[lamford]

---

IMPS. Table Result 4S+1 Q♣ lead

I had my annual New Year's drink with SB last night, and he indicated that one of his resolutions was not to call the TD any more. Unfortunately, another of his resolutions was not to call the TD any less. It reminds me of my friend, the late Bob Brinig, who told me that he was not drinking any more ...

SB played his first game of the year last night. On the above hand, SB, East, was up to his old tricks. North-South had not been to the North London club for a couple of years, and were also unfamiliar with the Blue Book. When North bid 4H, SB suspected it was probably a splinter, but when there was no alert, he passed. At the end of the hand, he was quick to pounce. "I think we need the TD", he said. "4♥ has been alertable for at least 12 months, and it is your job to read the regulations", he continued. "DIRECTOOOR"

South thought that bids over 3NT were not alertable, but the TD who arrived confirmed it was on the first round of the auction if artificial. "How were you damaged?" he asked. "Well," replied SB, "I would have doubled the splinter, and my partner would have had an easy 5♥ bid. That appears to be cold, so the score should be adjusted to 5Hx=".

"Why did you not ask?" the TD enquired. SB was ready with his answer: "If 4H was natural, the last thing I wanted to be doing is doubling as that would be take-out and partner might bid 5D. If it is a splinter, double would be lead-directing and suggest saving, as you can see from our system notes, TD. I could not ask without conveying UI to my partner who might have been bidding 4NT himself if he held both minors as seemed likely".

How do you rule?

[Vampyr]

I think that SB has a real problem here, and I will be forced to,rule in his favour. I will weight 4♠ 5♥, 5♠ and maybe 6♥x in some proportion, not sure what. Also not sure what percentage I will give to 5♠ making. In any case SB will get something.

[broze]

What is the purpose of the comment "4♥ has been alertable for at least 12 months"? Is this a reference to a regulation?

Anyway for once I will actually rule in SB's favour too. I agree with what he says. (Although as Vampyr says there should be a split score - 100% of 5Hx would be unfair).

[wank]

obviously west isn't bidding 4NT after passing at the 1 level, but i agree that east can't ask over 4H because he'll be hoping a splinter is misinterpreted. however, once south takes 4H out, it should be obvious that it wasn't natural and east can ask now and get his bid back. i don't think the ebu, unlike the ACBL, has a regulation about protecting yourself though, does it?

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-03, 22:56, said:

I think that SB has a real problem here, and I will be forced to,rule in his favour. I will weight 4♠ 5♥, 5♠ and maybe 6♥x in some proportion, not sure what. Also not sure what percentage I will give to 5♠ making. In any case SB will get something.

SB was quick to scotch any suggestion that South would get any of 5♠=. "I would play a discouraging club on the opening lead, and my partner's diamond switch would now beat 5♠", he pointed out. "And, neither North or South has a 5♠ bid, for that matter", he continued. "I am happy to take 50% of 5♥= and 50% of 5♥x=", he taunted. "And that is my best offer; anything less will be appealed", he challenged.

[lamford]

wank, on 2017-January-04, 05:19, said:

obviously west isn't bidding 4NT after passing at the 1 level, but i agree that east can't ask over 4H because he'll be hoping a splinter is misinterpreted. however, once south takes 4H out, it should be obvious that it wasn't natural and east can ask now and get his bid back. i don't think the ebu, unlike the ACBL, has a regulation about protecting yourself though, does it?

Unfortunately, East can only ask at his turn to call, so there is no provision in the Laws for him to chip in with "Oh, was 4H a splinter?" when 4S is bid. He does get his last pass back, but by then it is far too dangerous to act. I think it is the same in the ACBL, but perhaps barmar or blackshoe can confirm that 4H is alertable in the ACBL, and that no rewind back to the first pass by East is possible.

[lamford]

broze, on 2017-January-04, 04:07, said:

What is the purpose of the comment "4♥ has been alertable for at least 12 months"? Is this a reference to a regulation?

Anyway for once I will actually rule in SB's favour too. I agree with what he says. (Although as Vampyr says there should be a split score - 100% of 5Hx would be unfair).

Yes, at some point a year or two ago, a bid over 3NT on the first round of the auction (or on the second chance to call where the previous call was pass) became alertable in England. I do not know the regulations in other countries, but it would be interesting to learn them, and how SB would cope in those jurisdictions.

