[lamford]

 Bbradley62, on 2015-March-14, 17:05, said:

I'm not sure about the auction you gave... but 25 years ago the rule was "cue bids are never alertable", and now "Natural" is in red in the Direct Overcall box of the ACBL convention card.

That is for direct overcalls. I think that means after only one opponent's bid.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-14, 12:06, said:

When someone (anyone) draws attention to an irregularity, a director call does not convey UI - it's simply conforming to one's obligation to call the director.

That's not true in general. If you always call the director in this situation, the director call doesn't convey UI. If you sometimes call the director and sometimes don't, calling the director does convey UI. It's UI because it derives from the illegal practice of sometimes not calling a director when you are required to do so.

[toukie]

I don't think the failure to alert 4C is particularly material to this hand.
Attention was drawn to it in time and EW's actions were the same as if it had been alerted.

EW Methods are are follows
X of Gerber means lead clubs
X of splinter means don't lead the suit
pass over splinter means what? EW did not say it means lead the suit so it could be neutral.

Was the pass over 4C alerted? There is no mention of an alert, and I think it is alertable.

The methods EW play almost obliges them to ask the meaning of an alerted 4C. The only time they don't need to ask is if they have a hand that knows what action it would take irrespective of the meaning of the 4C bid, there can't be many of those.

If EW ever bid over 4C without asking the meaning of 4C it would be highly suspicious. Of course, most oponents won't be aware of their methods so they would get away with it unnoticed most of the time.

So, why did West assume East's pass showed club length? All it says is that I don't want to double to say don't lead the suit. Either the 5C bid is a wild punt or it looks like EW have an undisclosed agreement.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-March-15, 04:39, said:

That's not true in general. If you always call the director in this situation, the director call doesn't convey UI. If you sometimes call the director and sometimes don't, calling the director does convey UI. It's UI because it derives from the illegal practice of sometimes not calling a director when you are required to do so.

The problem with this approach is that sometimes one player will be first to call the TD, and the other players then keep mum because the director's already been called. How do you know why a particular player "didn't call"? If nobody calls, then fine, but that's because that should never happen.

Aside from that, how can you know that a player actively chooses not to call sometimes? How can you identify what information the choice to call (or not call, for that matter) conveys? Or are we getting into the realm of "there was UI, adjust the score"?

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-15, 07:15, said:

The problem with this approach is that sometimes one player will be first to call the TD, and the other players then keep mum because the director's already been called. How do you know why a particular player "didn't call"? If nobody calls, then fine, but that's because that should never happen.

Aside from that, how can you know that a player actively chooses not to call sometimes? How can you identify what information the choice to call (or not call, for that matter) conveys? Or are we getting into the realm of "there was UI, adjust the score"?

I was discussing whether the director call conveys UI.

"What do the rules say?" is a different question from "How do we catch people who break the rules?" And the rules should be obeyed even when it's easy to get away with breaking them.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2015-March-15, 07:30

[blackshoe]

From a practical standpoint, if you don't have evidence that something happened, then it didn't happen. So in most cases of alleged UI from a director call, I don't think it matters.

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-15, 11:20, said:

From a practical standpoint, if you don't have evidence that something happened, then it didn't happen. So in most cases of alleged UI from a director call, I don't think it matters.

At the top of my browser window it says "Laws and Rulings", not just "Rulings".

Suppose that I am West in the OP. I know that, despite the rules, my partner rarely calls the director about a failure to alert. On this occasion he does call the director. That gives me UI, but I know that nobody will be able to prove the existence of this UI. Should I therefore feel free to make use of it?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2015-March-15, 14:18

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2015-March-15, 04:39, said:

It's UI because it derives from the illegal practice of sometimes not calling a director when you are required to do so.

East is only required to call the TD when he draws attention to the infraction of the non-alert; in practice the two are simultaneous. He says "Director, please" and tells the TD that he thinks there was a failure to alert. He is quite entitled to just pass without calling the TD. The TD call was caused by a NS infraction, and is therefore AI to West. If 4♣ had been correctly alerted, then only if East always asked about an alerted bid would he not convey UI by asking. It would still convey UI if he needed to know what it meant, but did not always ask, as in this situation where he would not double a splinter but would double another putative meaning. NS should, of course, have a CC with "splinters" shown, and also alert, so that East does not need to ask.

[lamford]

 toukie, on 2015-March-15, 05:08, said:

Was the pass over 4C alerted? There is no mention of an alert, and I think it is alertable.

Nonsense. The pass shows a hand that did not want to double or bid something else, so is clearly not alertable. It did not show any values.

[lamford]

 toukie, on 2015-March-15, 05:08, said:

So, why did West assume East's pass showed club length? All it says is that I don't want to double to say don't lead the suit. Either the 5C bid is a wild punt or it looks like EW have an undisclosed agreement.

West, the SB, guessed that East called the TD because he wanted to double Gerber or Swiss, and may well have wanted a club lead if it was a splinter, when he could not double. Practically the only hand he could have for the TD call was good clubs. I agree with his view, but only if the TD call was AI.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-March-15, 14:17, said:

At the top of my browser window it says "Laws and Rulings", not just "Rulings".

Suppose that I am West in the OP. I know that, despite the rules, my partner rarely calls the director about a failure to alert. On this occasion he does call the director. That gives me UI, but I know that nobody will be able to prove the existence of this UI. Should I therefore feel free to make use of it?

At the top of my browser window it says "Bridgebase.com". So?

Of course you should not feel free to make use of UI, and I didn't say you should.

