[VixTD]

At the club teams championship last night:

---

1NT = 12-14 (announced)
2♥ = transfer to spades (announced)
X = showing hearts
P = exactly two spades (not alerted)

North's pass of the double of South's transfer bid showed exactly two spades by agreement. East assumed the pass must show willingness to play the hand in 2♥X, took fright and bid 2NT. South passed slowly over this, North found a double and East ended up one light.

The TD was called at the end of the hand by West and asked:

(1) Should North's pass of the double have been alerted?
(2) Is North allowed to double after South's slow pass?
(3) Could we have an adjusted score, please?

Well?

[trevahound]

I wonder what E thinks of his partner's doubles when he thinks this hand is little enough that he should run?

If South's slow pass is agreed to or otherwise established, I would adjust to 2nt-1. There is no way on earth pass isn't a LA after opening a medium-weak NT, and squirming or longer thinking definitely suggests not passing over passing. If North is experienced, I think this is flagrant enough to adjust and issue a PP, and I rarely feel that way.

Edit: As to whether or not the pass should be alerting, I don't know where you are, and I'm not sure I even know the answer for where I am (ACBL land), but the pass after the announcement of transfer seems self-alerting to me (like a cue bid) -- unusual enough that opps should be alerted to something unusual and ask otherwise. I mean, what would they expect the non-alerted meaning of pass there to be?

[Trinidad]

VixTD, on 2015-March-25, 09:36, said:

(1) Should North's pass of the double have been alerted?

I don't know, but I am sure Vampyre knows this one. After all, the EBU alert regulation is so easy to apply and everybody is very happy with it. (This was just too easy...)

VixTD, on 2015-March-25, 09:36, said:

(2) Is North allowed to double after South's slow pass?

I would say no. Pass seems to be an LA. South's BIT indicates that he was thinking of acting (doubling, bidding 3♠, bidding a new suit). The double leaves all options open, no matter what action South was thinking about, and is, therefore, of all possible LAs the most suggested by the UI.

VixTD, on 2015-March-25, 09:36, said:

(3) Could we have an adjusted score, please?

That obviously depends on the answer to (1), but I more or less agree with trevahound that East could have more trust in his partner. So, tentatively I will agree with him that the AS will be 2NT-1.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

No, No and Yes. Having 2 spades is (for me) the expected meaning here so an alert seems wrong. The UI issue gives E-W a stronger case. It might be enlightening to ask North why they thought their partner did not hold a 5332 Yarborough. Maybe East is sitting on something like ♠Ax ♥x ♦AKQJxx ♣Jxxx.

[Vampyr]

trevahound, on 2015-March-25, 10:22, said:

the pass after the announcement of transfer seems self-alerting to me (like a cue bid) -- unusual enough that opps should be alerted to something unusual and ask otherwise. I mean, what would they expect the non-alerted meaning of pass there to be?

The EBU don't recognise the concept of "self-alerting bids".

It seems to me that BB4C1( c) implies that a pass here is alerted, since it conveys a message about suit holdings. In any case, it is, in my experience, always alerted, so this is what the opponents will expect, even if it is incorrect!

A non-alerted meaning, trevahound, would show some willingness to play in 2♥X.

[blackshoe]

According to the Blue Book, a pass is not natural if it unexpectedly conveys values or specifies suit holdings (BB 4C1{c}). Also, a pass that is not natural or that has a potentially unexpected meaning requires an alert (BB 4B1). So if the fact that the pass shows exactly 2 spades is unexpected, or if it is potentially unexpected, it requires an alert. It's been twenty two years since I last played in England, so I'll leave answering that question to those who are there.

North has UI. The UI could suggest a double. He doubled. This rates a score adjustment. If North is inexperienced, I would warn him to be more careful in such situations in future, and read Law 73C to him. Otherwise, he rates a PP. Law 16B is a "may not" law, and that's a very strong prohibition. TDs should be looking for good reasons if they don't want to give a PP. Inexperience is one. I can't think of any others offhand. Perhaps "terminal ignorance" - he should have learned by now, but for any of a couple of possible reasons, he hasn't and never will. And that last I would apply only at a club game, and only because if I don't I might get shot. Figuratively, I hope.

[VixTD]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-25, 11:44, said:

It seems to me that BB4C1( c) implies that a pass here is alerted, since it conveys a message about suit holdings. In any case, it is, in my experience, always alerted, so this is what the opponents will expect, even if it is incorrect!

