[ducky_rh]

My LHO opened 2H...partner passed...RHO bid 4C (no alert)...I passed...LHO rebid 4D (no alert)...p passed...RHO bid 4H...then all passed. RHO turmned up with a singleton club and LHO with a singleton diamond!! I called TD and asked if alerts were required...ruling was no, the bids were Gerber and showing 1 Ace, neither requiring alerts. I asked "Gerber over a pre-empt?" TD responded "there was no pre-empt, there was a weak 2H opening"

What do you all think of this ruling?

[DrTodd13]

First off, what kind of tournament was this? Was it an ACBL tournament or some other tournament? We need this information to determine what the policies for alerting are. In a generic tournament with no statement as to what is alertable, I think the default policy should be to alert non-natural or unusual bids. Both 2H-4C as splinter or gerber (never heard of that) should be alertable in my opinion because neither one of those says anything about clubs. So, I would say that I believe there has been a failure to alert. However, this is the only the first step. If your side was not damaged by the failure to alert then there is no penalty. You'd have to give the entire hand record to say whether there was damage. Was director called after the hand was over or after dummy was exposed? If the opening lead was bad due to lack of alert then there may a cause for an adjustment. If the opening lead was fine, you see dummy and know something weird is happening, ask for an explanation at this point, get one and then continue playing then there is no damage.

Also, last time I checked, 4D in response to 4C gerber shows 0 or 4 aces, not 1. I'd like to hear what the opps had to say about their bids instead of what this, most likely clueless, director has to say.

[ducky_rh]

Scoring: IMP

---

Auction:
-- -- -- 2♥
P 4♣ P 4♦
P 4♥ P P
P (no alerts)

TD: topbridgep
date May 2, 2005
Individual Tourney

I called director at end of hand. His ruling is given above.

I asked opps "why no alerts"...their answer was "no alerts above 3NT"

One injury was that I did not bid clubs because of their phony club bid.
I forget what the opening lead was, but it was not a club, probably for the same reason.

[shoeless]

In the time before land I played 4d as showing 1 ace and so on up to 5c showing zero - whoa thanks for the giggle due to your memory jolt Doc.

[Fouad]

According to WBF rules , bids over 3NT are not alerted , but you can ask opp about them

I do not know how in ACBL this go

[DrTodd13]

You were not injured by your inability to bid 5♣. 5♣ will be doubled and will be down 3 which is a worse result than them making 4♥. Clubs is not your best lead so if partner thought north had clubs and therefore chose not to lead them then you are not damaged in that way either.

It appears that at least NS were confused about the alerting rules. The rule that you do not alert above 3N is an ACBL rule and not a world-wide rule. It may be used in other countries as well but it is not universal. Moreover, even in the ACBL, the rule is that subsequent bids AFTER your side has bid 3N are not alertable. So, splinters are still alertable but, for example, conventional responses to a splinter would not be alertable at the time they are made. They are still alertable POST auction and before the opening lead is made. In a world of pre-alerts, there is no excuse for not alerting bids with unusual meanings at the time they are made. This is not the ACBL and we are not bound by their alerting rules. Our rules should be more proactive and should err on the side of too much information since self-alerts cannot give UI to partner.

It does appear that north was splintering with 4♣ which should have been alerted. South was cue-bidding with 4♦ (which isn't alertable) which convinced north that south had a void in ♦ so he didn't like his chances at 6♥, which is good because best defense is spade, spade, spade ruff.

In short, no harm no foul. As director, I would inform NS of the proper alert procedures and would assign a procedural penalty if they became habitual un-alerters.

[pigpenz]

it does look really suspicious, that the north hand didnt take any further action. If he knew it was an ace if 4♣ was some sort of key card gerber which some do play it would be pretty close to an automatic 6♥ bid. They took a view probably knowing partner plays undisciplined weak two's And decided not to bid slam which is a roll of the dice at matchpoints or imps...could be they were looking for antifield result if it were towards end of an imp event.

But probably the biggest fault on the hand is the failure of East to not bid 4♥, double, or 4♠. East did have a chance to help out.

As a recorder the only thing you could do would be to keep a record of the pair and if things were to happen again then they could be disciplined by the organizing body say if it were an ACBL event. Probably here its just bad luck that you ran into them.

