[barmar]

shevek, on 2013-December-27, 16:02, said:

Thanks all.
I ruled 6H but think that was a bit gutless.

Agreement was unclear "I thought we agreed ..." "No we didn't" Convention card didn't help.

Does the CC say "Bergen Raises" or not? If not, then CC implies that it's natural, as this is surely an important agreement that should be documented on the CC.

Does the Australian CC have a checkbox for weak jump shifts, like ACBL does?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-December-28, 10:54, said:

Does the CC say "Bergen Raises" or not? If not, then CC implies that it's natural, as this is surely an important agreement that should be documented on the CC.

Does the Australian CC have a checkbox for weak jump shifts, like ACBL does?

No, but it has specific places to list the meanings of jump shifts after minor and major openings.

[nige1]

shevek, on 2013-December-27, 05:07, said:

Board a match.
East intended 3D as natural, North alerted it. No questions asked.
4NT was RKC and East has lied.
West thought 3D was some sort of Bergen ("8-11")
North-South want West to bid 7H opposite 2 aces.
7D makes 13, 6H makes 12 on any lead.

---

Presumably, East imagined the hand qualified for a weak jump shift(!) If so, (as FrancesHinden points out) West's alert provided East with no UI, since (sfi tells us) such bids are alertable and no explanation was requested. Provided that is the full story then, no matter what the EW card says, NS weren't damaged, although EW may deserve a PP for some other reason.

[ggwhiz]

If 3♦ was some sort of Bergen West has an auto 7♥ bid. Jxxx and AKxxxx(x) in the red suits? Maybe a spade void for the (unsound) reason for bidding on?

West didn't unalert the alert of 3♦ and is stuck with the Bergen interpretation imo and the slightest even imperceptible flinch by East would clue him in so all doubt should be resolved in favor of N/S.

[Cascade]

ggwhiz, on 2013-December-28, 16:45, said:

If 3♦ was some sort of Bergen West has an auto 7♥ bid. Jxxx and AKxxxx(x) in the red suits? Maybe a spade void for the (unsound) reason for bidding on?

West didn't unalert the alert of 3♦ and is stuck with the Bergen interpretation imo and the slightest even imperceptible flinch by East would clue him in so all doubt should be resolved in favor of N/S.

I don't think it works like this. You have to have an infraction before you have an offending side. Only then can you resolve doubt in favour of the non-offenders. If there is no clear infraction you can't say there is doubt about the infraction thereby presumptively nominating one side as the infractors and then ruling against them because they are the infractors which is simply your presumption and not an established fact.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2013-December-29, 03:19, said:

I don't think it works like this. You have to have an infraction before you have an offending side. Only then can you resolve doubt in favour of the non-offenders. If there is no clear infraction you can't say there is doubt about the infraction thereby presumptively nominating one side as the infractors and then ruling against them because they are the infractors which is simply your presumption and not an established fact.

Also, if a flinch is imperceptible, then as far as the law is concerned it didn't happen.

[ggwhiz]

blackshoe, on 2013-December-29, 14:26, said:

Also, if a flinch is imperceptible, then as far as the law is concerned it didn't happen.

I only meant that part to put the burden on the bidders.

If the alert of 3♦ was meant as Bergen can west really change his mind (without further disclosure) just because no questions were asked? I'll have to start asking about everything if that is the case.

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2013-December-29, 22:23, said:

I only meant that part to put the burden on the bidders.

If the alert of 3♦ was meant as Bergen can west really change his mind (without further disclosure) just because no questions were asked? I'll have to start asking about everything if that is the case.

You can't put a burden on the bidders that is not in the law (or in regulations supplemental to the law).

If a player explains a call and then later realizes that his explanation was incorrect, then he is required to immediately upon realizing it call the director and explain, in the director's presence, that his original explanation was wrong, and give the correct explanation.

If a player alerts a call, because he thinks it requires an alert, and later realizes he was wrong and it does not, he may or may not be required to say anything, depending on local regulations (see Law 40B2{a}). AFAIK, no local regulations require such player to do or say anything when he's "changed his mind".

<pedantic>An alert is not "meant as" any particular agreement. It is meant as a warning to opponents that they may wish to ask about the meaning of the call. Also, an alert is not an explanation.</pedantic>

[ggwhiz]

That clarifies a couple of things for me.

I assumed that an alert as to an agreement documented on the cc happened here and places the same "burden" (poor terminology?) to follow through in the rest of the auction whether an explanation was requested or not.

A mis-explanation may affect the defenders bidding or defense, not needed by them as a good reason not to ask so I guess I'm unclear on the difference.

[Cascade]

ggwhiz, on 2013-December-29, 22:23, said:

I only meant that part to put the burden on the bidders.