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-January-04, 06:22, said:

Yes, at some point a year or two ago, a bid of 3NT on the first round of the auction (or on the second chance to call where the previous call was pass) became alertable in England. I do not know the regulation in other countries, but it would be interesting to learn them, and how SB would cope here in those jurisdictions.

Just for the information, the Norwegian alert regulation includes:

Calls above the 3NT level shall not be alerted (unless screens are in use)
- exception:
Conventional calls up to, but not including Opener's second call

So the Splinter 4♥ bid in this case shall indeed be alerted in Norway.

[broze]

lamford, on 2017-January-04, 06:22, said:

Yes, at some point a year or two ago, a bid of 3NT on the first round of the auction (or on the second chance to call where the previous call was pass) became alertable in England. I do not know the regulations in other countries, but it would be interesting to learn them, and how SB would cope in those jurisdictions.

Ah yes I knew this - I was referring to SB's mention of "12 months". I thought the timeframe might be relevant but I suppose not. Should people be given a grace period for change of regulations? I.e. if this all happened the day after the regulation changed can a director be more sympathetic to the OS.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2017-January-04, 06:22, said:

Yes, at some point a year or two ago, a bid of 3NT on the first round of the auction (or on the second chance to call where the previous call was pass) became alertable in England. I do not know the regulations in other countries, but it would be interesting to learn them, and how SB would cope in those jurisdictions.

in Holland any alertable bid should be alerted in the first round of the auction after an opening bid has been made. Only after that first round you shouldn't alert any call over 3NT. This has been the regulation for at least 10 years, as fars as I remember.
SB has clearly been disadvantaged by the missing alert. Since I can't establish whether NS would pass or double 5♥, or raise to 5♠, I would probably give a weighted score. But because SB has been shouting again, he gets a penalty of at least 50%. And he would also been warned that you cannot negotiate with the TD about the AS. That's the TD's decision and the TD's alone.

[helene_t]

sanst, on 2017-January-04, 08:23, said:

in Holland any alertable bid should be alerted in the first round of the auction after an opening bid has been made. Only after that first round you shouldn't alert any call over 3NT. This has been the regulation for at least 10 years, as fars as I remember.

Yes, that's how it has been all the time I played in the Netherlands so at least since 2000.

In Sweden it seems that they don't alert any calls at the 4-level and higher.

[weejonnie]

The TD, of course, made a slight error: SUIT bids over 3NT are alertable in the first active round of bidding - but that doesn't affect the position here. This was added to the 2015 Blue Book - and so has been in force for just over a year.

In any case - South made 5!S in actual play. Also: what systems do NS have over the double? If South denies anything in Hearts then North should start looking very favourably at his hand.

The laws are pretty clear - you may ask about a single call (or the whole auction) but at the risk of giving UI. If SB asks 'to protect himself' then it looks as if passing 4♠ is a logical alternative to his partner (polling of course). In fact the EBU rules about experienced players 'protecting themselves' no doubt apply to SB as he has been screaming 'director' for 50 years.

To Quote:-

"It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (
e.g. by transmitting unauthorised information or alerting the opposition ), failure to do so may prejudice their right to redress."

So:

Is it an 'obvious' misinformation case? NO. It is a likely MI case, not an obvious one.
Was there an implausible explanation (4♥ is natural)? NO - it is an unlikely explanation - but not implausible.
Can they protect themselves without prejudicing their position? NO. any enquiry about the 4♥ call is going to draw attention to the suit.

I think that in this case, I would have to investigate the auction following the double. Since SB is, for once, the NO we have to weigh in his favour.

70% partner bids 5♥ = 30% NS play in 4♠ + 1
70% opponents double 5♥ = 49% EW play in 5♥ doubled.
30% opponents bid 5♠ = 21% remaining
67% SB bids 6♥ = 14% 6♥ doubled -1
33% SB leaves in 5♠ = 7% 5♠ making.

(I assume opponents are in a situation where they cannot pass an EW contract having bid game constructively themselves.)

