[jillybean]

ACBL

2♥ P 2N P
3♠

I am holding ♠AKxx and know that 3♠ should have been alerted. Before I bid should I ask the opps about 3♠, perhaps creating a wake up call for our snoozing opps up and giving UI to my partner? If I don't ask until the end of the auction and on hearing the explanation, can my partner or I change any call call after 3♠ and all subsequent calls?

[pran]

 jillybean, on 2011-April-04, 14:12, said:

ACBL

2♥ P 2N P
3♠

I am holding ♠AKxx and know that 3♠ should have been alerted. Before I bid should I ask the opps about 3♠, perhaps creating a wake up call for our snoozing opps up and giving UI to my partner? If I don't ask until the end of the auction and on hearing the explanation, can my partner or I change any call call after 3♠ and all subsequent calls?

Which of the four players is you? (Probably the one in turn to call over the 3♠ bid?)
Side question: Why should the 3♠ bid be alerted?

You may ask about opponents' auction any time it is your turn to call, but it is usually not advisable to ask unless you need the information asked for in order to decide your own call.

If at any time during the auction and before the opening lead has been faced misinformation (during the auction) is revealed the last NOS player that has called at that time may withdraw his last call (only) and replace it with another call if he can show reason for this from the misinformation.

[jillybean]

 pran, on 2011-April-04, 14:51, said:

Which of the four players is you? (Probably the one in turn to call over the 3♠ bid?)
Side question: Why should the 3♠ bid be alerted?

I was in 4th seat here but have posed the question as the 2nd seat bidder, holding ♠AKxx and bidding after 3♠.
2N is an asking bid, 3♠ is conventional. Is this not alertable in ACBL?

[bluejak]

I believe 3♠ is alertable in the ACBL. My impression of the ACBL is that players there are more likely not to bother to alert, or to forget to, in fairly routine positions. So if 2NT was intended as Ogust the player knew 3♠ was alertable but did not.

In general I would ask if I needed to know, presumably because I was going to double 3♠, though this will not often be of use since I am likely to be on lead to 4♥. As for waking up opponents, my view is generally that good opponents I assume to be ethical [though am sometimes disappointed] and the wakeup they will ignore since they know it is unauthorised. Poor opponents I allow to get away with a lot anyway.

I am talking generally: on the actual sequence I am not going to bid so I would ask before the opening lead [or when partner has led face down]. I know players do not always lead face down in the ACBL but my partners do because I train them to.

[G_R__E_G]

Was the 2NT call alerted?

[jillybean]

 bluejak, on 2011-April-05, 07:01, said:

I believe 3♠ is alertable in the ACBL. My impression of the ACBL is that players there are more likely not to bother to alert, or to forget to, in fairly routine positions. So if 2NT was intended as Ogust the player knew 3♠ was alertable but did not.

2N was feature ask, 2N/2x asks 1 of 2 routine questions.

 bluejak, on 2011-April-05, 07:01, said:

In general I would ask if I needed to know, presumably because I was going to double 3♠, though this will not often be of use since I am likely to be on lead to 4♥. As for waking up opponents, my view is generally that good opponents I assume to be ethical [though am sometimes disappointed] and the wakeup they will ignore since they know it is unauthorised. Poor opponents I allow to get away with a lot anyway.

This seems to be misguided and perpetuates the problem, shouldn't the laws be applied equally across all levels?

[bluejak]

Maybe, and as a TD I apply them.

But I do not think that trying to get UI rulings in clubs where I am known to be one of the best or the best player there and [perhaps more importantly] known to be a far better TD than the poor TD I would be asking for rulings is helpful.

Most club TDs around here deal with two or three UI rulings a year. I see UI problems every week. If I always asked for a ruling I do not think my membership would be renewed.

[jillybean]

 G_R__E_G, on 2011-April-05, 07:54, said:

Was the 2NT call alerted?

2N was not alerted, I don't believe it is alertable but the responses are.

[G_R__E_G]

 jillybean, on 2011-April-05, 08:49, said:

2N was not alerted, I don't believe it is alertable but the responses are.

Yes, you are correct (in the ACBL) but in practice I've found that the 2NT call often is alerted.

[mycroft]

In this case (unlike my comments yesterday), here you *do* live in "you're good enough to know" territory (clearly - you've told us that you know at the time that 3S has to be Alerted), and in the ACBL you will be given "no damage from failure to Alert."

If you were planning on asking because partner might not know, you can't - Law 20G. Please note that if partner isn't experienced enough to know that 3S should be Alertable (possible, but unlikely) *she* can get protection from the failure to Alert - just not you.