Therefore no harm no foul.

[LH2650]

In ACBL-land, 4C would require an immediate Alert, whether Gerber or a splinter. However, no damage and no adjustment in this case.

[helene_t]

I thought all aritifical bids were alertable, even above 3NT? When playing online partner can't see your alert so there is no reason not to alert.

When playing with screens, you must alert artificial calls above 3NT.

[hotShot]

Alerting at BBO is a self alert, this has to be compared with the procedure used if you play with screens.
The WBF rule not to alert bids over 3NT is true only if playing without screens.
The reason is that alerting e.g. a slam auction is more helpful to the bidding side than to opps. This way they know partner understood the auction.
If partner can't see the alert because of screens of because of BBo selfalerts, bids above 3NT have to aleted too.
But since only a handful of top players have ever played with screens this fact might not be known to most players.

[ducky_rh]

Well, I just think it was "dirty" bridge by my opps, and even "dirtier" directing by the TD...his take on the bidding was completely absurd and non-sensical, and his failure to warn the opps was inexcusable.

[hotShot]

I think you are overreacting here. You could have asked what 4♣ is!
I would have assumed that it is a splinter or control bid, even without alert and i would have executed my right to ask about the bidding!

[pigpenz]

Ducky:sure they were operating just by the nature of their 2♥ opening, but you clearly had a call to make double or 4♥.

Lots of time in these auctions opponents will make calls that are more tactical than anything else, generally they wont have a catchers mitt like north had on this one.
Baby psyches happen all the time on auctions
2♥ pass 2♠

where 2♠ is forcing for one round(RONF). If you dont double with ♠'s then you will get robbed a few times.

[ducky_rh]

I did in fact ask what both bids were, and received no answer. We were under a strict time limit also, so there was not time to fuss.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: As Dr. Todd already noted, its important to establish what set of regulations were being used during the event in question. In many parts of the world players are explicitly forbidden from alerting bids greater than 3NT. This rule was put into effect because the regulators believe that these alerts are more likely "wake-up" partner regarding a conventional treatment rather than providing useful information to the opposing pair.

Comment 2: A 4♣ response to a 2M opening can be used for a wide variety of purposes. Most partnerships that I know use this bid as either keycard or a control asking bid. I know a couple who use this as a splinter. I don't know many decent pair who play this as natural.

Comment 3: No harm, no foul...

[ducky_rh]

You all miss the point. I passed the 4♣ bid BECAUSE I thought it was natural, in the absence of an alert, and I didn't want them to run somewhere else if I doubled. I did not double for the same reason. And thinking the 4♣ bid showed some kind of strength, I was not about to start bidding ♠s at the 5 level opposite a passed hand. And as has been pointed out, any bid by me would have been doubled and been down a few. So I certainly think there WAS harm. Everyone should know the BBO policy on alerts...there is no risk of "waking up" partner, because partner cannot see or hear the alerts. So the ONLY excuse for NOT alerting is a sinister one...to improperly muddy the auction and deceive the opponents. And then the poor dears can always feign innocence by hiding behind a rule that does not apply to BBO. And the TD's rulings were absurd, ignorant and ridiculous...a 2♥ opening DEFINITELY IS a pre-empt, and as has also been pointed out, even IF 4♣ was Gerber (which it was not), the 4♦ response does NOT show one ace as the TD asserted. It all STINKS...period.

[luke warm]

well if ducky asked about the bids and rcv'd no answer, that's not good... in any case, looks like another example of a td overstepping his bounds ("the bids were Gerber and showing 1 Ace" when 4♦ usually shows 0 if answer to gerber and "there was no pre-empt, there was a weak 2H opening" which is kinda sorta nonsensical)

[DrTodd13]

ducky_rh, on May 3 2005, 02:52 PM, said:

You all miss the point. I passed the 4♣ bid BECAUSE I thought it was natural, in the absence of an alert, and I didn't want them to run somewhere else if I doubled. I did not double for the same reason. And thinking the 4♣ bid showed some kind of strength, I was not about to start bidding ♠s at the 5 level opposite a passed hand. And as has been pointed out, any bid by me would have been doubled and been down a few. So I certainly think there WAS harm. Everyone should know the BBO policy on alerts...there is no risk of "waking up" partner, because partner cannot see or hear the alerts. So the ONLY excuse for NOT alerting is a sinister one...to improperly muddy the auction and deceive the opponents. And then the poor dears can always feign innocence by hiding behind a rule that does not apply to BBO. And the TD's rulings were absurd, ignorant and ridiculous...a 2♥ opening DEFINITELY IS a pre-empt, and as has also been pointed out, even IF 4♣ was Gerber (which it was not), the 4♦ response does NOT show one ace as the TD asserted. It all STINKS...period.

