[mohitz]

Hi,

I am interested in knowing the correct procedure to be followed in the following situation. Sorry if it is too simple.

Q1: What is the WBF alerting policy for NT openings? If i play a 12-14 NT, does it have to be alerted? Is an announcement required? If so, does failure to announce amount to misinformation?

Q2: You are playing against a pair without screens. LHO opens 1N, no range is announced. Partner bids 2D. You have discussed to play Landy/Natural against a strong NT and Landy/Transfer against a weak one. From your prior experience playing against this pair, you know that they play a 12-14 NT. However, partner does not. The opponents have no convention cards(it is a club tournament and having a CC is not mandatory).

So, it appears that partner has taken their NT range as strong and bid 2D as natural. However, if they are indeed playing 12-14, 2D would be transfer to hearts. What do you do in this situation? Do you alert 2D or not?

[RMB1]

mohitz, on 2011-February-27, 23:27, said:

Q1: What is the WBF alerting policy for NT openings? If i play a 12-14 NT, does it have to be alerted? Is an announcement required? If so, does failure to announce amount to misinformation?

Are you sure you were playing under WBF regulations, in a club?

WBF regulations do not require an alert for any range of NT bid showing a balanced hand; the WBF regulations do not require announcements.

If local regulations require an announcement (or alert) of all 1NT bids and there is none then you can point this out (it appeart to be an infraction).

If local regulations do not require an announcement for some range of 1NT bids and there is no announcement then you can assume the 1NT bid is in that range (or that they have no agreement ).

The common alerting requirements when parnter's bid may or may not be alertable depending on opponents' agreements is to alert. When asked: "if 1NT is 12-14, 2♦ is a transfer to hearts, if 1NT is strong(er), 2♦ is natural". Then at your turn, you can ask the range of 1NT and correctly understand the auction.

[paulg]

If you know their notrump range but you know (or believe) that partner does not, then the 2007 Laws specifically prohibit you from asking the notrump range just to inform partner.

LAW 20 - REVIEW AND EXPLANATION OF CALLS

G. Incorrect Procedure

1. It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit.

[campboy]

However, if you know their notrump range and know that it should have been announced or alerted, but was not, then it is legal to draw attention to the irregularity.

[blackshoe]

OP says (or implies) that he's playing under WBF regulations. Robin points out that under those regulations, no alert or announcement is required for the 1NT opening. So there's no irregularity to point out.

Robin also said

Quote

The common alerting requirements when parnter's bid may or may not be alertable depending on opponents' agreements is to alert. When asked: "if 1NT is 12-14, 2♦ is a transfer to hearts, if 1NT is strong(er), 2♦ is natural". Then at your turn, you can ask the range of 1NT and correctly understand the auction.

I'm not so sure about "correctly understand the auction". If partner has acted on the basis 1NT is strong, when it is in fact weak, then you will "correctly understand" that 2♦ was a transfer, when in fact it was natural.

I note that WBF system regulations require the use of System Cards. Law 40A1{b} says

Quote

Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done.

If the RA in India has eliminated this requirement in clubs, then the RA has a duty under the last sentence of this law to specify some alternative method of providing the information. It would appear the RA in this case has failed in this duty.

[bluejak]

While some jurisdictions use WBF regulations - and some people here think everyone should - it might be helpful to remember that WBF regulations are designed for international standard events played behind screens. At the very least jurisdictions that want to use them as a basis for clubs should modify them accordingly.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-February-28, 19:10, said:

it might be helpful to remember that WBF regulations are designed for international standard events played behind screens.

Says who? The WBF Alerting Regulations have a specific section for play without screens and clearly contemplate application beyond "international standard events". As it happens, the non-alerting of "any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract" only applies in events of a lesser standard where screens are not in use.

When screens are in use there are quite a lot of situations where a 1NT bid would be completely alertable under the concept of "an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning". Indeed, when with screens the recommended approach is if in any doubt about whether or not a bid is alertable or that your screenmate may not fully understand its meaning - you alert it.

There is also the bit about "nevertheless, players must respect the spirit of the Policy as well as the letter" which, in this case where WBF regulations are being applied in a jurisdiction not requiring system cards would suggest to me that a 1NT with a potentially unexpected range could be alerted as the "spirt" of the policy is one of full disclosure.

Having said all of that, if the 2♦ overcaller gets his side into trouble because he didn't bother enquiring about the 1NT range even though his defence to 1NT varies materially based on its range then I would not be overly sympathetic. His partner will have little choice but to assume that his partner knows what the range is and treat 2♦ as a transfer to ♥ until and if it becomes obvious via authorised information that he simply can't have that hand.

I'd be interested to see the hand where this issue arose and what the outcome was.

[pran]

It is interesting that nobody seems to have noticed this procedure:
South opens 1NT
West bids 2♦
North calls
East (now fully legally) asks about the 1NT opening bid in order to verify whether or not he should have alerted the 2♦ bid. It is immaterial whether he (thinks he) already knows for certain the precise range etc. because it has happened before that players have changed their agreements.

