[pran]

barmar, on 2010-December-22, 11:17, said:

While alerting a non-alertable call is technically MI, it's generally considered a pretty minor infraction, and will rarely be punished. Many players forget or misunderstand the alert regulations (a common complaint in the ACBL is that they change frequently, and people can't keep track), and the general advice is "if you're unsure, alert it."

I know that other jurisdictions apparently see it different, but in Norway we (to my best knowledge) never punish an alert of a non-alertable call. (A popular "translation" of alerts is: "You may have some interest in asking about this call".)

[blackshoe]

Yes, that's a common complaint, and not only in the ACBL. Unfortunately, it's bull. What they really mean is "I went to the trouble to learn the alert regulations in 1973, and I don't expect to have to do it again!"

[barmar]

Yes, I didn't mean to legitimize the complaint. They really only change every 5-10 years, it only seems like it's more often to these people because they find any change annoying. And it's not like you have to relearn everything, there's usually an article in the Bulletin that describes the changes; there's just a few, it shouldn't be hard to learn them. And everyone understands if you make mistakes for the first few months, since old habits die hard.

Yet I still encounter people alerting weak jump raises in competition, even though it's been several years since ACBL made them non-alertable. Old dogs, new tricks.

[nige1]

pran, on 2010-December-22, 11:22, said:

I know that other jurisdictions apparently see it different, but in Norway we (to my best knowledge) never punish an alert of a non-alertable call. (A popular "translation" of alerts is: "You may have some interest in asking about this call".)

A sensible interpretation. A pity that it is not specified in the laws. Locals are usually familiar with local practice. Strangers and foreigners are most in need of sensible disclosure rules and they may not be familiar with local idiosyncratic regulations. So too much alerting is preferrable to too little

[nigel_k]

There was misinformation (alert of a non-alertable call) and the non-offending side suffered damage, because East would have acted differently without the alert and could easily have obtained a better score.

So the question is whether 12C1b (serious error, wild or gambling) applies:

Based on East's comment, I am guessing his thinking was as follows: North probably has spades and diamonds. If I double, it may well go all pass. If I don't double, it will probably go 2♠-P-P or 2♥-P-2♠ or even 2♥-P-3♦. I would prefer to defend 2♠X than 2♦X and would obviously like 3♦X even better.

It seems to me there are two possibilities here:

1) East understood that South might well pass and chose to take that risk. In that case it is probably 'wild or gambling'.

2) East didn't understand this and fully expected to be doubling 2♠ or 3♦ on the next round. In that case it isn't wild or gambling and is some other kind of error. Even if that error is serious it is not unrelated to the infraction.

IMO scenario two seems more likely. Though I agree the pass was a very poor call and was the main reason for E/W's bad result, I'm not convinced there are grounds for denying rectification (but I really wish the 'unrelated to the infraction' condition wasn't in there).

It could be argued that 'wild or gambling' is based on an objective standard, i.e. it doesn't rely on the player understanding the risks involved. But I don't favour that interpretation because it doesn't seem to fit with the way the words 'wild' and 'gambling' are normally used and it also makes 'wild and gambling' almost the same thing as 'serious error'.

[wank]

since when is spades and another the normal meaning for 2♦? it may be normal for people who play that themselves. it certainly isn't normal for me or anyone else I know.

east's an idiot. i've regularly played against people for whom 2♦ is both reds or diamonds and a major. unless east can produce an argument for why he would do something different over 2♦ as the reds or 2♦ as ♦ and a major (and I'm sure he can't), no damage

[blackshoe]

Yhe law does not use "wild and gambling" or "wild or gambling" as if it were one action. It's two. If an action is wild, the law applies. If the action is gambling, the law applies. If it's both, the law applies. If it's neither, the law does not apply (leaving aside questions of 'serious error').

That an action has risk does not necessarily make it gambling. It certainly does not, of itself, make it wild.

