Self alert without screens

[pescetom]

MP pairs, face to face without screens.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saj9hq82dajcaj643&w=skt4hk973dqcq9875&n=s73hat4dk986543c2&e=sq8652hj65dt72ckt&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1n(Announced 15-17)p3c(Self%20Alerted)p3dp4dp5dppp]399|300[/hv]

 

NS are occasional partners but have played against each other in the same club for decades.

Director is called to table at end of play by W, who has just seen that he got a near bottom.

It is established that N alerted his own 3♣ call: when consterned E asked what he was doing, N apologized that he had been playing too much BBO.

E asked S for an explanation of the call and after a hesitation (disputed by S) was told that it was a transfer to diamonds.

NS bid on to 5♦ and made an overtrick after a hearts lead.

NS have no system card or written agreements: questioned separately away from the table, both say that 2♠ is transfer to clubs and 3♣ transfer to diamonds, although they offer diverging explanations of the followups to 2♠ and of what 1NT 3♦ would mean.

The RA's Alert Procedures specify that, without screens, the partner of the player making a conventional call must show the Alert card to his RHO; there is no discussion of misuse of the Alert card. 3♣ as a transfer is alertable; transfer completions are not alerted or announced.

 

How should Director proceed here and on the basis of which Laws?

[Cyberyeti]

I don't see the damage, N is going to correct clubs to diamonds at any level up to 6 and 3N(S) scores better anyway.

[pescetom]

I don't see the damage, N is going to correct clubs to diamonds at any level up to 6 and 3N(S) scores better anyway.

 

Perhaps, although I have doubts.

 

3N scores better, but not that many tables found it: 420 is 58% at national level and 65% at local level.

And not raising natural clubs would be suspect to say the least.

Correcting to diamonds below 6 level is probably going to be splinter or exclusion once clubs are raised, barring an adequate dose of UI.

And 6♦N looks doomed on a trump lead, or anything except hearts for that matter.

[Cyberyeti]

Perhaps, although I have doubts.

 

3N scores better, but not that many tables found it: 420 is 58% at national level and 65% at local level.

And not raising natural clubs would be suspect to say the least.

Correcting to diamonds below 6 level is probably going to be splinter or exclusion once clubs are raised, barring an adequate dose of UI.

And 6♦N looks doomed on a trump lead, or anything except hearts for that matter.

 

The problem is you don't know what 3♣ would mean if natural in a system they're not playing, if it's inv, they're not getting to a slam

[smerriman]

The question here appears to be - could 3♣ have been interpreted as something else if not for the UI?

 

The best way of answering this is based on the notes they provided, of which there are none.

 

Asking them what their agreement is doesn't seem to be an appropriate solution, since the UI has already affected that.

 

Perhaps polling the rest of the club to see what they believe 3♣ would mean if undiscussed is therefore the best way of seeing if there is a logical alternative.

 

Whether that's what the laws say to do, I'm not sure; the laws are often silly :(

 

Incidentally, if 5♦ was a near bottom and not many found 3NT, what exactly did others do? Probably not relevant, unless it implies that the system they've stated they play indeed isn't what others would expect..

[steve2005]

Perhaps polling the rest of the club to see what they believe 3♣ would mean if undiscussed is therefore the best way of seeing if there is a logical alternative.

Why would you think it was undiscussed?

[Cyberyeti]

 

Incidentally, if 5♦ was a near bottom and not many found 3NT, what exactly did others do? Probably not relevant, unless it implies that the system they've stated they play indeed isn't what others would expect..

 

Probably played 5♦= on a lead that didn't give a trick away from one side or other.

[smerriman]

Why would you think it was undiscussed?

It most likely wasn't. But the players should be providing some sort of written agreements to resolve issues like this. If they're not going to do so, then perhaps treating this as undiscussed will help them do it next time..

[pescetom]

The problem is you don't know what 3♣ would mean if natural in a system they're not playing, if it's inv, they're not getting to a slam

 

No problem knowing that meaning in this particular context, until a few years ago all played that 2NT/3♣/3♦ were natural invitational.