NS had an agreement that the pass promised two spades so I agree this should be alerted. Although this is quite a common agreement to have, many club partnerships don't have firm agreements about what pass, double, and 2♠ would mean in this situation and so would have nothing to alert. If East had taken action on the basis of his own misunderstanding he would have been due no redress, but in this case I think an alert might well have prompted him to ask about the call and steered him away from bidding.

I adjusted the score to 2♠(S)=

Vampyr, on 2015-March-25, 11:44, said:

A non-alerted meaning, trevahound, would show some willingness to play in 2♥X.

I don't think it necessarily would, I think a lot of North players would pass without thinking here and leave it up to partner. The EBU has recently introduced 2D2 to the Blue Book to try to stop players hiding behind "no agreement" when they really know more than the opponents of what is going on, but do they really intend players to alert in this situation when it's genuinely undiscussed?

Quote

[BB2D2] Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert.

[Zelandakh]

VixTD, on 2015-March-26, 08:02, said:

NS had an agreement that the pass promised two spades so I agree this should be alerted. Although this is quite a common agreement to have, many club partnerships don't have firm agreements about what pass, double, and 2♠ would mean in this situation and so would have nothing to alert.

This seems a very strange logic to me Vix. What you are saying is that in any situation where many club partnerships do not have an agreement you have to alert every call, even the most common one. I am no longer in EBUland and not up to date with regulations but previously the rule was that you alert the case with no agreement if one of the possible meanings would be alertable and not the other way around. In this way, what matters is whether "2 spades" or "heart tolerance" is the "normal meaning" for a pass in this auction. As previously stated, I consider 2 spades to be the normal meaning. If it is then it does not seem to me to matter that many partnerships do not have a specific agreement.

[StevenG]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-26, 08:11, said:

As previously stated, I consider 2 spades to be the normal meaning.

Why? It's not normally played as such around here.

[Trinidad]

StevenG, on 2015-March-26, 08:16, said:

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-26, 08:11, said:

As previously stated, I consider 2 spades to be the normal meaning.

Why? It's not normally played as such around here.

I was actually quite surprised by Zel's post that pass showing 2 spades is the normal meaning. But I assumed it was the normal meaning in England, since usually Zel knows what he is talking about.

However, for me the normal meaning is: "I don't want to be declarer in a spade contract (because of my heart holding)." This allows responder to play the spade contract, at the level of his choice. I happen to think that that also is a fairly natural meaning.

Rik

[campboy]

This is the problem with "alert if unexpected" regulations like this one. None of us knows whether it's alertable because we don't know what is expected. We each know what we expect, but that isn't the same for everyone (FWIW I would have assumed "denies 3 spades" without discussion, but I actually play "denies 3 spades and doesn't want to declare", which I alert).

Incidentally, if adjusting for MI I would strongly consider denying redress as 2NT passes the shudder test for me. (Obviously if adjusting for UI you can't deny redress, since 2NT came before the infraction.)

[ahydra]

campboy, on 2015-March-26, 09:18, said:

Incidentally, if adjusting for MI I would strongly consider denying redress as 2NT passes the shudder test for me. (Obviously if adjusting for UI you can't deny redress, since 2NT came before the infraction.)

I considered that too, but figured the reason East bid 2NT was because of the MI, so the SE is related to the infraction. (Unless you think it wild or gambling rather than SE?)

ahydra

[lamford]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-25, 11:27, said:

I don't know, but I am sure Vampyre knows this one. After all, the EBU alert regulation is so easy to apply and everybody is very happy with it. (This was just too easy...)

It would be easy if you read the Blue Book, but you seem to have a pathological dislike of the EBU regulations causing you to generate inane observations on this and similar threads. The Blue Book has, under the definition of "natural" for Pass, and therefore not alertable:

[4C1] (c) A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

On a linguistic note, it would be clearer if this regulation said:
[4C1] (c) A pass which does not specify suit holdings or unexpectedly convey values.
As written it is ambiguous and the second version above might not be the correct interpretation.

The fact that it specified a suit holding (precisely two spades) means that it was not natural, and therefore was alertable. This is deemed misinformation under 21B1a. Were EW damaged? Yes, East would have passed if he knew that North was just showing two spades. South would have bid 2S, and this would probably have made even if EW find their diamond ruff. Should EW have been damaged? Probably not, and East's actions were odd, but not bad enough to be SEWoG, and, in any case, the error was related to the infraction. I would also remove the double of 2NT and that is a better score of EW of -100 in 2NT-1, instead of 2S= -110. At teams I suspect the difference is negligible, and either adjustment would be fine.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2015-March-26, 09:18, said:

This is the problem with "alert if unexpected" regulations like this one. None of us knows whether it's alertable because we don't know what is expected.

