[jillybean]

---

We play transfers over our opponents 1nt
I know that if partner does not alert my 2C bid and bids a suit other than diamonds, the failure to alert is UI for me

If my partner does alert the 2C bid and then bids another suit, is the alert (partner recognized the transfer but bid their own suit) UI oe AI?

[Cyberyeti]

It doesn't practically matter, you bid as if they alerted in both cases (basically you bid as if the auction had a 2♦ natural overcall from you and partner bid 2♠).

Partner has alerted according to the system being played, you shouldn't ever take account of the fact that they might have forgotten before. Essentially you have a sort of UI, but one you have no way of making use of.

[jillybean]

That wasn't quite my question.
Ignore the first instance where partner does not alert my transfer,

Partner alerts my transfer and then bids another suit, is his alert (no query) AI or UI?

How are alerts conducted using screens, does only your screen mate see the alert? I assume the alert card is passed with the the tray?

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2023-June-05, 06:48, said:

That wasn't quite my question.
Ignore the first instance where partner does not alert my transfer,

Partner alerts my transfer and then bids another suit, is his alert (no query) AI or UI?

How are alerts conducted using screens, does only your screen mate see the alert? I assume the alert card is passed with the the tray?

I think it is authorised information as the alert is presumably required by the alerting regulations (Law 16.A1( c )).

With screens, each player alerts both their own and their partner's alertable calls to their screen mate. Alert cards are not passed with the tray, so it is possible for a call to be alerted on one side of the screen and not the other: this is not necessarily an infraction.

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2023-June-05, 07:56, said:

I think it is authorised information as the alert is presumably required by the alerting regulations (Law 16.A1( c )).

With screens, each player alerts both their own and their partner's alertable calls to their screen mate. Alert cards are not passed with the tray, so it is possible for a call to be alerted on one side of the screen and not the other: this is not necessarily an infraction.

Thanks Paul, I see 16.B1(a) talks about unexpected alert

[sanst]

paulg, on 2023-June-05, 07:56, said:

I think it is authorised information as the alert is presumably required by the alerting regulations (Law 16.A1( c )).

The alert is UI for the partner, since it’s solely for the opps. It’s the same with an explanation. You hear it, but you’re not allowed to use it. But it’s your obligation to correct your partner’s alert or explanation if necessary and at the right moment.
You’re certainly not allowed to change your call because your partner has alerted a call that shouldn’t be alerted or not alerted when that was necessary - sorry about all the ‘alerts’.
In this case W has refused the transfer, so E should assume that West’s spades are better than his/her diamonds. The spades call might be forcing, but that’s dependent on the agreements of EW. if you’re a half decent player as a directorI would expect you to have discussed this.

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2023-June-05, 09:10, said:

The alert is UI for the partner, since it’s solely for the opps. It’s the same with an explanation. You hear it, but you’re not allowed to use it. But it’s your obligation to correct your partner’s alert or explanation if necessary and at the right moment.
You’re certainly not allowed to change your call because your partner has alerted a call that shouldn’t be alerted or not alerted when that was necessary - sorry about all the ‘alerts’.
In this case W has refused the transfer, so E should assume that West’s spades are better than his/her diamonds. The spades call might be forcing, but that’s dependent on the agreements of EW. if you’re a half decent player as a directorI would expect you to have discussed this.

That part is very clear, at least to me it is. I often feel like I am shooting myself in the foot by paying attention to the Laws.

Behind screens, I do not know if partner has alerted my bid or not. At the table, must I ignore the fact that my partner has made the required alert?
This may be taking ethics too far.

[sanst]

jillybean, on 2023-June-05, 09:53, said:

That part is very clear, at least to me it is. I often feel like I am shooting myself in the foot by paying attention to the Laws.

Behind screens, I do not know if partner has alerted my bid or not. At the table, must I ignore the fact that my partner has made the required alert?
This may be taking ethics too far.

