[pescetom]

sanst, on 2025-March-24, 09:07, said:

Maybe, but the Laws don't give the TD the authority to wake players up. I've no idea what N thought at the time or didn't know that this 4NT was alertable but any action may wake him or her and south.

Could you please point me to the Laws that forbid the TD to remind North of the national Alert Policy after he initially fails to alert?
I assure you there are no Regulations that forbid North to now Alert South's call before West's call, if he realises he should.
The TD explaining the Alert regulations to North is not "waking players up", except to the rules (and in time to avoid damage).
He does not know, nor ask, nor care what the actual agreement is, only that it can still be alerted if it should be.
Nor would this wake West up to anything, West was fully aware of the legal predicament and already explained it to the TD away from the table.

sanst, on 2025-March-24, 09:07, said:

I think the best action for W is to put a call, which might also be pass, on the table and call the director if N bids and it's clear that it's an answer to 4NT.

I think the best action for W is to put in 5♥ without worrying about the tiny chance that the probability of North really expecting a quantitative bid is superior to that of Director getting things right
But he is a promising beginner and he felt obliged to learn the rules before playing, I would do anything but snuff that candle.
If he did put in Pass and then call the Director when North bids 5♣ then that is equivalent to what actually happened and he would be equally unhappy, I think with due cause.

sanst, on 2025-March-24, 09:07, said:

What would W have done if the 4 NT had hit the table in the second round:
1♦ - (1♥) - 2♣ - (4♥);
p - (p) - 4NT - ?
Is it to play, in which case you pass, or asking for aces in which case you probably bid 5♥? No alert allowed but now you have to ask and are not protected by the non-alert.

I don't think it is reasonable to put a promising beginner up to a difficult auction that did not happen when he had (if opponents followed the rules) an easy one (given his slightly aggressive partner).
But I do suspect he would have got this right, or at least done better than his opponents (who made an unlikely underbid of 2♣).
You ask the opponents an innocent "all natural up to here?" and if the response is yes then you pass serenely, if not you call the Director and then ask for an explanation of all calls. That might wake South up to whether North has the ♦K and North up to that South does not want diamonds, but it looks like they misbid anyway and the Director is there if not.
This is a quite different scenario from the actual one, where NS knew what they were doing (except perhaps in Ace asking, but South would have bid the slam in any case) but were missing a complexity of the national rules.

[sanst]

If I was sitting W and 4NT isn't alerted and no CC on the table, I wouldn't say a thing, pass and appeal to the Director if N answered an ace asking bid. With my hearts and the ace of spades I'm pretty sure they won't make 4NT and 5♡ is quite uncertain.
All information that comes from other sources than the bidding and playing cards is extraneous and should therefore be avoided, even by the director. Up to this point there's been no irregularity, just the suspicion that 4NT should have been alerted.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2025-March-22, 16:27, said:

National Alert regulations are closely WBF inspired: alert calls which are not natural, except those above 3NT beyond the first round of bidding.

Note EBU regs sidestep this issue, as it's only suit bids (so not NT) above 3N that need alerting on the first round

[mycroft]

I feel that if the question from West was "what meanings for 4NT are Alertable?", then I can not see any reason why that question should not be answered by the Director. If that then prompts a "ah, I should have Alerted" from North, we're in the clear.

I understand the resistance of E-W to "waking up opponents to a misunderstanding", but here it seems clear that it could just as easily be "I don't know if it's Alertable" (or "immediately, rather than delayed, Alertable", at least in the ACBL) as "I don't know what it means" or "I can't remember our agreement".

In a situation like this, where Alert/no Alert passes "just as much" information as asking and getting "Ace-asking" or "NAT Quant" to partner about what their response is going to be, I don't see any danger.

Having said that, what happens if you get permission for a written explanation and you get exactly what the fiddle-noAlert meant "no idea. It's either Ace-asking or quantitative. We've never discussed this one"? What happens if the director then sends North away from the table to get South to explain *their agreement*, and get told "we haven't discussed this one, I'm hoping he guesses right"? Assume that in this case, they're not *both* snowing you...

(potentially relevant side-track: last week, the auction went 1NT (12-14)-p-4NT-p. We *have*, in fact, discussed this one, but it's never come up in 15 years. Our discussion:

• We play 1NT-2♠ as range-ask. and since it's forcing we can bid game or slam (or pass 2NT, very frequently) depending on the response;
  
• we play 1NT-4♣ as transfer to hearts (and 1NT-4♥ as "I want to play 4♥");
  
• and we can keycard in any suit (after a 2♠ range ask);
  
• so the only meaning that makes any sense is straight-Ace Blackwood.

So, I showed my two aces and we got to slam. Partner told me after she didn't remember the agreement (and 1NT-2♠; 2NT-3NT had skipped her mind), wasn't sure what 4NT was, but knew she could understand and would be happy with any response, including pass, so went with it.

So, here, I as the Alerter remembered the agreement. But if we were behind screens, and screenmate asks, if she writes that last sentence, which was absolutely true, what do you do as "may want to 'defence against KC check' with 5♥ here"?)

[mycroft]

Okay, sorry, that was the EBU quote (blame jilly, she's been sending me to the Blue Book too often recently.)

How about "[A] player who is misinformed by an opponent’s failure to Alert will be protected."

Close enough?

[axman]

mycroft, on 2025-March-25, 10:47, said:

Okay, sorry, that was the EBU quote (blame jilly, she's been sending me to the Blue Book too often recently.)

How about "[A] player who is misinformed by an opponent’s failure to Alert will be protected."

Close enough?

As Clinton has paraphrased, 'It depends upon what the definition of protected is.'

I had the opportunity to accommodate the movement by giving my permission for the TD to substitute a pair for two boards on the condition that my score would be protected. Whitesides protected using two Zeros. I call that being misinformed.