And if N is engaging in any skulduggery here then it is probably out of fear that this might still be the default agreement.

But now they more or less moved to transfers (more usually 2NT for diamonds) and 4♣ as baby food, so 3♣ is a guessing game or worse.

Yes if it is invitational then 3NT by opener is reasonable, although I think that should be a mild slam invite following a diamonds transfer.

[pescetom]

The question here appears to be - could 3♣ have been interpreted as something else if not for the UI?

 

The best way of answering this is based on the notes they provided, of which there are none.

 

Asking them what their agreement is doesn't seem to be an appropriate solution, since the UI has already affected that.

 

Perhaps polling the rest of the club to see what they believe 3♣ would mean if undiscussed is therefore the best way of seeing if there is a logical alternative.

 

Whether that's what the laws say to do, I'm not sure; the laws are often silly :(

 

Incidentally, if 5♦ was a near bottom and not many found 3NT, what exactly did others do? Probably not relevant, unless it implies that the system they've stated they play indeed isn't what others would expect..

 

I described what their peers would believe 3♣ undiscussed to be in my reply to cyberyeti. Some younger players would have it be both minors non forcing, but this generation of players skipped that nonsense B-)

 

Other results in the club were 3NT+2, 5♦+1, 5♦=, 2♠x-2, 3♦+2 and a mysterious 1NT-1, as I recall. No evidence of anything unusual about their system, although most use 2NT as diamonds transfer and one pair played diamonds from N.

[pescetom]

Thanks to those who replied so far, but maybe we jumped the gun a bit, as players tend to do :)

 

Taking several steps backwards, which law(s) if any did N actually break?

Any concerns about the behaviour of other players at the table?

What is the actual agreement about 3♣?

What logical alternatives did S have?

[Cyberyeti]

Thanks to those who replied so far, but maybe we jumped the gun a bit, as players tend to do :)

 

Taking several steps backwards, which law(s) if any did N actually break?

Any concerns about the behaviour of other players at the table?

What is the actual agreement about 3♣?

What logical alternatives did S have?

 

N at least broke the RA's alert procedure. NS broke the rules about having completed convention cards - but this seems to be condoned in this club.

 

EW should have called the director immediately the self alert happened.

 

What logical alternatives S had would depend on facts that should have been determined at the time of the alert and probably should have been explained to him, not sure EW haven't been authors of their own misfortune by not calling the director till too late (and finding a crap lead).

[barmar]

N broke 73B:

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked, or alerts and explanations given or not given.

 

The self-alert is an extraneous remark, which communicates information about the bid to partner.

 

However, there's only damage if N would have misunderstood the bid without the UI. And unless N admits that it helped him, we can't determine that objectively -- the TD has to ask them and decide whether they believe the answer.

 

I really dislike the suggestion that we simply assume they have no agreement, and N wouldn't have understood, because they have no system card.

[pescetom]

N at least broke the RA's alert procedure.

I'm not so sure. The procedure (unfortunately) only specifies what the partner of the player making a conventional call should do, not what the player himself should (not) do. His partner has not made a call and therefore (arguably, at least) this procedure is not applicable to him, only to his partner.

If the procedure also said "the player making a call may not give any indication that the call should or should not be alerted or that partner has or has not alerted it" then there would be no ambiguity and this would be a clear infraction.

 

 

EW should have called the director immediately the self alert happened.

Agreed.

 

 

N broke 73B:

The self-alert is an extraneous remark, which communicates information about the bid to partner.

Again, not so sure. 73B is a "shall" offence, penalty more often that not: so "communication" is presumably intentional, not just "could have been aware that partner might understand" or "partner might understand, even if the remark was involuntary or an attempt to follow procedure".

N asserts that he was attempting (albeit mistakenly) to follow procedure when he made the alert, after all.

He certainly generated UI, but (if we believe him) this was accidental transmission and it seems like 16B already covers that scenario.