This is the part that’s almost impossible to explain. Let’s look at your example. Your agreement about 2♣ is transfer to diamonds, but for the sake of argument let’s suppose your partner alerts and explains as both majors. That’s information you’re not allowed to use. Your agreement about the 2♠ answer is maybe not discussed or showing a hand with good spades. I’m not familiar with the alerting regulation in Vancouver, so I can’t say for certain whether you should or shouldn’t alert, but when asked about that bid, you should give the agreement, not that your partner prefers spades over hearts. Even worse, you’re not allowed to use that information. You have to go on as if your partner did explain your bid correctly and act accordingly. Only when the auction is over and you or your partner is the declarer, you call the director and tell that your partner’s explanation was incorrect, otherwise wait till the game is over.
Of course it is asking a lot to do so, but it’s what Law 16B1a requires you to do. Communication between partners is only permitted if it’s done by cards, either bidding cards or playing cards, and the alert card is neither, nor is the explanation.

[paulg]

sanst, on 2023-June-05, 12:53, said:

This is the part that's almost impossible to explain. Let's look at your example. Your agreement about 2♣ is transfer to diamonds, but for the sake of argument let's suppose your partner alerts and explains as both majors. That's information you're not allowed to use. Your agreement about the 2♠ answer is maybe not discussed or showing a hand with good spades. I'm not familiar with the alerting regulation in Vancouver, so I can't say for certain whether you should or shouldn't alert, but when asked about that bid, you should give the agreement, not that your partner prefers spades over hearts. Even worse, you're not allowed to use that information. You have to go on as if your partner did explain your bid correctly and act accordingly. Only when the auction is over and you or your partner is the declarer, you call the director and tell that your partner's explanation was incorrect, otherwise wait till the game is over.
Of course it is asking a lot to do so, but it's what Law 16B1a requires you to do. Communication between partners is only permitted if it's done by cards, either bidding cards or playing cards, and the alert card is neither, nor is the explanation.

Law 16B1a says "Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized" and lists some examples. In this case it is an expected alert, there was no explanation and there has been no suggestion of any other extraneous information, so Law 16B1 does not apply.

jillybean may do what she likes in this case, although I agree with your examples where there has been extraneous information.

[mycroft]

Unfortunately, this is where people's lack of understanding about UI comes to bite them.

No, not "what do I do with it"? Not "Is that UI?" Yes, those are important to know and deal with, but that's not the problem.

The problem is that 80+% of bridge players - even bridge players at tournaments - don't know what the opponents should do. So, the [other country] defence works - and it works against strong NTs too, if you don't Announce. And they don't Announce, and the opponents use the defence, and they don't get called on it (and get a good score).

They hear their partner not Alert Drury, and panic-respond 4M. And everybody at the table knows that it's obvious that "you need to tell partner you have support." So the opponents don't call. And maybe after 3♣ "slam try", there should have been a cuebid, and by the time they are able to show the major, it's 5M-1 instead of 4M=.

And there are many many situations like that. And if you do get them investigated, maybe you get one or two rulings in your favour, but you're the Bridge Lawyer, who gets things from the Director you can't get at the table. And, because you're the sort to call, you're also the sort to follow the Laws when you're in possession of UI. Which also harms your game, as you say, because you're the only one.

And if you're a director, it's worse. Partly because the reactions are doubly so, partly *because* you know how to make the case well for your side, partly because unless you're 100% on board with any use-of-UI investigations on your side - well, the comments to that will be venomous. So you call the TD even when nobody else at the table even sees a problem - even sometimes having to explain to the opponents what the problem could have been after the Director shows up and rules that in this case, no use occurred.

Yeah, it's awful being moral in a world full of people who are - less moral. Whether because they don't know any better or they don't care, or they hope to gain from "happy accidents". If bridge is where you learned that, and bridge is where it hurts you most, you're either the biggest fish in the sea IRL or very very lucky.

Having said that, one of the benefits of self-Alerting online is that the blind opponents are noticing "you know, our opponents Ed: at the table] are suddenly getting a lot more of these right than they were last year [online]. A lot more landing on their feet after misbids, and good balancing decisions, and...I wonder why that is?" And some of them are figuring it out, and some of them are asking the people who can tell them (or at least guide their thinking a little bit), and they're seeing how badly they're being taken.

