[bd71]

My partner deals and opens against a weak intermediate pair...

1C (2N*) P (4H**)
P (4S***) PO

*No alert

**My partner asks my LHO about 2N; is told "Unusual Notrump."

***I double-check about the 2N bid, and am told that over a minor suit bid, they play "Unusual Notrump" as showing the other minor and an unknown major. After we object that that isn't really "Unusual Notrump", LHO tells us "you learned it one way, we learned it another way." Later, explaining things to her confused partner, LHO says something along the lines of "most people play that it shows the two lowest unbid suits." She's not to happy with my next comment, which is that if she's aware that they play an unusual variation, they should be alerting it.

But in the end, no harm because they overbid and 4S was down one for a good board for us. But I have a number of questions about what could/would have happened if we did think their actions had harmed us:

1. Are my partner and I culpable in any way because we accepted the "Unusual Notrump" explanation and didn't demand specifics? Would this prevent - or make less likely - any potential adjustment in our favor?

2. Is my LHO more seriously guilty for explaining the bid as "Unusual Notrump" when she's aware that their variation is not the norm? Is this subject to penalties beyond a score adjustment?

3. Does my later comment (telling my LHO she should be alerting their "Unusual NT" bids if they know they are non-standard) open me up to any possible penalty (Zero Tolerance? Anything else?)?

[mgoetze]

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. No comment as I am not interested in ACBL Madness...

[barmar]

What jurisdiction is this? mgoetze presumed ACBL, I'll go along.

2. Even if they DO play the normal Unusual NT, LHO is guilty. The ACBL Alert Procedure says that giving the name of a convention is not an appropriate response to a request for explanation. You're required to explain what the bid shows.

Variations on Unusual NT need names. How about "Very Unusual NT"? Or maybe "Usual NT"?

3. If you were polite when you made your comment, I don't think you would be culpable for anything. But many players think it's inappropriate for players to give opponents lessons, in either bridge logic or proprieties. So it's often recommended that instead of commenting by yourself, you inform the director and ask them to educate the opponents.

[peachy]

Again, assuming ACBL.
Unusual 2NT is not alertable. It can be "unusual" in any way, just not a "natural NT" (which is alertable). The bidder probably did not know the reg any better than you did. Also, you knew they were weak intermediates, ask and don't assume.

The explanation was lacking and they should have said which suits they were showing.

The lesson in the end about alerting was a) probably unwanted, and if so, wrong by ZT and b ) wrong in general because the Alert Regulation is clear in that 2NT is not alertable whatever its UNUSUAL meaning was.

[mgoetze]

Actually the wording of the ACBL Alert Chart looks mildly ambiguous to me.

[Coelacanth]

The ACBL Alert Procedure explicitly states

"A jump to 2NT to show the minors or the lower unbid suits is not Alertable."

I take this to mean that a jump to 2NT to show some other combination of suits is alertable.

In 20 years of playing in the ACBL I have never encountered the flavor of "Unusual 2NT" that the OP's opponents claim to be playing. I would definitely alert it if I were playing it myself, and I would definitely expect an alert if someone perpetrated it against me.

[Phil]

I hope the alert charts and policies get updated soon. They've done a good job with doubles and only made doubles with highly unusual meanings alertable. A direct cue bid is never alerted, which is sad, because while the vast majority plays Michaels, many do not, and 3rd hand never asks. Cue bids with unusual meanings should be alerted as well.

I agree with Barmar in that the name of a convention isn't a great explanation, but this weak intermediate pair really doesn't know any better. Hopefully the director can educate them that "unusual NT" does not mean a minor and a major.

[blackshoe]

peachy, on 2010-December-22, 02:24, said:

Again, assuming ACBL.
Unusual 2NT is not alertable. It can be "unusual" in any way, just not a "natural NT" (which is alertable).

This turns out not to be the case. The alert regulation says "A jump to 2NT to show the minors or the lower unbid suits is not Alertable." This Jump to 2NT shows the lowest unbid suit and an unknown major, so it is alertable.

Since when is expressing an opinion equivalent to "giving a lesson"?

[blackshoe]

mgoetze, on 2010-December-22, 09:24, said:

Actually the wording of the ACBL Alert Chart looks mildly ambiguous to me.

The chart is a guide which conflicts in several cases with the wording of the actual regulation. Which is why I strongly recommend not relying on the chart.

[matmat]

IIRC the ACBL convention card has a space for 2NT overcalls with checkboxes for [ ]Minors and [ ]Two lowest. You could always take a look at their card after the fact to see if they've overtly agreed on any meaning.

