Unsure alert over a forcing club

[dwar0123]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakjt862htda64caq&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c(16%2B%20Any%20shape)1s(Alerted%2C%20asked%2C%20after%202%20minutes%20of%20thought%2C%20east%20said%20unsure%2C%20cards%20not%20marked%20with%20relevent%20info)2h(5%2B%20Hearts%2C%20game%20forcing)p2sp3cp3sp4cp4sppp]133|200[/hv]

 

The 1 spade bid was alerted and after 2 minutes of thought, she said she doesn't know what it shows.

 

Bid turned out to be natural, any redress available given the false alert?

 

Edit: Jurisdiction - ACBL

[ahydra]

Which jurisdiction?

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Redress for what damage?

[robert2734]

Presuming she doesn't know what it shows, didn't you get a correct explanation of the partnership understanding?

[Zelandakh]

Redress for what damage?

South has a 9PT hand that they bid as a normal 16 count. It seems reasonable to assume slam made and South wants to get a ruling to make up for their poor bidding.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, well, I wish him luck with that.

[barmar]

Presuming she doesn't know what it shows, didn't you get a correct explanation of the partnership understanding?

A natural spade overcall isn't alertable, and alerting a non-alertable bid is technically misinformation.

 

And a partnership agreement doesn't go away just because one of them has temporarily forgotten what it is. Even if East has forgotten, NS are entitled to know what the agreement actually is. "I don't know" may be a true statement and the best East can do at the moment, but it's not a correct explanation if the pair has made an agreement about what it shows.

[pran]

A natural spade overcall isn't alertable, and alerting a non-alertable bid is technically misinformation.

I know that different jurisdictions have different rules on alerting but I strongly disagree with the above principle.

 

The purpose of an alert is not to describe the alerted call but to "alert" opponents that the call might convey information that is not evident to them.

 

Consequently an alert is never misinformation but a missing alert where alert is required is always misinformation.

[robert2734]

alerting a non-alertable bid is unauthorized information to your partner. It isn't misinformation to the opponents. The explanation east doesn't know what partner's bid means is unauthorized to west. If you feel east did not give a full and complete explanation of the partnership method, that's the time to call the director.

[weejonnie]

And no one thought to look at the convention card?

 

And no one thought to call the Director?

 

Oh well.

[pran]

alerting a non-alertable bid is unauthorized information to your partner.[...]

Of course it is.

 

And so what? Partner must simply (as always) disregard this unauthorized information.

 

(The fact that a player alerts or fails to alert is always unauthorized information to his partner!)

[blackshoe]

Law 20F5{a}, in part: “Mistaken explanation” here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (My emphasis - ER)

[Zelandakh]

A natural spade overcall isn't alertable, and alerting a non-alertable bid is technically misinformation.

This is simply untrue Barry. Taken from the ACBL document on alerting:

Treatments that show unusual strength or shape should be Alerted.

This would have been relevant if, for example, CY's recent protective overcall thread was under ACBL jurisdiction.

 

The ACBL is unfortunately rather short on guidelines for calls that have no clear agreement but might have an alertable meaning. The EBU explicitly explains that such calls should be alerted and this seems to me to be closest to the spirit of the ACBL guidelines without clear direction.

[barmar]

This is simply untrue Barry. Taken from the ACBL document on alerting:

If the spade overcall just shows spades, it doesn't show unusual shape or strength. So it's not alertable.

 

2-suiter overcalls, like in DONT or Cappalletti, show something in addition to the suit bid, so they are indeed alertable.

This would have been relevant if, for example, CY's recent protective overcall thread was under ACBL jurisdiction.

I have no idea what thread this refers to.

[Lanor Fow]

There isn't enough information here to give a ruling.

 

How does south believe they were damaged, or in other words how would they have bid differently if it hadn't been alerted.

 

What would 2s, then 3s then 4s have been over a natural unalerted spade overcall?

[dwar0123]

Sorry for the late reply, was out of town.

 

Had the bid not been alerted, the auction would have proceeded to a makeable 3nt, given the belief it was some sort of unknown artificial bid, we proceeded to a spade contract.

 

The director was called at the conclusion of the hand and ruled the result stands(4S failed when the overcaller had 2 natural trump tricks).

 

The director pointed out we should have called when the non explanation was given and he would have instructed east to depart the table so west could give an explanation of the bid. I was not aware that this is the recommended procedure when there is an alert given but not explained.

[akwoo]

Since East gave presumably the correct explanation, N/S were never misinformed. If N/S had not asked and assumed it was artificial in some way, they might have some claim to being misinformed, but since they asked, N/S always had all the correct information.

[dwar0123]

Since East gave presumably the correct explanation, N/S were never misinformed. If N/S had not asked and assumed it was artificial in some way, they might have some claim to being misinformed, but since they asked, N/S always had all the correct information.

 

I have doubts that "Alert! ... I don't know" can construed as the correct information. It isn't as if she withdrew the alert after thinking about.

[blackshoe]

"Alert" means "There's something about partner's bid you might want to know". So you say "Okay, what do I need to know?" and he says "I don't know." If that's not MI, I don't know what is.

[akwoo]

"Alert" means "There's something about partner's bid you might want to know". So you say "Okay, what do I need to know?" and he says "I don't know." If that's not MI, I don't know what is.

 

I strongly disagree.

 

If, as far as you know, partner's bid has several possible meanings, and any one of them is alertable, you are supposed to alert.

 

Of course, what N/S should have done is call the director when East said "I don't know". Of course, it's also true that East should suggest calling the director when he or she says "I don't know". The director can pull East away from the table and have West explain.

[mgoetze]

A natural spade overcall isn't alertable, and alerting a non-alertable bid is technically misinformation.

As has already been pointed out, this is untrue in several jurisdictions. Consider that the player in question might have remembered that he ought to alert this natural 1♠ bid without remembering exactly why. I would advise an alert if, say, 1♠ included a weak jump overcall because 2♠ had been assigned an artificial meaning.

 

Regardless, I never have sympathy for assuming a bid is not natural just because it has been alerted. Say it goes 1NT-2♣-2♥-3NT, with 2♥ alerted because it shows 5 hearts. Opening leader, instead of asking, leads a heart, giving away the contract. Are you going to give him an adjustment? Of course not!

[barmar]

As has already been pointed out, this is untrue in several jurisdictions.

So? We were told this is ACBL jurisdiction, that's the context my comment was intended for.

Regardless, I never have sympathy for assuming a bid is not natural just because it has been alerted. Say it goes 1NT-2♣-2♥-3NT, with 2♥ alerted because it shows 5 hearts. Opening leader, instead of asking, leads a heart, giving away the contract. Are you going to give him an adjustment? Of course not!

Of course, the alertable meaning could be something like "hearts and a minor". So being artificial doesn't deny that the player holds that suit.

[mgoetze]

We were told this is ACBL jurisdiction,

Yes, and noone knows the rules there, so comparing to jurisdictions that spell it out is useful.

[blackshoe]

As has already been pointed out, this is untrue in several jurisdictions.

This is not a matter of regulation, it is a matter of law. Read Law 20F5{a}.

[Zelandakh]

This is not a matter of regulation, it is a matter of law. Read Law 20F5{a}.

We are not discussing whether MI should be corrected during the hand but rather whether a call of uncertain meaning is alertable. The ACBL does not appear to address this issue. Other jurisdictions do and generally where that is the case such calls should be alerted when one possible meaning is alertable - see for example the EBU White Book 1.3.1.