I have never liked the attitude, common in some countries, that an alert of a call tells players something positive about the caller's hand. An alert is a warning that opponents may wish to ask about the meaning of the call, nothing more. Since it conveys nothing about the hand, it can hardly be MI.

Failure to alert when an alert is required is MI, true. Alerting when not required is not. I think people may confuse the situation with UI considerations, wherein both an unexpected alert and an unexpected failure to alert may convey UI to the caller, but that's a completely different situation.

[NickRW]

This discussion is all very well, but I am none the wiser about how one should rule!

[nigel_k]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-22, 16:17, said:

I have never liked the attitude, common in some countries, that an alert of a call tells players something positive about the caller's hand. An alert is a warning that opponents may wish to ask about the meaning of the call, nothing more. Since it conveys nothing about the hand, it can hardly be MI.

I wouldn't call it an 'attitude'. I would call it a necessary consequence of the assumption that opponents are acting legally. If they alert 2♦ then their agreement is that it shows something other than a one suited hand with diamonds. There could easily be situations, though this one is not a good example, where you might wish to rely on such an inference rather than ask why the bid was alerted.

The alternative is that opponents can alert the natural 2♦ or not, as they please. This would obviously raise UI issues so I think it's much better for alerting regulations to divide calls into those that must be alerted and those that must not be alerted.

[bluejak]

wank, on 2010-December-22, 16:12, said:

since when is spades and another the normal meaning for 2♦? it may be normal for people who play that themselves. it certainly isn't normal for me or anyone else I know.

Indeed. And how do you know it is not normal where this was played?

[kevperk]

Anyone else think that NS might deserve an adjustment, even if EW don't?

[blackshoe]

nigel_k, on 2010-December-22, 18:07, said:

I wouldn't call it an 'attitude'. I would call it a necessary consequence of the assumption that opponents are acting legally. If they alert 2♦ then their agreement is that it shows something other than a one suited hand with diamonds. There could easily be situations, though this one is not a good example, where you might wish to rely on such an inference rather than ask why the bid was alerted.

The alternative is that opponents can alert the natural 2♦ or not, as they please. This would obviously raise UI issues so I think it's much better for alerting regulations to divide calls into those that must be alerted and those that must not be alerted.

I dunno about anybody else, but I haven't memorized the ACBL alert regulations (the ones pertinent to my play) — nor will I. So I don't think it necessarily follows that if someone alerts he has a particular type of hand, and that I will know what it is. I certainly won't assume that it's anything in particular.

I don't see where you get that alternative. The regulation says they should alert certain things. Failure to do so is an infraction. "Ipso facto colombo espresso", as I heard on "Bones" the other night.

[gordontd]

Instead of considering how East might have avoided the mess, perhaps we should consider what would have happened had there not been misinformation - ie if 2♦ had not been alerted.

Would East have passed? I doubt it - he would probably have some convenient forcing bid (like a 3♦) available. Where would they have ended up? Probably 4♥, though 3NT or 5♣ are possible depending on what East-West say they would have done without the misinformation. Even a small portion of 6♣-1 or an even smaller portion of 6♥ making are possible.

So a weighted adjustment seems called for.

Then the question comes of whether East West should be denied redress - if East's Pass was Wild or Gambling. As nigel_k commented above, while that's a possibility it's probably not the most likely explanation for the Pass. I'd like to be able to talk to East to find out a bit more, but I most likely would end up giving the same adjustment to both sides.

[mfa1010]

gordontd, on 2010-December-23, 05:04, said:

Instead of considering how East might have avoided the mess, perhaps we should consider what would have happened had there not been misinformation - ie if 2♦ had not been alerted.

I don't think that that would be particular relevant, since whatever damage EW have suffered is outside of NS's liability. It wasn't the (maybe - we don't even know) mistaken alert that caused the damage. East is on his own, when he didn't bother to hear what message south had for him. That, in combination with east's "cunning" plan, caused the damage. Just too bad.

