[bluejak]

What "failed to protect themselves" aspect: where is that in the Laws? Do you ask about normal unalerted bids to see whether they are really conventions that opponents failed to alert?

If people do not want to get adjustments against hem perhaps they should follow the Laws.

[peachy]

jillybean, on 2011-April-04, 23:30, said:

I find it hard to believe that 2♦ could be natural, willing to play with Jxxx, I think East bid 2♦ thinking it was 'show your suit'. West confirmed 2♦ was asking for his suit but I wouldn't be surprised to find there was no agreement.

To add a wrinkle to the puzzle, there was a second failure to alert - 2♣ was stayman.

Sorry if this puts in more wrinkles but Stayman is not alerted in ACBL. The chart says under No Alert:
Stayman (next higher level of clubs) asking for a four-card major. (Also, Stayman after the NT opening has been doubled.)

[barmar]

"Protect oneself" appears in ACBL regulations, not the Laws. But it only applies when the player has experience that suggests that there may be failure to disclose properly.

In this case, it's unusual for 2♦ to be anything other than natural. While it's certainly within declarer's rights to confirm this, I don't see why he should be expected to. The non-alert matches his expectations.

[blackshoe]

Quote

ACBL General Conditions of Contest: Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.

Note that this does not say "if the TD thinks they should recognize…" so the TD should ask, and only if they say "yeah, I was pretty sure they should have alerted" or the like does this regulation kick in.

I couldn't find anywhere in the alert procedure a discussion of the specific auction 1NT-(X)-2♣. All the regulation says is "Stayman (2♣ over lNT or 3♣ over 2NT) does not require an alert". All the examples are of uncontested auctions.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-06, 06:54, said:

Note that this does not say "if the TD thinks they should recognize…" so the TD should ask, and only if they say "yeah, I was pretty sure they should have alerted" or the like does this regulation kick in.

I couldn't find anywhere in the alert procedure a discussion of the specific auction 1NT-(X)-2♣. All the regulation says is "Stayman (2♣ over lNT or 3♣ over 2NT) does not require an alert". All the examples are of uncontested auctions.

It is stated in the Alert Chart in the section "Responses to NT openings and overcalls" which I presume - maybe wrongly ? - is just a condensed form of the regulation itself. But in this case gives more information, hehe.
Quote from the No Alert column:
Stayman (next higher level of clubs) asking for a four-card major. (Also, Stayman after the NT opening has been doubled.)

[blackshoe]

Ah. I missed that, because the idiots who wrote the chart put a reference to Stayman which doesn't include the parenthetical expression about 1NT-(X) right at the top of the chart, under "conventional calls".

I would suggest that where the chart and the regulation differ, the regulation takes precedence, but in this case, and knowing how the great minds at ACBL HQ work in these matters, I expect they'd say the chart does.