If the alert of 3♦ was meant as Bergen can west really change his mind (without further disclosure) just because no questions were asked? I'll have to start asking about everything if that is the case.

blackshoe, on 2013-December-30, 01:12, said:

<pedantic>An alert is not "meant as" any particular agreement. It is meant as a warning to opponents that they may wish to ask about the meaning of the call. Also, an alert is not an explanation.</pedantic>

I don't think the pedantic part is pedantic or at least not unnecessarily pedantic. Alerts are warnings that convey no meaning other than that. They are a trigger that the opponents may need to ask when they need to know the meaning. They are not a trigger that the opponents may need to ask in order to attempt to create an unauthorised information situation for the bidders.

I would think that a player that asked in order to cause the opponents problems was engaging in sharp practice.

Quite simply trying to force the opponents into an unauthorised information situation is not IMHO a bridge skill.

[mycroft]

Well, here, Weak Jump Shifts (in an unopposed auction) are Alertable in this auction, and about 60% of players play them, and about 40% Alert them. Most of that 40% failed to Alert it against me at one point...

It's very interesting, as an unAlerted 1M-3m - that should be not Alerted - is so uncommon (even I don't play it any more) that failure to Alert means "natural, but you should ask the strength", and Alert means "you should ask (and possibly natural)". That's probably something that should get recommended for change on the Alert Procedure.

I would suggest that if 1M-3m WJS is "Alertable, but nobody does", then the Alert is in fact a wakeup call. I definitely would be asking East what 5♦ was, no matter what; with the PP going away only if he can convince me that the Alert didn't wake him up to the fact that partner thought he had hearts.

As I said, though, I thought most roads led to a weighted 6♥/7♥ if UI was used - but not based on "correct 7♦ to 7♥". So give E/W .2 of a board or so?

[RSliwinski]

blackshoe, on 2013-December-30, 01:12, said:

<pedantic>An alert is not "meant as" any particular agreement. It is meant as a warning to opponents that they may wish to ask about the meaning of the call. Also, an alert is not an explanation.</pedantic>

Law 20F5(a)
A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

So when it comes to partner´s alerts (or non-alerts) they maybe cases of misstaken explanation. Do you mean that this is limited only to partner´s alerts and does not apply to my own alerts? This is of course possible and the word "here" in the law text could be interpreted this way but I am not so sure. Ton Kooijman's Law Commentary [see especially the last paragraph of his comment to Law 20] seems to contradict this reading.

[trevahound]

Cascade, on 2013-December-30, 09:47, said:

I don't think the pedantic part is pedantic or at least not unnecessarily pedantic. Alerts are warnings that convey no meaning other than that. They are a trigger that the opponents may need to ask when they need to know the meaning. They are not a trigger that the opponents may need to ask in order to attempt to create an unauthorised information situation for the bidders.

I would think that a player that asked in order to cause the opponents problems was engaging in sharp practice.

Quite simply trying to force the opponents into an unauthorised information situation is not IMHO a bridge skill.

I have had many long arguments about this, and come to the provisional conclusion that this is a seriously minority opinion, albeit one I share. I am told repeatedly both by strong players and good directors that it is perfectly proper in every way to ask questions about alerts when you have no bridge reason for doing so, and when you suspect that you might cement UI for your opps via your questions. I find this practice shameful, but that the laws don't care much what I think about this practice, unsurprisingly. I had to give a very distasteful ruling this year against a fairly inexperienced pair where the UI only came about because a very experienced pair asked questions they had no bridge reason to ask during the auction.

Brian Zaugg

[ArtK78]

trevahound, on 2013-December-30, 13:10, said:

I have had many long arguments about this, and come to the provisional conclusion that this is a seriously minority opinion, albeit one I share. I am told repeatedly both by strong players and good directors that it is perfectly proper in every way to ask questions about alerts when you have no bridge reason for doing so, and when you suspect that you might cement UI for your opps via your questions. I find this practice shameful, but that the laws don't care much what I think about this practice, unsurprisingly. I had to give a very distasteful ruling this year against a fairly inexperienced pair where the UI only came about because a very experienced pair asked questions they had no bridge reason to ask during the auction.

Brian Zaugg

The potential problem with your approach is that by not asking about the alert you are providing UI - that you have no bridge reason for asking about the alert.

This was pointed out to me a number of years ago. I was playing in an event in which Multi was allowed, but in order to play Multi (or any other MidChart convention) the partnership had to provide written defenses. My RHO opened 2♦, and I did not contemplate any action but pass, regardless of the meanings of the many choices provided to me in the written defenses. So I did not consult the written defenses, and I passed. After the hand was over, one of my opponents informed me that by not even glancing at the written defenses, I was conveying information to my partner that I had no reason to do so.