Ducky,

Your posts are not making any sense. Please help us to understand. Let's say the opponent had alerted 4♣ and told you it was a splinter. What would you have done? Would you have doubled? If so, what does double mean in your partnership? Lead clubs? Let's consider a sacrifice in clubs? We've already discussed how your side declaring any contract is not good for you so there cannot be any harm in stopping you from bidding a bad contract. If you are complaining that you can't double for a lead director then realize that the best lead is not a club but a spade. The only possible cause for action you have is if you and your partner have the agreement that doubles of splinters call for lead of the lower suit, in this case spades. If your partner leads spades anyway there you have absolutely cause for complaint. You got the best result you could possibly hope for. Your opponents are always going to play 4♥ and they stopped short of slam even without your interference.

You made a post and requested people's opinions and several smart people have replied. Please accept the replies which have all consistently told you that you were not damaged. Try to understand what we are saying that then assuming that we don't understand what the situation was. You keep saying the same thing over and over and not accepting the answer we have given you. We are all wrong occasionally and in this case I'm afraid you are the one who is mistaken about the rules.

Todd

[hrothgar]

ducky_rh, on May 4 2005, 01:52 AM, said:

Everyone should know the BBO policy on alerts...there is no risk of "waking up" partner, because partner cannot see or hear the alerts.  So the ONLY excuse for NOT alerting is a sinister one...to improperly muddy the auction and deceive the opponents.  And then the poor dears can always feign innocence by hiding behind a rule that does not apply to BBO.

Everyone should xxxxxx know that a 4♣ response to a 2M opening probably doesn't show clubs...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx should have a basic understanding what constitutes damage...

BBO individual tournaments are extremely chaotic affairs, encompassing players from all across the world with radically different concepts regarding what consitutes standard bidding...

Everyone should tread VERY carefully before accusing the opponents of cheating...


[[[[[ HEAVILY EDITED FOR OBVIOUS REASONS ]]]]]

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2005-May-03, 20:46

[inquiry]

Hi,

I will try here. There is a three prong approach to adjusting scores.

1) Should the bid be alerted (is there a parntership agreement). If no, end inquiry, if yes go to 2.

2) If bid was not alerted, was damage done to the innocent side, if no, end inquiry, otherwise to go 3.

3) Could the innocent side have reasonably protected themselves. If no, then adjust the board, if yes, then end inquiry.

Let's examine this case. Should the bid be alerted? I suspect the answer in an individual is no. It is highly unlikely they discussed what 2♥-4♣ means. The 4♣ bidder is hoping his parnter knows, but SURELY they have no agreement. So the request to the TD should be rejected. But lets assume there was an agreement (they tell you they played togehter yesterday and this very acution occured).

So we move to number 2, was there damage. As pointed out above, the answer is no. Their failure to alert has not damaged you. So the call to the director should be rejected. But let us create some theory of damage that none of us can understand, so lets turn to the last case.

Could you ahve protected yourself. Yes, you could have clicked on 4♣ to find out what the bid means. And if they refused to tell you, you could report that to the director. And then, assuming 1 and 2 were true (which they were not) and they refused to tell you the meaning of their 4C bid (if they had an agreement), then you would be awarded an adjustment.

All in all, I would say your request fails on all three stages. So the director was initially correct when he/she ruled that "alerts were not required." The director, however, should not be telling you what the bids meant. The only explaination is if one of the opponents told him gerber in private chat. The director should simply have explained as I, and others here, have tried, why there is no correction. The director should also remind the players on BBO when in doubt, alert. But that requires an agreement, which in individuals is almost always missing here.