[dickiegera]

NO ALERTS

---

West held the K1098 of Hearts and didn't believe it was ethical to ask about the heart bid meaning.


I East would have lead a heart however it appears that South with a heart suit and N/S with many points
would leave partner with nothing.

South also didn't advises us to the fact that 2♥ was a negative before opening lead was made.

I lead a ♦ and after seeing dummy asked about 2 ♥bid ,called the director.
Director said play it out and she would look at it later.
We were playing last round.

North make 5. A heart led holds it to 3.
Played 5 times, scores were 3@-660,1@-600 and 1@-210.
Director would not change our score altho she consider giving us average

What is correct?

South hand
Thank you

---

[campboy]

There was misinformation. Without the MI, East might well lead a heart. The MI made the heart lead less attractive. A heart lead would have been more successful. So there was damage and it seems routine to adjust to 3NT making exactly, for both sides (in the ACBL at least, in other jurisdictions one might consider giving a weighted score). Giving an average would be blatantly illegal.

[weejonnie]

 dickiegera, on 2015-March-09, 07:46, said:

NO ALERTS

---

West held the K1098 of Hearts and didn't believe it was ethical to ask about the heart bid meaning.

---

It is perfectly ethical to ask about any bid (at the risk of creating UI for partner). West would do better to ask for a full explanation of the auction, which might help avoid the UI issues. (Presumably the TD would allow East to change the face-down card?)

Obviously either North or South should have called the TD and, once present, advise EW that the 2 Heart bid should have been alerted. The TD would ask EW to call him back if they felt they had suffered a loss as a result.

(What would happen, for instance if NS had said they would redouble hoping to make 2H on cards - and could show that that option was available to them?)

[pran]

West has in my opinion no particular reason for asking, and certainly cannot be accused of failing to protect him/her self because of not asking.

There is a clear misinformation case, both by North's failure to alert and also by South's failure to notify about the missing alert before the opening lead.

I would have adjusted the result to 3NT just made, no split or weighted score. (Awarding an artificial score, like Average is illegal here)

[barmar]

I agree with the other responses. In addition, if either North or South is an experienced player, a PP would be appropriate for failing to call the TD and correct the MI at the end of the auction, as they should know better.

I wonder if they were confused by ACBL's change last year to alerting over 2♣. They removed the alert for artificial meanings of 2♦, but didn't change anything about artificial 2♥. Maybe NS thought the change also applied there as well.

[blackshoe]

Doesn't matter what they thought, only that they failed to alert, and failed to call the director and correct the MI at the proper time. I'd give a PP for that — it's a "must" law.

[barmar]

If a player honestly believed the call was non-alertable, I would be less inclined to give a PP for failing to alert. They didn't knowingly violate the alert requirement.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2015-March-09, 09:53, said:

If a player honestly believed the call was non-alertable, I would be less inclined to give a PP for failing to alert. They didn't knowingly violate the alert requirement.

If I find that to be the case, the PP would be in the form of a warning — and if next time it happens he claims to believe the call doesn't require an alert, I won't believe him. He gets only one warning. Also, I'm not going to go looking for excuses for them - if they don't assert that they believed no alert was required, I'm not going to do it for them.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-09, 10:02, said:

If I find that to be the case, the PP would be in the form of a warning — and if next time it happens he claims to believe the call doesn't require an alert, I won't believe him. He gets only one warning. Also, I'm not going to go looking for excuses for them - if they don't assert that they believed no alert was required, I'm not going to do it for them.

I'm not suggesting that, either. Although during the first month or so after a change to the alert rules, I'd give pretty much everyone a pass on calls that were affected by the change. It takes a while for changes to sink in. I vaguely recall something like this even being officially sanctioned.

[Trinidad]

This simply demonstrates that many TDs simply get simple rulings wrong.

Rik

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2015-March-09, 11:13, said:

This simply demonstrates that many TDs simply get simple rulings wrong.

I would have said that this simply demonstrates that a simple TD can get a simple ruling wrong.

[Mbodell]

 campboy, on 2015-March-09, 08:04, said:

There was misinformation. Without the MI, East might well lead a heart. The MI made the heart lead less attractive. A heart lead would have been more successful. So there was damage and it seems routine to adjust to 3NT making exactly, for both sides (in the ACBL at least, in other jurisdictions one might consider giving a weighted score). Giving an average would be blatantly illegal.

I am not a director nor do I play one on TV but technically we do need to establish that they have the agreement that 2♥ is weak. It is possible (though unlikely) that South made a mistaken bid (thinking 2♥ negative was what they played), was woken up to that not being what they play by North not alerting (and can't use the UI to change their call, but can use the UI to make sure they alert/explain the auction and agreements), and North bid 3nt to play opposite a presumed ♥ positive. But if they have the agreement that 2♥ is artificial and weak (or if they aren't clear on what their agreement is but South thought it was that), then there is the MI and the above is correct.

[lamford]

 Mbodell, on 2015-March-09, 21:06, said:

I am not a director nor do I play one on TV but technically we do need to establish that they have the agreement that 2♥ is weak. It is possible (though unlikely) that South made a mistaken bid (thinking 2♥ negative was what they played), was woken up to that not being what they play by North not alerting (and can't use the UI to change their call, but can use the UI to make sure they alert/explain the auction and agreements), and North bid 3nt to play opposite a presumed ♥ positive. But if they have the agreement that 2♥ is artificial and weak (or if they aren't clear on what their agreement is but South thought it was that), then there is the MI and the above is correct.

If the CC had 2C: 2D = neg; 2M = natural positive, or something like that, then the ruling might be different, but we would have been told this in the OP. Otherwise, we go on 21B1b: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. And the failure to alert is deemed misinformation, assuming that 2H is alertable in the ACBL as it would be in the UK.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2015-March-10, 04:58, said:

…assuming that 2H is alertable in the ACBL as it would be in the UK.

It is.