don't think it matters.

[gnasher]

From a practical standpoint, if you don't have evidence that something happened, then it didn't happen. So in most cases of alleged UI from a director call, I don't think it matters.

At the top of my browser window it says "Laws and Rulings", not just "Rulings".

 

Suppose that I am West in the OP. I know that, despite the rules, my partner rarely calls the director about a failure to alert. On this occasion he does call the director. That gives me UI, but I know that nobody will be able to prove the existence of this UI. Should I therefore feel free to make use of it?

Edited March 15, 2015 by gnasher

[lamford]

It's UI because it derives from the illegal practice of sometimes not calling a director when you are required to do so.

East is only required to call the TD when he draws attention to the infraction of the non-alert; in practice the two are simultaneous. He says "Director, please" and tells the TD that he thinks there was a failure to alert. He is quite entitled to just pass without calling the TD. The TD call was caused by a NS infraction, and is therefore AI to West. If 4♣ had been correctly alerted, then only if East always asked about an alerted bid would he not convey UI by asking. It would still convey UI if he needed to know what it meant, but did not always ask, as in this situation where he would not double a splinter but would double another putative meaning. NS should, of course, have a CC with "splinters" shown, and also alert, so that East does not need to ask.

[lamford]

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

Nonsense. The pass shows a hand that did not want to double or bid something else, so is clearly not alertable. It did not show any values.

[lamford]

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.

West, the SB, guessed that East called the TD because he wanted to double Gerber or Swiss, and may well have wanted a club lead if it was a splinter, when he could not double. Practically the only hand he could have for the TD call was good clubs. I agree with his view, but only if the TD call was AI.

[blackshoe]

At the top of my browser window it says "Laws and Rulings", not just "Rulings".

 

Suppose that I am West in the OP. I know that, despite the rules, my partner rarely calls the director about a failure to alert. On this occasion he does call the director. That gives me UI, but I know that nobody will be able to prove the existence of this UI. Should I therefore feel free to make use of it?

At the top of my browser window it says "Bridgebase.com". So?

 

Of course you should not feel free to make use of UI, and I didn't say you should.

 

The director is required to collect evidence, and to rule on the basis of the preponderance of that evidence. That has nothing to do with what players should or should not do. But I think you know that already.

[blackshoe]

East is only required to call the TD when he draws attention to the infraction of the non-alert; in practice the two are simultaneous. He says "Director, please" and tells the TD that he thinks there was a failure to alert. He is quite entitled to just pass without calling the TD. The TD call was caused by a NS infraction, and is therefore AI to West. If 4♣ had been correctly alerted, then only if East always asked about an alerted bid would he not convey UI by asking. It would still convey UI if he needed to know what it meant, but did not always ask, as in this situation where he would not double a splinter but would double another putative meaning. NS should, of course, have a CC with "splinters" shown, and also alert, so that East does not need to ask.

Your first assertion is incorrect. East is required to call the TD whenever any player draws attention to the (presumed) failure to alert. So are the other three players at the table. It may be true that frequently East will draw attention to the irregularity by calling the director, but that doesn't change the law.

[Bbradley62]

Nonsense. The pass shows a hand that did not want to double or bid something else, so is clearly not alertable. It did not show any values.

Not based on what you have told us above. If this pass specifically indicates that East wants a club lead, this is conveying information to his partner and the opponents are entitled to that information too.

[lamford]

Your first assertion is incorrect. East is required to call the TD whenever any player draws attention to the (presumed) failure to alert.

The only player who drew attention to the irregularity was East, by calling the TD. If nobody did, then East had no obligation to call the director. East could have passed without calling the TD.

[lamford]

Not based on what you have told us above. If this pass specifically indicates that East wants a club lead, this is conveying information to his partner and the opponents are entitled to that information too.

I have looked above, and I have not indicated that Pass specifically indicates that East wants a club lead. Double states that he does not want a club lead. Pass says that he doesn't not want a club lead, if you forgive the double negative. And the EBU have decreed that, in general, negative inferences from calls not made are not alertable. Otherwise we have most auctions starting: Pass (alerted). "What is that?" "It shows fewer than 12 points (we open all 12-counts); also it denies a six-card suit (other than possibly clubs) with 3-11 HCPs. With 3-9, we open two of the suit; with 10-11 we open one of a suit". "Thank you, but let us move on as we are about to be fined for slow play".