I wish to reiterate that in almost all cases, this isn't deliberate. Humans are pattern matching machines, and bridge players doubly so. But people do it, and it seems obvious to the opponents, so... I wish I had an answer for you that worked, because the ones I suggest nobody ever thinks necessary or will work.

[pescetom]

I agree with all of that, but I'm still puzzled about what Jillybean and partner are up to in the first place.
What is their agreement about the rather obvious possibility of 2♠ in misfit?
Have they never discussed this or broken the transfer before?
If they have no agreement, even implicit, why not fret about that rather than whether or not they can exploit regulations to mitigate the consequences?

[jillybean]

We have played transfers over the opps strong 1nt for 2 years+
If partner breaks the transfer, they have a solid suit and no tolerance for partner's suit. A suit, which in direct seat they would have transferred to.

Quite contrary to your idea of exploiting regulations, I am wanting to confirm that the information I receive when partner alerts my transfer (no explanation) is not UI.

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2023-June-04, 21:54, said:

I know that if partner does not alert my 2C bid and bids a suit other than diamonds, the failure to alert is UI for me

If they failed to alert, that is UI to you whatever they bid or don't bid diamonds; you bid as if they alerted correctly.

jillybean, on 2023-June-05, 16:52, said:

I am wanting to confirm that the information I receive when partner alerts my transfer (no explanation) is not UI.

If they alerted correctly, you bid as if they alerted correctly; that's not just AI; the fact you're playing the agreed system is information you're *required* to assume.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2023-June-05, 15:07, said:

I agree with all of that, but I'm still puzzled about what Jillybean and partner are up to in the first place.
What is their agreement about the rather obvious possibility of 2♠ in misfit?
Have they never discussed this or broken the transfer before?
If they have no agreement, even implicit, why not fret about that rather than whether or not they can exploit regulations to mitigate the consequences?

This is the same sort of bullshit I get when I make a call about my opponents infraction, the focus is not on the infraction but on my intent.
And perhaps why everyone gives me a quizzical look when, after my opponents make their contract, I call the Director because partner failed to alert my bid in the auction.

[smerriman]

Is the issue that your partner normally forgets to alert this bid, so when he does alert, you may have some UI from the fact he only remembers to alert when there is something unusual about his hand?

That would be a fun one to rule on

[jillybean]

I'll stop being concerned about UI and just forge ahead with impunity.

[Stephen Tu]

Just pretend you are in a cone of silence. Bid what you would have if you were screened off from seeing or hearing anybody, only saw the bids, no alerts/non-alerts, no correct/incorrect explanations, no unusual breaks in tempo. Assume partner remembered agreements. If you have multiple plausible actions, choose among ones that are *not* suggested to be more likely successful based on anything (alert or not, explanations, tempo, anything other than bids themselves) that suggests partner has forgotten what bids mean, except for impossible sequences. (Occasionally, partner makes a bid that can't exist systemically. One where you can figure out from the bid alone that something has gone awry, even without any missing/wrong alert/explanation. Only in those cases can you try to wriggle out.)


Here, 1nt-2c!-p-2s, with partner alerting, explaining as 2c as showing diamonds, and bidding spades anyway, is clearly not impossible; partner is showing a spade suit of his own. So bid as if this happened (probably passing with most hands unless exceptionally good support for spades, I don't think 2S is normally forcing over a diamond showing call). Do this whether or not they alerted, because you didn't get to hear the alert or non-alert. Do this whether or not they said 2c showed diamonds, or if they said 2c showed majors, because you didn't get to hear that either. If they just alerted, and no one asked and no explanation was given, wouldn't you just assume partner remembered but prefers spades to diamonds?