As I said, this is a potential problem, not a clear problem. There are many reasons for not asking opponents the meaning of an alerted call other than what is contained in the asker's hand. The most obvious reason is to prevent the explanation from giving information to the alerter's partner.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2013-December-30, 14:11, said:

The potential problem with your approach is that by not asking about the alert you are providing UI - that you have no bridge reason for asking about the alert.

This was pointed out to me a number of years ago. I was playing in an event in which Multi was allowed, but in order to play Multi (or any other MidChart convention) the partnership had to provide written defenses. My RHO opened 2♦, and I did not contemplate any action but pass, regardless of the meanings of the many choices provided to me in the written defenses. So I did not consult the written defenses, and I passed. After the hand was over, one of my opponents informed me that by not even glancing at the written defenses, I was conveying information to my partner that I had no reason to do so.

And if you look at the defenses, and then pass, you convey pretty much the same information, don't you? Otherwise you would have found a defensive call to describe your hand.

I suppose you could discover that there's no call that fits the kind of hand you have, but then looking at the defense and passing would convey the information that you might have one of those hands. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[blackshoe]

ggwhiz, on 2013-December-30, 09:10, said:

That clarifies a couple of things for me.

I assumed that an alert as to an agreement documented on the cc happened here and places the same "burden" (poor terminology?) to follow through in the rest of the auction whether an explanation was requested or not.

A mis-explanation may affect the defenders bidding or defense, not needed by them as a good reason not to ask so I guess I'm unclear on the difference.

There is no "burden to follow through" on either a player who has given an explanation or on his partner. As Edgar Kaplan famously said "a partnership understanding is not an undertaking to opponents".

I don't understand your second sentence.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2013-December-30, 09:47, said:

I don't think the pedantic part is pedantic or at least not unnecessarily pedantic. Alerts are warnings that convey no meaning other than that. They are a trigger that the opponents may need to ask when they need to know the meaning. They are not a trigger that the opponents may need to ask in order to attempt to create an unauthorised information situation for the bidders.

I would think that a player that asked in order to cause the opponents problems was engaging in sharp practice.

Quite simply trying to force the opponents into an unauthorised information situation is not IMHO a bridge skill.

Heh. I called it pedantic because I anticipated people telling me it was and perhaps overly so. I did not anticipate your reaction.

I agree with you regarding sharp practice generally, and particularly when that is the sole reason for asking.

[CSGibson]

barmar, on 2013-December-30, 14:32, said:

And if you look at the defenses, and then pass, you convey pretty much the same information, don't you? Otherwise you would have found a defensive call to describe your hand.

I suppose you could discover that there's no call that fits the kind of hand you have, but then looking at the defense and passing would convey the information that you might have one of those hands. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I find this analogous to your behavior after a skip bid - you are supposed to study your hand and put on your thinking face, even if the only thing you are thinking about is where you want to eat after the session.

Here you should take a second and review the bidding guidelines - even if you aren't thinking of bidding, because sometimes you will want to think of bidding. At the worst case, it would be nice to know what partner's potential bids are, or your responses, so that you can plan auctions.

As in all of these potential UI situations, you eliminate UI concerns by acting consistently no matter what your hand type is.

[blackshoe]

RSliwinski, on 2013-December-30, 12:13, said:

Law 20F5(a)
A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.

So when it comes to partner´s alerts (or non-alerts) they maybe cases of misstaken explanation. Do you mean that this is limited only to partner´s alerts and does not apply to my own alerts? This is of course possible and the word "here" in the law text could be interpreted this way but I am not so sure. Ton Kooijman's Law Commentary [see especially the last paragraph of his comment to Law 20] seems to contradict this reading.

Law 20F5 applies to misexplanations by partner only. Law 20F4 applies to misexplanations by oneself.

In Ton's example, South failed to alert a 3♣ call which, per partnership agreement, should have been alerted. North correctly gave no indication of a problem at the time. South subsequently bid 4♣, which has an artificial meaning per partnership agreement, so North correctly alerted it. This woke South up to the fact that he should have alerted 3♣. He is now required by Law 20F4 immediately to call the director and correct his own earlier misexplanation. So no, I do not mean that only partner's incorrect alerts or non-alerts are MI, if that's what you were thinking. Your own are as well.

[blackshoe]

trevahound, on 2013-December-30, 13:10, said:

I am told repeatedly both by strong players and good directors that it is perfectly proper in every way to ask questions about alerts when you have no bridge reason for doing so, and when you suspect that you might cement UI for your opps via your questions.

I think what these folks were trying to tell you is that the law gives you the right to ask questions about alerts, whether you have a bridge reason for doing so or not, and that if asking your question "cements UI" for the opponents, that's their problem. I do not think they were telling you that you should use the tactic of asking questions to try to ensure the opponents fall into a UI problem. But perhaps you should go back and ask them.