 

I wrote: "may well have wanted a club lead if it was a splinter". When someone passes over 1X-(1Y), the person may well have a penalty double of 1Y (I use "may well" in the sense of "is reasonably likely" rather than "is odds-on".) That would not make the pass alertable, unless it is unconditionally forcing.

 

Does anyone else on here think Pass of the splinter is alertable in the EBU?

[toukie]

I have looked above, and I have not indicated that Pass specifically indicates that East wants a club lead. Double states that he does not want a club lead. Pass says that he doesn't not want a club lead, if you forgive the double negative. And the EBU have decreed that, in general, negative inferences from calls not made are not alertable. Otherwise we have most auctions starting: Pass (alerted). "What is that?" "It shows fewer than 12 points (we open all 12-counts); also it denies a six-card suit (other than possibly clubs) with 3-11 HCPs. With 3-9, we open two of the suit; with 10-11 we open one of a suit". "Thank you, but let us move on as we are about to be fined for slow play".

 

I wrote: "may well have wanted a club lead if it was a splinter". When someone passes over 1X-(1Y), the person may well have a penalty double of 1Y (I use "may well" in the sense of "is reasonably likely" rather than "is odds-on".) That would not make the pass alertable, unless it is unconditionally forcing.

 

Does anyone else on here think Pass of the splinter is alertable in the EBU?

Yes, I do.

From the EBU Blue book

Passes and bids

Unless it is announceable (see 4D, 4E, 4F and 4G), a pass or bid must be alerted if it:

(a) is not natural; or

(b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.

 

I think pass is alertable when double is alertable, as it shows a hand that does not wish to make an alertable double.

1X - (1Y) - pass is not alertable (assuming take-out/negative doubles) since X is not alertable.

 

On this hand west knows the East chose not to make a conventional double of the splinter, and NS are entitled to be alerted to that.

NS would not expect a double of a splinter so say don't lead the suit, so they would not expect passing to have a negative inference that the splinter could have been doubled conventionally but wasn't, therefore it is an unexpected negative inference, and therefore I believe it is alertable.

 

 

A similar example would be support doubles. If you pass when playing support double I think that is alertable.

So if

1H (p) 1S (2C) X is alerted as a support double then

1H (p) 1S (2C) pass should be alerted and explained as denying a support double.

I always alert pass from partner when he could have done a support double, don't you?

[gnasher]

Does anyone else on here think Pass of the splinter is alertable in the EBU?

I always alert it. But that's because I think it's alertable amongst bridge players, regardless of what the regulations say.

[weejonnie]

I might have to rule in favour of EW - the fact that East might have good clubs does not necessarily mean that a sacrifice of 5 Clubs by West would be profitable - so is not demonstrably suggested. East could have been 3-3-3-4 with 4 clubs to the AK and wanting a club lead.

[blackshoe]

I think it's alertable amongst bridge players, regardless of what the regulations say.

We don't need no steeenking regulations!

[gnasher]

At the top of my browser window it says "Bridgebase.com". So?

 

Of course you should not feel free to make use of UI, and I didn't say you should.

 

The director is required to collect evidence, and to rule on the basis of the preponderance of that evidence. That has nothing to do with what players should or should not do. But I think you know that already.

Oh good, does that mean that you've accepted that it is, in fact, UI; that it's UI even if the director can't prove it; and that this UI does, in fact, matter?

[lamford]

I always alert it. But that's because I think it's alertable amongst bridge players, regardless of what the regulations say.

I am in favour of telling the opponents what they might need to know, but I would prefer it if the regulations required me to tell the opponents what they might need to know. Also, when ruling against someone else, including SBs, I rule according to the regulations. And no disapprobation should apply to anyone who chooses to follow the letter of the law.

[lamford]

I might have to rule in favour of EW - the fact that East might have good clubs does not necessarily mean that a sacrifice of 5 Clubs by West would be profitable - so is not demonstrably suggested. East could have been 3-3-3-4 with 4 clubs to the AK and wanting a club lead.

The requirement for 5♣ to be demonstrably suggested would apply, for example, if East had asked about 4♣ and then passed. For Law 16B or Law 73C to apply, there has to be UI, and the TD call after an infraction is AI.