Whether the proper alert is technically deemed AI or not is irrelevant, because you are supposed to bid the same way regardless. You are less constrained if alert was proper, and no incorrect explanation given, because you certainly don't have any UI in that case, and can choose to do pretty much anything. I don't know what info you have from just an alert, all you know is partner thinks 2c is conventional. Since it is, you don't have anything useful to help you even if you wanted to break rules, either you trust partner remembers you showed diamonds but wants to bid spades anyway, or maybe you think partner thinks it's some other convention because they forget all the time, but how is that ever going to change your action anyway?

[blackshoe]

tl;dr (the whole thread - I did read the first few comments).

There's a difference between an alert and an explanation. An expected alert does not convey UI. The explanation may convey UI.

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2023-June-05, 12:53, said:

This is the part that’s almost impossible to explain. Let’s look at your example. Your agreement about 2♣ is transfer to diamonds, but for the sake of argument let’s suppose your partner alerts and explains as both majors. That’s information you’re not allowed to use. Your agreement about the 2♠ answer is maybe not discussed or showing a hand with good spades. I’m not familiar with the alerting regulation in Vancouver, so I can’t say for certain whether you should or shouldn’t alert, but when asked about that bid, you should give the agreement, not that your partner prefers spades over hearts. Even worse, you’re not allowed to use that information. You have to go on as if your partner did explain your bid correctly and act accordingly. Only when the auction is over and you or your partner is the declarer, you call the director and tell that your partner’s explanation was incorrect, otherwise wait till the game is over.
Of course it is asking a lot to do so, but it’s what Law 16B1a requires you to do. Communication between partners is only permitted if it’s done by cards, either bidding cards or playing cards, and the alert card is neither, nor is the explanation.

I agree that if partner explains my transfer as both majors I cannot use that information, I must try to bid as if nothing out of the ordinary has happened.
I don't alert the spade bid but if I am asked, I tell my opponents partner has a good spade suit and no tolerance for diamonds.
Of course both of us now have UI.

[mycroft]

First, if partner Alerts your transfer, in the ACBL, you have UI. They should have Announced "diamonds". Now the UI might be "after 3 years, they still have no idea how this works", but still UI. Convincing the TD, especially in this pattern, that the information is "partner doesn't know how the Alert Procedure works" rather than "partner thinks we're playing a different system" is up to you, and might be difficult.

Obviously, if the Alert is questioned and the answer is anything but "she has diamonds", that's UI.

If they announced "diamonds", and bid Spades, you have no UI. The quote is "[unauthorized information] includes ... *unexpected* alerts or failures to alert..." (16B1, my emphasis).

I am a little uncomfortable with "it's so nice they let us Alert to let partner know we're still on the same page", which is why I really like the Delayed Alerts, even with their problems. I know there are people who, whether they do it deliberately or not, still accept the increased confidence they get from the IRL Alert Procedure (and even more so from the pairs who habitually ask, whether they understand the answer or not). But the Law is written to allow bridge to be played, and it says "if partner was supposed to Alert and they did Alert, that is Extraneous but not Unauthorized. Which, of course, isn't explicitly covered in the Laws. I would argue that 16A1c, especially as it references B1 explicitly, says "partner having Alerted as required (but not the answer, if questions are asked) is information players can use." Not sure how much I like it, but there it is.

And the opponents will look quizzically at you when you call the TD on your own side's infraction no matter what. They don't now enough to know that it's the Law, even if there clearly isn't any damage (for one thing, the TD might say "no, that's not Alertable" (as they did to me last tournament). For another, the TD might explain to partner in a way he can understand what is correct and why. For a third, 3♦ might have made, but your lead might have been "use of UI" and they should make 4. For a fourth, 3♦ might have made 4, but with the correct explanation they might have bid 3NT, which also makes. Yes, so much for "clearly no damage", but really, you can't make that judgement without bias, nobody can; and the opponents may not see it the way the TD will). It's just one of the things you have to put up with because you know the Law. I have been known to preface my TD call with "no issues on your side, we just need the TD".

Heh, the last time I called for this, even the Director couldn't understand why she was there to begin with (and there was no damage).