[blackshoe]

I don't think the damage, if there was any, was caused by the alert. Nor, necessarily, was it caused by East's pass. If there was damage, it was caused by South's pass, which deprived East of his expected "second shot' to bid. So I want to know why South passed. I can think of one reason that would put the blame on NS here: if South realized that 2♦ was natural, and thus did not require an alert. If that was the case, then he failed to call the TD and inform the opponents of that fact (in which case East could change his pass). So I want to know why South passed.

[mfa1010]

mfa1010, on 2010-December-22, 08:38, said:

...south might have decided to alert to point out some unusual style issue concerning the overcall.

Comments?

I'm used to a style with all sorts of alerts of fundamentally natural bids. For instance: To disclose that a better overcall was available, or a worse one, that it denies a three-card support for partner's suit, that a different suit may be longer or may have been bypassed, that the suit length shown is either surprisingly long or surprisingly short, etc. etc.

Here south might have alerted to disclose that this overcall has a lower range than usual for 2-level overcalls (because a strength showing double was available). That may be a needless alert (perhaps - perhaps not, depends on the range I guess), but we encourage people to alert if in doubt. We can't then go about and give so much weight to an superfluous alert that it alone entitles opponents to speculate (not ask) and then get redress. It just isn't coherent.

In other words: An alert gives away so little concrete information (since it can be based on many different things) that it can hardly lead to a MI ruling by itself.
Absence of an alert is different, since that is equivalent to saying: "Natural, nothing special" about the bid. That can very easily be sufficient MI.

[NickRW]

mfa1010, on 2010-December-23, 10:10, said:

Here south might have alerted to disclose that this overcall has a lower range than usual for 2-level overcalls (because a strength showing double was available). That may be a needless alert (perhaps - perhaps not, depends on the range I guess), but we encourage people to alert if in doubt. We can't then go about and give so much weight to an superfluous alert that it alone entitles opponents to speculate (not ask) and then get redress. It just isn't coherent.

Yes, that was my feeling about it.

My main p and I play a version of Keri. Our red suit transfers are sometimes based on a 4 card suit. We (rightly or wrongly) alert because of this. I would be extremely narked if a director ruled MI because an opponent did not bother to ask what the alert meant if it could possibly be relevant to them.

Nick

[mgoetze]

mfa1010, on 2010-December-23, 10:10, said:

Comments?

I'm used to a style with all sorts of alerts of fundamentally natural bids. For instance: To disclose that a better overcall was available, or a worse one, that it denies a three-card support for partner's suit, that a different suit may be longer or may have been bypassed, that the suit length shown is either surprisingly long or surprisingly short, etc. etc.

I recently alerted partner's 4♣ overcall of 1♥. LHO asked and I said "natural preemptive overcall, but it could be weaker than normal because 3♣ is artificial for us".

I guess that means I agree with you.

[Trinidad]

I agree for 100% with Michael. An alert only says that there is something about the bid that you may not expect. This could range from completely conventional (e.g. spades and a minor) to "It's natural, but...", where the but may be a variety of things.

If you do not ask about an alerted call, that is your responsibility and yours only.

But one thing really confuses me in this case... East didn't want to ask, since his question might hint at South to pass the 2♦ bid. Why oh why didn't East take a glance at the convention card? Then he would have known. (This was not the ACBL where CC's are in the opponent's handbag. This was in the UK.)

Rik

[campboy]

NickRW, on 2010-December-24, 05:28, said:

My main p and I play a version of Keri. Our red suit transfers are sometimes based on a 4 card suit. We (rightly or wrongly) alert because of this. I would be extremely narked if a director ruled MI because an opponent did not bother to ask what the alert meant if it could possibly be relevant to them.

It is correct to alert these in the EBU.

Trinidad: I don't see why looking at the CC is any better than asking, since this information will be on an inside page and so all three other players will be aware that he looked.