By the way, 2NT isn't always conventional (and yes, 2NT asking is not Alertable - that means that when I play it as "naturalish", I have to Alert it!), and I've played at least three different asks (five if you count different flavours of "hand strength" asks). So, I do think it's important (at least in the play) to know what 3S is. And yes, if it's feature, and you have SAQJTxx, you probably need to know now (on the auction 2H-2NT; 3S-3NT, you want a spade lead and won't get one unless you double; but on the other hand, after 2H-2NT, 3S-(X), you're now not getting a 3NT call). But if they'd Alerted it, you'd be in the same boat.

Really, if we called the TD after every infraction, of whatever technicality, every time, we'd get about 15 boards in a night. I try to follow the rules explicitly, down to the "trivial" (well, what do I pronounce myself over on the left?), but I'm sure I commit 5 or 7 infractions a night, not counting the innumerable Law 46 infractions. Almost never are they a problem, and when they are, the TD is called, and we deal with it.

Having said that, should they Alert it? Of course. I have called the TD on occasion, after the hand, to "ask" if a particular sequence is Alertable (while explicitly waiving any damage that wasn't caused by the lack). It's not my place to educate when I'm at the table, but it is one of the TD's duties, and I do want people to know for next time (when they might get a "stand-on-the-chair-DIRECTOR" player rather than me). Interfering busybody? Well, yeah (again, see the left-hand pane).

[jillybean]

No question was asked about the 3♠ bid and the auction continued...

2♥ P 2N P
3♠ X 3N AP

I held ♠QJxx which obviously caused me some pause for thought. I likely misguidedly thought by asking about the 3♠ bid now that I would give UI to my partner. I led ♠x, dummy came down with ♠xxxx.
My partner won the first ♠ but then switched, we never got our ♠ tricks.

At the end of the hand I asked about the 3♠ bid. They play 2N as feature ask, the 3♠ bidder saying he read that without a feature but with a maximum hand, bid another suit.

My question is nothing to do with getting an adjustment but rather what happens from here on in regarding our opps responsibility to explain this sequence? Must they disclose that the response could be feature OR maximum hand, or since we are privy to the same information is it up to us to remember? Should this be disclosed in subsequent games?

[aguahombre]

 mycroft, on 2011-April-05, 09:29, said:

By the way, 2NT isn't always conventional (and yes, 2NT asking is not Alertable - that means that when I play it as "naturalish", I have to Alert.

Yes, of course you have to alert. That is because YOU know the rules. This is but another example of alerting problems, however. It is easy to say that players are responsible for knowing the alerting rules. But, I would venture that 99 percent of people who use 2NT as a natural bid over pard's weak 2 have no working knowledge of "2NT Asking", and no clue that their 2NT bid is unusual, hence alertable.

The answer to this type of situation (making artificial calls alertable, and natural calls not alertable unless they carry an additional message about another suit) is not acceptable to the powers of bridge at present. But even the most inexperienced players could grasp that concept and follow it.

[blackshoe]

There is no requirement for you to remember your opponents' system. There is always a requirement for them to disclose their methods iaw the regulations in force.

This kind of agreement should be on the system card, and this conundrum is a good reason to be checking the card before every round, to refresh your memory.

[jillybean]

 blackshoe, on 2011-April-05, 10:17, said:

There is no requirement for you to remember your opponents' system. There is always a requirement for them to disclose their methods iaw the regulations in force.

This kind of agreement should be on the system card, and this conundrum is a good reason to be checking the card before every round, to refresh your memory.

There was no evidence, other than a lack of surprise when dummy was put down, that his partner had any knowledge of the dual meaning.

[blackshoe]

You asked questions, I tried to answer them. I guess I don't understand your point.

[jillybean]

 blackshoe, on 2011-April-05, 12:45, said:

You asked questions, I tried to answer them. I guess I don't understand your point.

You have answered my questions, thank you. I was not wanting to make my own conclusion here and in doing so probably omitted
important information.

I don't believe "feature OR maximum hand" was their agreement. I think the 3S bidder, with a maximum hand, decided to bluff the response to the feature ask, I could be wrong. The 3S bidder said he had read that with maximum hand, even without a feature, you should bid another suit.

The question is, does this constitute an implicit agreement which in future, should be disclosed ? And, if the auction occurs again during this match, does it need to be disclosed or are we expected to remember that this is their agreement? I was told we were expected to remember, this seems wrong to me but I didn't pursue it at the time.

[blackshoe]

As to judging what their actual agreement was, I would say you had to be there. It takes more than one occurrence to establish an implicit agreement, usually. OTOH, the foofoora surrounding a particular incident where the TD is called may make one occurrence enough. Again, I think you had to be there.

I know of nothing in law or regulation that requires players to remember what their opponents did on a previous board.