Double for the lead

[nige1]

However, if the auction starts (1♠) - 2♠ (no alerts), do you really think it's fair to give the opening side redress if they act as if the overcall is natural, as a player tried to do in a recent tournament where I was directing?

Under current EBU rules, when an opponent cue-bids (unalerted) partner's major opener, I accept that I'm expected to protect myself. It's not the director's fault. Daft rules are again to blame. As I keep repeating, I think the relevant rule is unnecessry. It provides helpful AI to opponents (offenders) and gives UI to partner (i.e. handicaps victims). It adds zero value, Such rules should be scrapped.

[barmar]

What we need to address that is an exception to UI for information passed as a result of an infraction by opponents. If the opponents fail to alert, I shouldn't have to worry about UI from trying to get the explanation.

 

But could there be a Catch-22 in there? Suppose I ask, and it turned out that the non-alert was correct. Now there's no infraction, so I have no indemnity.

[pescetom]

But could there be a Catch-22 in there? Suppose I ask, and it turned out that the non-alert was correct. Now there's no infraction, so I have no indemnity.

 

I think you answered your own question. It shouldn't be up to the opponents to to verify if an infraction has occurred, at their own risk or otherwise. If there is no alert and the agreement was alertable then the offending pair should be penalised for the infraction and the non-offending pair should be protected as if they had received a wrong explanation.