 

Just stating a doubt here, not saying you are wrong: interested to hear what experienced TDs have to say about this, and 73 in general.

 

 

 

However, there's only damage if N would have misunderstood the bid without the UI. And unless N admits that it helped him, we can't determine that objectively -- the TD has to ask them and decide whether they believe the answer.

I would say there's also damage if S *might* have misunderstood the bid without the UI, but gratefully converged on the only likely artificial meaning thanks to the self alert. In which case he may also have broken 75D2 ("It is a condition of any partnership agreement that both players possess the same mutual understanding, and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual understanding does not exist.").

 

 

I really dislike the suggestion that we simply assume they have no agreement, and N wouldn't have understood, because they have no system card.

That would be not only unfair but also unworkable, I think.

But it does seem reasonable to deny them the benefit of any doubt, given that they are already violating procedure by not having a card.

[blackshoe]

"Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." -- Law 12B1, in part.

 

Not having a system card is a separate offense and should be adjudicated as such. Law 90 says that if an offense violates correct procedure or requires the award of an adjusted score, or inconveniences other contestants, it is subject to a PP. However,as far as the question of what their agreement actually is, all the lack of a system card does is eliminate one possible source of evidence. It does not say or even suggest that there is no agreement.

[kenberg]

I am no authority on the law, bridge law or otherwise. But here is how it seems to me:

 

N alerted his own 3C call. This says "partner, my 3C call is conventional." Let's say he did not intend to do it. But he did do it. We do not want the ruling to be based on whether we trust him or not. The ruling should be that if you bid and announce to the table that your bid is conventional then the default assumption is that your announcement has affected the auction.

Maybe they had discussed the meaning of 3C. Maybe S remembered that discussion without hearing the alert. Maybe not. Maybe a lot of things. No way to know so go with a ruling that does not guess at what might have been.

NS should not profit from this. An average minus is ok by me. As to EW, my preference would be that the board just be deleted in the computation of their score. I don't think that ruling is one of the allowed choices but it has always seemed to me that it should be. I don't see why EW should get either a bonus or a minus.

N made a mistake. Mistakes can cost. They must accept a cost for their mistake. We are not saying they are evil, we are saying that they made a mistake that screwed up the auction.

 

I am not a director.

[pescetom]

I am no authority on the law, bridge law or otherwise. But here is how it seems to me:

 

N alerted his own 3C call. This says "partner, my 3C call is conventional." Let's say he did not intend to do it. But he did do it. We do not want the ruling to be based on whether we trust him or not. The ruling should be that if you bid and announce to the table that your bid is conventional then the default assumption is that your announcement has affected the auction.

Maybe they had discussed the meaning of 3C. Maybe S remembered that discussion without hearing the alert. Maybe not. Maybe a lot of things. No way to know so go with a ruling that does not guess at what might have been.

NS should not profit from this. An average minus is ok by me. As to EW, my preference would be that the board just be deleted in the computation of their score. I don't think that ruling is one of the allowed choices but it has always seemed to me that it should be. I don't see why EW should get either a bonus or a minus.

N made a mistake. Mistakes can cost. They must accept a cost for their mistake. We are not saying they are evil, we are saying that they made a mistake that screwed up the auction.

 

I am not a director.

 

You clearly are not a director, but your expectations as a fair minded player of what should happen here are clear and logical, albeit miles apart from the actual laws. That should be food for thought for lawmakers.

[axman]

You clearly are not a director, but your expectations as a fair minded player of what should happen here are clear and logical, albeit miles apart from the actual laws. That should be food for thought for lawmakers.

 

I am thinking that if the law had been followed ...by the tournament officials... then the incident would never have happened and there would be no story. There is a ubiquitous notion that the law explicitly permits alerts in face to face; but to the contrary it actually forbids. iow had there been no alerts permitted then there would have been no disruption as described. Getting back to the ubiquitous notion. The law actually provides that disclosure may be regulated in the light that the regulation does not fracture the law; and alerts fracture L73B2- the one that says breaking it is the worst crime there is.