Now West has the opportunity to call the Director and say that he bid 2♦ on an incorrect understanding of the 1NT opening bid provided he does so before East actually calls (and of course assuming that the 1NT bid should have been alerted but was not).

A second possibility is that East can (at least in Norway) always alert the 2♦ bid directly, and when asked answer that (or how) it depends on the agreements for the 1NT opening bid. Unneeded alerts are not illegal as such in Norway.

[mrdct]

pran, on 2011-March-01, 00:44, said:

It is interesting that nobody seems to have noticed this procedure:
South opens 1NT
West bids 2♦
North calls
East (now fully legally) asks about the 1NT opening bid in order to verify whether or not he should have alerted the 2♦ bid. It is immaterial whether he (thinks he) already knows for certain the precise range etc. because it has happened before that players have changed their agreements.

Now West has the opportunity to call the Director and say that he bid 2♦ on an incorrect understanding of the 1NT opening bid provided he does so before East actually calls (and of course assuming that the 1NT bid should have been alerted but was not).

A second possibility is that East can (at least in Norway) always alert the 2♦ bid directly, and when asked answer that (or how) it depends on the agreements for the 1NT opening bid. Unneeded alerts are not illegal as such in Norway.

If East doesn't alert 2♦ and waits until it's his turn before asking what 1NT is, there is no way West would able to have his bid back and it would be entirely inappropriate for him to draw attention to his misbid.

Under WBF regs and all other alerting regs that I've come across, 2♦ should be immediately alerted and, if asked, an explanation of "it depends on what 1NT means" given.

[FrancesHinden]

Q1: No alert, no announcement as long as it is natural
Q2: You should always assume that your partner knew/knows the range of their 1NT opening.

[pran]

mrdct, on 2011-March-01, 01:09, said:

If East doesn't alert 2♦ and waits until it's his turn before asking what 1NT is, there is no way West would able to have his bid back and it would be entirely inappropriate for him to draw attention to his misbid.

Under WBF regs and all other alerting regs that I've come across, 2♦ should be immediately alerted and, if asked, an explanation of "it depends on what 1NT means" given.

The permissible time for changing a call under Law 21B1a expires when partner makes a subsequent call, not when he asks and gets the auction explained.

I agree that the best procedure is to alert the 2♦ bid immediately.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-February-28, 19:40, said:

Says who? The WBF Alerting Regulations have a specific section for play without screens and clearly contemplate application beyond "international standard events".

Says me: I wrote it, didn't I?

Yes, they have a bit for non-screen events, which is hardly ever used and they do not worry about. The regulations were designed for screens and international events.

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-March-01, 10:24, said:

Says me: I wrote it, didn't I?

Isaac Asimov used to tell a story about going to a lecture by a literature professor or critic, who was talking about one of Asimov's stories and explaining the author's intent, symbolism, or something like that. Asimov raised his hand and objected that this was not the author's intent. The lecturer (who apparently didn't have a copy of the dust jacket in front of him) asked him what made him so sure, and Asimov answered that he WAS the author. The lecturer dismissed this as irrelevant.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-March-01, 10:24, said:

Says me: I wrote it, didn't I?

Yes, they have a bit for non-screen events, which is hardly ever used and they do not worry about. The regulations were designed for screens and international events.

The scope and context of regulations would ordinarily be determined by the organisation commissioning the work and approving the final draft, not the actual author. I would expect that a significant number of NBOs have chosen to adopt WBF regulations holus-bolus for everything from the national selection trials down to the local club duplicate, so there would be lots and lots of non-international standard bridge played under the WBF regulations. With the exception of ACBL games, most bridge played on BBO would be pursuant to WBF regulations as it's pretty rare for a table host, teams match organiser or tournament organiser to prescribe alternative regulations.

[bluejak]

No doubt true, but hardly relevant. There is a large distinction between people who have accepted someone else's regulations because it is easier, and possibly because they feel consistency has advantages, and whether the original regulations were designed for such general use. There is no evidence whatever that they were, some that they weren't, and their use worldwide by certain jurisdictions does not affect it and provides no evidence to that effect.

[blackshoe]

WBF regulations are not a default for events played under the auspices of other RAs, unless the RA so stipulates. The WBF is the RA for "its own world tournaments and events", which does not cover online games. If the WBF is not the RA, then possibly "the respective Zonal Authority for tournaments and events held under its auspices." Nope, online games don't fit there, either. What's left? "For any other tournament or event the National Bridge Organization in whose territory the tournament takes place [is the RA]." So in which NBO's territory do games on BBO generally fall? One could argue "none". One could argue "the NBO of whoever is running the event". One could argue (BBO's servers are, I think, in Las Vegas) "the USBF" (who I am pretty sure is not interested in being an NBO at all). If BBO's servers are in, say, Canada, one could argue "The Canadian Bridge Federation". I suspect, however, that none of these organizations are interested in the job. So it seems that practically speaking, there is no RA for online bridge. So the only regulations that would apply would be those (if any) specified by the TO. I would submit that if that is the case, and if the TO does not specify any regulations, then there are none. This will, of course, cause problems, but that's nothing new.