Quite. This is why the regulation is not "alert if unexpected" but is specifically addressed in the Blue Book.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-March-26, 09:18, said:

Incidentally, if adjusting for MI I would strongly consider denying redress as 2NT passes the shudder test for me. (Obviously if adjusting for UI you can't deny redress, since 2NT came before the infraction.)

I disagree. Given that something like ♠xx ♥KQJxx ♦Kxxxx ♣x opposite is game, it looks completely the normal bid at the form of scoring, showing a double spade stop, three-card heart support and around a 10 or 11 count. West's double of 2H was a bit thin and even then 2NT was only one off.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2015-March-26, 10:17, said:

Quite. This is why the regulation is not "alert if unexpected" but is specifically addressed in the Blue Book.

The regulation is not to alert "A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings", for which one has to work out what the expected suit holdings might be. It might be a generational thing but most of the literature for players my age suggested using P, 2♠ and super-accepts to differentiate between 2, 3 and 4 card support. One leading authority of the time was for 2♠ to show 2 spades and both Pass and XX to show different forms of 3 card support - that I would certainly consider an artificial scheme. Amongst players I knew the most common by far was P = 2; 2♠ = 3; XX = hearts. It may well be that nationally the norm is now P = hearts; 2♠ = 3; XX = 2...or P = hearts; XX = more hearts; 2♠ = 2-3 spades without hearts...or whatever. I do not know; and nor do you I would guess - one certainly cannot take London as representative of the country! Which of the above schemes is the most natural and least unexpected? Probably depends who you ask. Which brings us back to Vix's interpretation - you have to alert everything, which I think is just wrong.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2015-March-25, 09:36, said:

East assumed the pass must show willingness to play the hand in 2♥X, took fright and bid 2NT.

How do you know he assumed this? How do you know he took fright? Did East make any statement to the TD? It seems more likely to me that 2NT was a constructive move. The failure to alert makes it MUCH more attractive to bid 2NT because partner may well have a doubleton spade, but if North has only two, there is an increased chance of West having three small.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-26, 10:32, said:

Which brings us back to Vix's interpretation - you have to alert everything, which I think is just wrong.

Not so. The unexpectedly refers to "convey values". If a pass specifies a suit length it is always alertable.

You just read the Blue Book from cover to cover several times, and find the regulation covering this and pretty much every other situation. If NS can't be bothered to do this, then they just suffer repeated adjustments against them.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2015-March-26, 10:05, said:

It would be easy if you read the Blue Book, but you seem to have a pathological dislike of the EBU regulations causing you to generate inane observations on this and similar threads. The Blue Book has, under the definition of "natural" for Pass, and therefore not alertable:

[4C1] (c) A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

On a linguistic note, it would be clearer if this regulation said:
[4C1] (c) A pass which does not specify suit holdings or unexpectedly convey values.
As written it is ambiguous and the second version above might not be the correct interpretation.

I interpret "unexpectedly" to apply to both "convey" and "specify". Had they meant to qualify them differently, they could and should have written it as you did, or something like

A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values nor does it specify suit holdings.

One reason I think "unexpectedly" applies to suit holdings is that otherwise, 1♣ (P) 1♥ (1♠) P would require an alert, since this almost always denies holding 4 hearts (and if you play support doubles, probably also denies holding 3). This is so common and logical that I think it's GBK, and I can't believe EBU wants it alerted.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2015-March-26, 10:52, said:

I interpret "unexpectedly" to apply to both "convey" and "specify". Had they meant to qualify them differently, they could and should have written it as you did, or something like

A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values nor does it specify suit holdings.

One reason I think "unexpectedly" applies to suit holdings is that otherwise, 1♣ (P) 1♥ (1♠) P would require an alert, since this almost always denies holding 4 hearts (and if you play support doubles, probably also denies holding 3). This is so common and logical that I think it's GBK, and I can't believe EBU wants it alerted.

That pass does not "specify" the number of hearts held, as it could be 0, 1 or 2, and I know of plenty of people who do alert when playing support doubles. Generally, an adverb only applies to one verb unless made clear. For the meaning you suggest, they could have written:

A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values nor unexpectedly specify suit holdings.