[blackshoe]

I am thinking that if the law had been followed ...by the tournament officials... then the incident would never have happened and there would be no story. There is a ubiquitous notion that the law explicitly permits alerts in face to face; but to the contrary it actually forbids. iow had there been no alerts permitted then there would have been no disruption as described. Getting back to the ubiquitous notion. The law actually provides that disclosure may be regulated in the light that the regulation does not fracture the law; and alerts fracture L73B2- the one that says breaking it is the worst crime there is.

Law73B2: The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.

The emphasis is mine.

 

Law 40B2(a): The Regulating Authority: (iii.) may prescribe alerting procedures and/ or other methods of disclosure of a partnership’s methods.

Given Law 40B2(a)(iii) Alert procedures do not breach Law 73B2.

[barmar]

Inadvertently self-alerting is not a "prearranged method", it's just a mistake.

 

Unless you've actually discussed "Hey, partner, how about if we self-alert, and when questioned say that it was because we're used to playing online?"

[barmar]

I am no authority on the law, bridge law or otherwise. But here is how it seems to me:

 

N alerted his own 3C call. This says "partner, my 3C call is conventional." Let's say he did not intend to do it. But he did do it. We do not want the ruling to be based on whether we trust him or not. The ruling should be that if you bid and announce to the table that your bid is conventional then the default assumption is that your announcement has affected the auction.

Maybe they had discussed the meaning of 3C. Maybe S remembered that discussion without hearing the alert. Maybe not. Maybe a lot of things. No way to know so go with a ruling that does not guess at what might have been.

NS should not profit from this. An average minus is ok by me. As to EW, my preference would be that the board just be deleted in the computation of their score. I don't think that ruling is one of the allowed choices but it has always seemed to me that it should be. I don't see why EW should get either a bonus or a minus.

N made a mistake. Mistakes can cost. They must accept a cost for their mistake. We are not saying they are evil, we are saying that they made a mistake that screwed up the auction.

 

I am not a director.

Would you rule the same way if they inadvertently self-announced a common agreement like Jacoby Transfer?

 

I don't like the idea of automatically assuming that the self-alert damaged the opponents, although it does have the virtue of being an objective criterion, rather than requiring the TD to assess whether the partner is being truthful when he says whether he was woken up.

[axman]

The emphasis is mine.

 

 

Given Law 40B2(a)(iii) Alert procedures do not breach Law 73B2.

To pass muster the alerts that may be prescribed are among those that do not conflict with law (L80). As I pointed to L73B2 which states that there is no crime greater than partners communicating by a system other than by call or play, and, alerts are a system of communication other than by call or play they do not pass muster. As it is possible (only with screens) to alert without partners communicating other than by call or play that is regulation that 40B2a3 provides for.

 

Some may suspect that I think that alerts are bad policy (in fact I do) but as to what that law provides my opinion is that that that law got face to face right and screens wrong. My quibble is with they who are getting that law wrong.

[blackshoe]

You are, as a friend of mine used to say, entitled to your wrong opinion.

[axman]

You are, as a friend of mine used to say, entitled to your wrong opinion.

THe law enumerates that in face to face alerts are a system of communication other than by call or play:

 

L16B.1. Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, ...

 

The only way to construe L80 so as to permit alerts is that the only permissible alerts can be behind screens (as in not available to partner).

[pescetom]

THe law enumerates that in face to face alerts are a system of communication other than by call or play:

 

L16B.1. Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, ...

 

The only way to construe L80 so as to permit alerts is that the only permissible alerts can be behind screens (as in not available to partner).

 

Law 16 is in my opinion one of the best written laws, but it does have some minor flaws. Here I think "unexpected alerts or failures to alert" is intended to mean "a face to face alert by your partner which is unexpected because the agreed meaning of the call you just made is not subject to alert (or partner did not alert, which is unexpected because the call is subject to alert)". So it doesn't apply to to all face to face alerts, as you seem to assume (nor does it apply to the "self alert" this post is talking about, come to that, although that still falls under L16B1).