As for educating opponents, or talking quietly with the director later, the former seems inappropriate, unless you know them well, the latter... does that actually work? What are the chances that both the director will remember/have the chance to talk to the pair in question, AND the pair in question will remember the hand, AND the pair in question will have the time and desire to listen to the director?

I'd argue that if the director is not busy at the time this occurs that they should be called and the question should be phrased something along the lines of:
"I don't remember the correct regulation or procedure here, and wanted to clarify." i.e. pretend to be trying to educate yourself, and hope opps are listening.

-- edit --
the directors among the forum posters can tell me why this approach would be inappropriate or annoying to the director.

This post has been edited by matmat: 2010-December-22, 13:14

[TimG]

mgoetze, on 2010-December-21, 23:18, said:

3. No comment as I am not interested in ACBL Madness...

mgoetze, on 2010-December-22, 09:24, said:

Actually the wording of the ACBL Alert Chart looks mildly ambiguous to me.

So, you actually are interested enough to comment?

[TimG]

bd71, on 2010-December-21, 23:14, said:

1. Are my partner and I culpable in any way because we accepted the "Unusual Notrump" explanation and didn't demand specifics? Would this prevent - or make less likely - any potential adjustment in our favor?

As others have pointed out, "unusual notrump" is not a sufficient explanation. If you accepted this explanation and your claim for adjustment was based upon he difference between "minors" and "two lower unbid", I would discount your claim because you did not take minimum steps to protect yourself. If your claim was based upon not realizing one of the suits could be spades, your claim to damage and any potential adjustment would not be compromised. In short: yes, you have some obligation to protect yourself in the event of an explanation you know to be insufficient.

Quote

2. Is my LHO more seriously guilty for explaining the bid as "Unusual Notrump" when she's aware that their variation is not the norm? Is this subject to penalties beyond a score adjustment?

If she thinks her way is one of the normal ways, even if it is a minority way, I don't think she is "more seriously guilty". My guess is a significant majority of players use 2N over a minor suit opening to show "two lower unbid". Those who play "minors" are no more or less guilty of an improper explanation when they describe their method as "unusual".

Quote

3. Does my later comment (telling my LHO she should be alerting their "Unusual NT" bids if they know they are non-standard) open me up to any possible penalty (Zero Tolerance? Anything else?)?

In my opinion, a lot depends upon the manner in which you corrected or instructed your opponent. I'm sure it can be done both politely and impolitely. I would recommend it not carry an air of authority, people seldom like to be told what to do by those not in authority, and unwelcome instructions/lessons surely come under ZT coverage.

[bluejak]

matmat, on 2010-December-22, 13:11, said:

As for educating opponents, or talking quietly with the director later, the former seems inappropriate, unless you know them well, the latter... does that actually work? What are the chances that both the director will remember/have the chance to talk to the pair in question, AND the pair in question will remember the hand, AND the pair in question will have the time and desire to listen to the director?

There is something fairly horrifying in this post. It gives me an insight that I do not want.

Based on my experience:
"What are the chances that both the director will remember/have the chance to talk to the pair in question"
100%, surely: it is part of his job, isn't it?

"the pair in question will remember the hand"
They do not need to remember the hand: the TD is teaching them what to do in future.

"the pair in question will have the time and desire to listen to the director?"
What sort of relations do you have with your TDs? 95+%, surely. Please tell me that your players are not rude enough to fail to listen to the TD when he talks to them.

[matmat]

bluejak, on 2010-December-22, 20:15, said:

There is something fairly horrifying in this post. It gives me an insight that I do not want.

Based on my experience:
"What are the chances that both the director will remember/have the chance to talk to the pair in question"
100%, surely: it is part of his job, isn't it?

Is it? I thought it was to keep the paying public coming back. One of the reasons I stopped playing any local club or unit games was that I perceived some of the directors were there to restore general happiness of the regulars, while not antagonizing anyone. If for some reason the director's lesson on this topic comes across as abrasive or demeaning, the pair getting lectured might avoid games directed by that person in the future.

Quote

"the pair in question will remember the hand"
They do not need to remember the hand: the TD is teaching them what to do in future.

They need to remember what it is that they did, so that the statement "That is not alright" has any meaning.

Quote

"the pair in question will have the time and desire to listen to the director?"
What sort of relations do you have with your TDs? 95+%, surely. Please tell me that your players are not rude enough to fail to listen to the TD when he talks to them.