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-January-04, 06:13, said:

SB was quick to scotch any suggestion that South would get any of 5♠=. "I would play a discouraging club on the opening lead, and my partner's diamond switch would now beat 5♠", he pointed out. "And, neither North or South has a 5♠ bid, for that matter", he continued. "I am happy to take 50% of 5♥= and 50% of 5♥x=", he taunted. "And that is my best offer; anything less will be appealed", he challenged.

Well, he can appeal his disciplinary penalty, but the committee won't be able to do anything about it.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-January-04, 06:18, said:

Unfortunately, East can only ask at his turn to call, so there is no provision in the Laws for him to chip in with "Oh, was 4H a splinter?" when 4S is bid. He does get his last pass back, but by then it is far too dangerous to act. I think it is the same in the ACBL, but perhaps barmar or blackshoe can confirm that 4H is alertable in the ACBL, and that no rewind back to the first pass by East is possible.

4♥ does indeed require an immediate alert in the ACBL, and you are correct that East cannot get his pass over 4♥ back, unless the MI is corrected before his partner's pass of 4♠. Which as you say isn't going to happen.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-January-04, 06:22, said:

Yes, at some point a year or two ago, a bid of 3NT on the first round of the auction (or on the second chance to call where the previous call was pass) became alertable in England. I do not know the regulations in other countries, but it would be interesting to learn them, and how SB would cope in those jurisdictions.

The ACBL regulation is basically that certain kinds of calls require an alert, but that if the call occurs at or after the opening bidder's second call, and the alertable call is above 3NT, the alert is delayed until before the opening lead, if the side ends up declaring, or after the opening lead is chosen but before it is faced if the side ends up defending. A 3NT bid that requires an alert requires an immediate alert; it is not delayed.

[wank]

lamford, on 2017-January-04, 06:18, said:

Unfortunately, East can only ask at his turn to call, so there is no provision in the Laws for him to chip in with "Oh, was 4H a splinter?" when 4S is bid. He does get his last pass back, but by then it is far too dangerous to act. I think it is the same in the ACBL, but perhaps barmar or blackshoe can confirm that 4H is alertable in the ACBL, and that no rewind back to the first pass by East is possible.

he can highlight an irregularity at anyone's turn to bid. once south has pulled 4H (but before west bids) it's pretty clear there's been a failure to alert.

[blackshoe]

wank, on 2017-January-04, 09:40, said:

he can highlight an irregularity at anyone's turn to bid. once south has pulled 4H (but before west bids) it's pretty clear there's been a failure to alert.

In which case his proper procedure is to point it out and immediately call the director. In which case he has done just what he wants to avoid, giving UI to his partner.

[weejonnie]

wank, on 2017-January-04, 09:40, said:

he can highlight an irregularity at anyone's turn to bid. once south has pulled 4H (but before west bids) it's pretty clear there's been a failure to alert.

Not necessarily - South could hold 7 spades and a void in hearts and decided his hand was too defensive for a 3♠ or 4♠ opening bid.

SBs partner could have asked, I suppose, and then SB would get his bid back - the danger would be if the TD decided that his partner was asking for the benefit of SB (and of course in this case partner has a fair few hearts so could be worrying about giving UI to SB (SB is totally ethical)).

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-04, 10:01, said:

(SB is totally ethical)).

Hm. Maybe. IAC he treads very close to the line.

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-04, 09:38, said:

The ACBL regulation is basically that certain kinds of calls require an alert, but that if the call occurs at or after the opening bidder's second call, and the alertable call is above 3NT, the alert is delayed until before the opening lead, if the side ends up declaring, or after the opening lead is chosen but before it is faced if the side ends up defending. A 3NT bid that requires an alert requires an immediate alert; it is not delayed.

Nitpick, irrelevant to this case - and all I can point to is my two DICs (both ACBL National TDs, and, well, "pretty good" National TDs) for this resolution, but it makes sense. Unfortunately, the Alert Chart and the Alert Procedure conflict on what calls require a delayed Alert.

The answer I have been given is that, in the ACBL, Alertable *bids* above 3NT, starting with opener's second call, must be Delayed. Alertable non-bid *calls* - pass, double, redouble - above 3NT are always immediate Alerts.

As I said, it makes sense. Case in point:

The non-lead-directing double here is an immediate Alert. The second round splinter in (1D-1S; 4H) would be Delayed.

---