[lamford]

I think pass is alertable when double is alertable, as it shows a hand that does not wish to make an alertable double.

There is a certain logic to what you say, but the EBU Blue Book clarifies the issue:

 

4 B 4 Calls above 3NT

Once the auction is above the level of 3NT, no calls are to be alerted except for:

(a) Artificial suit bids above 3NT made on the first round of the auction (defined as the first bid and the next three calls) e.g. 1S pass 4C (splinter) or pass pass 1S pass 4C (splinter). In both cases 4C is alerted

(b) Lead-directing passes

(c) Doubles or redoubles that are lead-directing but ask for the lead of a suit other than the suit doubled (or redoubled)

(d) Doubles and redoubles of no trump contracts that call for a specific suit to be led.

 

A pass is only alertable if it is lead-directing; in this case it is just says "lead what you like, but I am not asking for a suit other than this one".

[lamford]

<snip> 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.

BB 4A6 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable or announceable category.

 

So East is quite entitled to assume that the call is natural and correctly not alerted, and only a moron would double a natural 4C for takeout with the actual East hand.

[blackshoe]

Oh good, does that mean that you've accepted that it is, in fact, UI; that it's UI even if the director can't prove it; and that this UI does, in fact, matter?

If it's UI, it's UI even if the director can't prove it. However, if he can't demonstrate how whatever action he wants to rule against demonstrably could have suggested by the UI (which, IMO, requires him to also show what the UI is) then it doesn't matter, because he can only adjust the score if he can demonstrate that.

[gordontd]

A pass is only alertable if it is lead-directing; in this case it is just says "lead what you like, but I am not asking for a suit other than this one".

 

Don't you think that gives you some direction as to what to lead?

[gnasher]

If it's UI, it's UI even if the director can't prove it. However, if he can't demonstrate how whatever action he wants to rule against demonstrably could have suggested by the UI (which, IMO, requires him to also show what the UI is) then it doesn't matter, because he can only adjust the score if he can demonstrate that.

I think, or at least hope, that you mean it doesn't matter to the director. It does matter to the other 98% of the people for whom the rules were written.

 

But anyway, I still don't agree with you. The director can usually find out if there was UI by asking questions like "When your partner thinks there's been a failure to alert, does he always call the director? "At what point does he usually call him?" "Have there been any other failures to alert during this session?" "Did anyone call the director on those occasions?"

[lamford]

Don't you think that gives you some direction as to what to lead?

In no greater way than a pass would give you some direction as to what to lead if double had said "lead this suit". If the auction goes 1H-(P)-1S-(P)-4C(correctly not alerted)-(P) when you play that double says "lead a club", would you alert that because Pass gives you some direction that a diamond is called for? A similar scenario occurs when someone passes over a UCB or similar. That (often) says, "My suit is no better than average". Do you alert this because it gives the partner some direction as to what to lead? If, in this example, Pass said, "lead a club", I would agree with you. But it might just as easily be a balanced one-count. Not likely, however, when the TD is called, which provides the "I". Whether that is AI or UI is for this forum to decide; I notice a general reluctance to rule on this case.

 

Even if you conclude that the pass should have been alerted as "I may well prefer a club lead", there is no damage from the failure to alert. South would still bid 4S if pass had been alerted.

[lamford]

The director can usually find out if there was UI by asking questions like "When your partner thinks there's been a failure to alert, does he always call the director?

I would expect the answer to that question to be "no", but I would still not conclude that the TD call was UI, because 16A1c so clearly specifies that it is AI.

[campboy]

What do E/W do when it goes 1♠ - 4♣ (alert)? If they routinely ask then they do not give UI in this situation, and so South's infraction is the only cause of information being transmitted. It would be inequitable to regard it as unauthorised for E/W.

 

If they do not routinely ask then they are probably transmitting a lot of UI on other boards without anyone realising. I think to play this method ethically you have to ask about an alerted 4♣ bid as a matter of course. When I played something similar (double here would be "lead clubs" if Swiss/Gerber, but "lead hearts" if a splinter), which was before the previous "no alerts above 3NT" regulation, I did so.

 

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".

That's not quite an equivalent situation. I wouldn't bother to ask there, but I would ask about 1♠ - 4♣ (no alert) because I know the relevant regulation is fairly new.