Failure to alert and change of lead

[timjand]

Bidding:

 

1H - P - 3S* - P

4S - P - 5H - P

all pass

 

*not alerted

 

N is on lead and leads face down without asking questions.

 

Before the card is faced, his partner enquires about the meaning of 3S and is told that it is a splinter agreeing hearts and showing a singleton or void in spades.

 

Director is called as N wants to change his lead. He is an experienced player. On further questioning, he says that he thought 3S was a splinter, despite the lack of an alert, but the 4S response caused him to doubt it.

 

Should he be allowed to change his lead?

 

The query here is that while he is in receipt of misinformation (no alert), it is hard to see what else 3S could be. Nobody at the club plays precision or any unusual system. Or does the failure to alert mean that he is automatically entitled to a change of lead, irrespective of whether or not he understood the bid?

 

Tim

(in the UK, EBU club)

[mgoetze]

How are we meant to guess what the unalertable meanings of 3♠ might be if you won't even tell us what jurisdiction you're in? :P

[timjand]

How are we meant to guess what the unalertable meanings of 3♠ might be if you won't even tell us what jurisdiction you're in? :P

 

Fixed :-)

 

Tim

[ahydra]

I'd allow the lead change under 47E2a. If the opening leader is "experienced", though, he might benefit from a hint about protecting himself.

 

ahydra

[mgoetze]

So the basic rule per Blue Book 4B1 is that 3♠ must be alerted unless it

 

(a) is not natural; or

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

 

I can't really think of any natural meaning for 3♠ that I would expect, but then again it could be argued that this means you should "expect the unexpected" and ask in any case.

 

But I would say that, whatever else he may have thought, North had a right to expect that an unalerted 3♠ showed 3+ spades (per the EBU definition of "natural" in 4C1a). Just because one is experienced doesn't mean one has scoured the internet for information on every possible system and convention out there. Since it was a face-down lead, I don't see a huge problem with letting him change it.

[VixTD]

So the basic rule per Blue Book 4B1 is that 3♠ must be alerted unless it

 

(a) is not natural; or

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

The Blue Book actually says the opposite of this (but I'm sure it's what you meant):

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.

It also states in 4D6:

If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable or announceable category, through either explicit or implicit understanding.

I agree that it would have been wise for North to check on the meaning, but although natural meanings for 3♠ in this sequence are rare, they're not unheard of. I would certainly allow him to change his lead.

[Zelandakh]

I can't really think of any natural meaning for 3♠ that I would expect

The traditional meaning of 3♠ is a very weak hand with long spades and this would seem to me to be the "normal" non-alerted definition within this context. The founder of the BBO Acol Club played this way the last time I saw him due to an extreme dislike of splinters.

[timjand]

Thanks all for your responses.

 

Tim

[billw55]

Hey north, stop wasting time. Next time when you have clear doubts about the auction, just ask before putting your lead face down.

[Zelandakh]

Hey north, stop wasting time. Next time when you have clear doubts about the auction, just ask before putting your lead face down.

Hey East, stop wasting time. Next time when you know there was a failure to alert a call and your side ends up declaring, just mention it before your opponent leads.

[billw55]

Hey East, stop wasting time. Next time when you know there was a failure to alert a call and your side ends up declaring, just mention it before your opponent leads.

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif fair enough.

 

But I still get the nagging suspicion that north was fishing for a double shot on lead.

[pran]

After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down*. The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender’s hand.

A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent’s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card.

There is no restriction against North rectracting his unfaced opening lead as described in OP. A missing alert is a mistaken explanation - period.

[barmar]

But I still get the nagging suspicion that north was fishing for a double shot on lead.

Yeah.

 

I can understand him changing his suspicion about 3♠ when opener bid 4♠, but then when responder corrected back to 5♥ he should think again. And given his experience, he should ask about this confusing auction before he chooses his lead. There's no downside, since it's too late for the declaring side to exchange UI.

 

But since 47E2 says he can change his lead after the response to partner's question, it doesn't seem to matter in this case. I think we'd have more of a case for a player needing to protect themself, and looking for a double shot, if partner hadn't asked.