Maybe they need to leave quickly after the game? By the time the incident is reported to the TD (post game), scores are entered/printed/announced quite a few minutes will have passed. Also, there's a difference between hearing and listening. What makes you think that there isn't a significant fraction of players who will sit there through the chastising/lecturing/whatever, with not a single word sinking in, or the whole lesson being dismissed with the thought "the director had to do that to make our opps from that 4♠ happy"


Perhaps I'm somewhat cynical in all of this, but tbh, I generally distrust directors whose income depends primarily on the attendance of a small group of people frequenting their game. This is probably horribly unfair to a large fraction of such professional (and possibly, players), but to me it is a conflict of interest.

[mgoetze]

TimG, on 2010-December-22, 15:00, said:

mgoetze, on 2010-December-21, 23:18, said:

3. No comment as I am not interested in ACBL Madness...

So, you actually are interested enough to comment?

Sorry, I should perhaps have said "that particular ACBL Madness" (ZT).

[campboy]

There is surely a difference between giving a lesson on bridge and telling the opponents something they don't know about regulations, especially when, as here, you are actually drawing attention to an infraction.

[bluejak]

matmat, on 2010-December-22, 20:31, said:

Is it? I thought it was to keep the paying public coming back. One of the reasons I stopped playing any local club or unit games was that I perceived some of the directors were there to restore general happiness of the regulars, while not antagonizing anyone. If for some reason the director's lesson on this topic comes across as abrasive or demeaning, the pair getting lectured might avoid games directed by that person in the future.

I did not suggest that the TD acts like an idiot: why on earth should he or should I suggest that? But he is there to regulate the game and if a player or pair is getting things wrong then he is required to do something about it. Of course he does not lecture, or hector, or whatever: he explains.

matmat, on 2010-December-22, 20:31, said:

They need to remember what it is that they did, so that the statement "That is not alright" has any meaning.

In which case he does not say "This is not alright": yet again you seem to be suggesting the TD acts with no commonsense whatever: I am not. He is explaining how to follow the regulations: it does not matter whether the pair remembers the incident. He is interested in players getting it right in future for their sake and for others sake. He is not there to win brownie points, not that he will if he adopts your approach.

matmat, on 2010-December-22, 20:31, said:

Maybe they need to leave quickly after the game? By the time the incident is reported to the TD (post game), scores are entered/printed/announced quite a few minutes will have passed. Also, there's a difference between hearing and listening. What makes you think that there isn't a significant fraction of players who will sit there through the chastising/lecturing/whatever, with not a single word sinking in, or the whole lesson being dismissed with the thought "the director had to do that to make our opps from that 4♠ happy"

I do not expect players to listen to chastising or lecturing: yet again you seem to think that the TD is there to make players' lives miserable: he is not, he is there to help. If he cannot speak to them then, he can speak to them on a later occasion.

You must get out of your head the idea that TDs are there to act like total buffoons with an urge to spoil people's fun. No competent TD acts like that. They are there to help, and their attitude must be one of helpfulness.

matmat, on 2010-December-22, 20:31, said:

Perhaps I'm somewhat cynical in all of this, but tbh, I generally distrust directors whose income depends primarily on the attendance of a small group of people frequenting their game. This is probably horribly unfair to a large fraction of such professional (and possibly, players), but to me it is a conflict of interest.

If a player upset others, then only a completely stupid TD upsets him or ignores it even if his income depends on it. Complete incompetence should not be a basic requirement for TDs.

[peachy]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-22, 11:47, said:

This turns out not to be the case. The alert regulation says "A jump to 2NT to show the minors or the lower unbid suits is not Alertable." This Jump to 2NT shows the lowest unbid suit and an unknown major, so it is alertable.

Since when is expressing an opinion equivalent to "giving a lesson"?

I read only the chart which says it is unalertable. http://www.acbl.org/...alertchart.html
Jumps to 2NT or any four-level or higher notrump bid that is unusual. But you are correct that the regulation text only gives two choices for the unusual while the chart simply says "unusual". Time to tighten up this definition as well.
If the opinion is unwanted - whether correct by law or not - it is easy to perceive it as a lesson. Perception is all there is so I would be careful, not to give the impression I am giving a lesson to a stranger. Maybe the OP folks were friends.

[blackshoe]

"Perception is all there is…"

Sez who?

I don't think a TD should cater to oversensitive players who think every comment is a personal attack.

[barmar]

peachy, on 2010-December-23, 11:11, said:

I read only the chart which says it is unalertable. http://www.acbl.org/...alertchart.html
Jumps to 2NT or any four-level or higher notrump bid that is unusual. But you are correct that the regulation text only gives two choices for the unusual while the chart simply says "unusual". Time to tighten up this definition as well.

The chart is a summary of the regulation. It's necessarily terse.