The director is required to collect evidence, and to rule on the basis of the preponderance of that evidence. That has nothing to do with what players should or should not do. But I think you know that already.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2015-March-15, 17:55, said:

East is only required to call the TD when he draws attention to the infraction of the non-alert; in practice the two are simultaneous. He says "Director, please" and tells the TD that he thinks there was a failure to alert. He is quite entitled to just pass without calling the TD. The TD call was caused by a NS infraction, and is therefore AI to West. If 4♣ had been correctly alerted, then only if East always asked about an alerted bid would he not convey UI by asking. It would still convey UI if he needed to know what it meant, but did not always ask, as in this situation where he would not double a splinter but would double another putative meaning. NS should, of course, have a CC with "splinters" shown, and also alert, so that East does not need to ask.

Your first assertion is incorrect. East is required to call the TD whenever any player draws attention to the (presumed) failure to alert. So are the other three players at the table. It may be true that frequently East will draw attention to the irregularity by calling the director, but that doesn't change the law.

[Bbradley62]

 lamford, on 2015-March-15, 17:56, said:

Nonsense. The pass shows a hand that did not want to double or bid something else, so is clearly not alertable. It did not show any values.

Not based on what you have told us above. If this pass specifically indicates that East wants a club lead, this is conveying information to his partner and the opponents are entitled to that information too.

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-15, 18:54, said:

Your first assertion is incorrect. East is required to call the TD whenever any player draws attention to the (presumed) failure to alert.

The only player who drew attention to the irregularity was East, by calling the TD. If nobody did, then East had no obligation to call the director. East could have passed without calling the TD.

[lamford]

 Bbradley62, on 2015-March-15, 19:08, said:

Not based on what you have told us above. If this pass specifically indicates that East wants a club lead, this is conveying information to his partner and the opponents are entitled to that information too.

I have looked above, and I have not indicated that Pass specifically indicates that East wants a club lead. Double states that he does not want a club lead. Pass says that he doesn't not want a club lead, if you forgive the double negative. And the EBU have decreed that, in general, negative inferences from calls not made are not alertable. Otherwise we have most auctions starting: Pass (alerted). "What is that?" "It shows fewer than 12 points (we open all 12-counts); also it denies a six-card suit (other than possibly clubs) with 3-11 HCPs. With 3-9, we open two of the suit; with 10-11 we open one of a suit". "Thank you, but let us move on as we are about to be fined for slow play".

I wrote: "may well have wanted a club lead if it was a splinter". When someone passes over 1X-(1Y), the person may well have a penalty double of 1Y (I use "may well" in the sense of "is reasonably likely" rather than "is odds-on".) That would not make the pass alertable, unless it is unconditionally forcing.

Does anyone else on here think Pass of the splinter is alertable in the EBU?

[toukie]

 lamford, on 2015-March-16, 11:17, said:

I have looked above, and I have not indicated that Pass specifically indicates that East wants a club lead. Double states that he does not want a club lead. Pass says that he doesn't not want a club lead, if you forgive the double negative. And the EBU have decreed that, in general, negative inferences from calls not made are not alertable. Otherwise we have most auctions starting: Pass (alerted). "What is that?" "It shows fewer than 12 points (we open all 12-counts); also it denies a six-card suit (other than possibly clubs) with 3-11 HCPs. With 3-9, we open two of the suit; with 10-11 we open one of a suit". "Thank you, but let us move on as we are about to be fined for slow play".

I wrote: "may well have wanted a club lead if it was a splinter". When someone passes over 1X-(1Y), the person may well have a penalty double of 1Y (I use "may well" in the sense of "is reasonably likely" rather than "is odds-on".) That would not make the pass alertable, unless it is unconditionally forcing.

Does anyone else on here think Pass of the splinter is alertable in the EBU?

Yes, I do.
From the EBU Blue book
Passes and bids
Unless it is announceable (see 4D, 4E, 4F and 4G), a pass or bid must be alerted if it:
(a) is not natural; or
(b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.

I think pass is alertable when double is alertable, as it shows a hand that does not wish to make an alertable double.
1X - (1Y) - pass is not alertable (assuming take-out/negative doubles) since X is not alertable.

On this hand west knows the East chose not to make a conventional double of the splinter, and NS are entitled to be alerted to that.
NS would not expect a double of a splinter so say don't lead the suit, so they would not expect passing to have a negative inference that the splinter could have been doubled conventionally but wasn't, therefore it is an unexpected negative inference, and therefore I believe it is alertable.


A similar example would be support doubles. If you pass when playing support double I think that is alertable.
So if
1H (p) 1S (2C) X is alerted as a support double then
1H (p) 1S (2C) pass should be alerted and explained as denying a support double.
I always alert pass from partner when he could have done a support double, don't you?

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2015-March-16, 11:17, said:

Does anyone else on here think Pass of the splinter is alertable in the EBU?

I always alert it. But that's because I think it's alertable amongst bridge players, regardless of what the regulations say.

[weejonnie]

I might have to rule in favour of EW - the fact that East might have good clubs does not necessarily mean that a sacrifice of 5 Clubs by West would be profitable - so is not demonstrably suggested. East could have been 3-3-3-4 with 4 clubs to the AK and wanting a club lead.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-March-16, 13:41, said:

I think it's alertable amongst bridge players, regardless of what the regulations say.

We don't need no steeenking regulations!

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-15, 18:49, said:

At the top of my browser window it says "Bridgebase.com". So?

Of course you should not feel free to make use of UI, and I didn't say you should.

The director is required to collect evidence, and to rule on the basis of the preponderance of that evidence. That has nothing to do with what players should or should not do. But I think you know that already.

Oh good, does that mean that you've accepted that it is, in fact, UI; that it's UI even if the director can't prove it; and that this UI does, in fact, matter?