[sailoranch]

---

East-West vulnerable at matchpoints. ACBL sectional pairs.

South is somewhat inexperienced (non-LM) and accustomed to limited games. North is a pickup partner. East-West are more experienced and in an established partnership.

East's 4♣ call was alerted. At his turn to call after 5♣, North inquired about the alert of 4♣. West first explained it as Non-Leaping Michaels and further specified it as showing clubs and a major.

After passes by North and East, South bid 5♦. At this point, West called the director, claiming that North broke tempo after the explanation. North confirmed that he had asked about the alert, but disputed that there was a pause afterward. The director then instructed the players to proceed and left the table. West then doubled, which was followed by three passes.

West led a club, and the table result was 5♦X=, NS +550.

How would you rule? Thanks in advance.

[the hog]

5C undoubled.

[jillybean]

How can you make a ruling without trying to determine if there was a BIT?
3♦ ; 5♦ appears to be the kind of bid many NLM's would make.

[nigel_k]

There are three steps:

1. Establish whether there was unauthorised information available to South, and what the UI was.
2. Decide which of South's possible actions are logical alternatives.
3. Determine which of the logical alternatives, if any, were suggested by the UI.

1.
The fact that North asked about the 4♣ bid is unauthorised information to South. East/West are also claiming there was a break in tempo (BIT) by North. Only the director can establish the facts, i.e. whether there actually was a BIT. We can't do that and neither can the appeals committee or anyone else. If the director does not establish as a fact that there was a BIT then there can be no adjustment except possibly based on the mere fact of North asking a question. For the rest of this I'll assume there was a BIT because an adjustment based on the mere asking of a question about an alerted call would be hard to justify.

2.
The various logical alternatives are normally determined by the director following polling of a number of players. So you give them the hand and auction without any mention of UI and ask them what they would do. After that, also ask what alternatives they considered and how close they were to choosing something else. Since we have no indication of this being done and the result, I will offer my own opinion:

Given South's shape and the vulnerability, it will certainly be right to bid if the the opponents' contract is making. They have bid game freely and partner has not doubled. Partner may produce enough defence to defeat 5♣ but not enough for us to make 5♦, but that is well against the odds. Since we have grossly understated our playing strength by opening 3♦, we cannot expect partner to make the decision for us.

Some people will tell you that South's decision to open 3♦ is evidence that he didn't initially consider the hand good enough to bid 5♦ unilaterally over 5♣ by the opponents. So his second bid must have been the result of UI. Those people are wrong. Weak players make odd calls like South's 3♦ opening all the time without considering what situations may arise later in the auction.

Others will produce a layout where pass works and therefore conclude that pass is a logical alternative. Those people are also wrong. Bridge is about choosing the action with the best chance of success, so an action may be illogical merely because it is anti-percentage, even though it will work some of the time.

I don't think South has any logical alternative to 5♦.

3.
If North does break tempo, he may be thinking about either doubling or bidding 5♦. But given the vulnerabilty, North's previous pass, and the fact that E/W bid 5♣ freely (without being pushed) it is quite a lot more likely that North would be thinking about 5♦ rather than double. So any break in tempo would make it more attractive for South 5♦ when compared to an in-tempo pass.

Since I don't think there is a logical alternative for South, I would not adjust. But the director should poll people before deciding.

[iviehoff]

 jillybean, on 2012-October-21, 00:13, said:

How can you make a ruling without trying to determine if there was a BIT?

We adjust for Unauthorised Information, not for BITs. I would adjust even if there was clearly no BIT, because the question is UI. 5D is a poor bid which has been made safer by N's show of interest in the auction by asking a question.

Nigel's assertion that there is no LA to 5D doesn't add up for me - how can there be no LA to a poor bid? 5D was not bid to make, it was bid as a sacrifice. As a sacrifice, it is terrible, because it is a phantom sacrifice. 5C is failing to make for reasons that S can see plain in his hand, terrible breaks. To make, 5D is a awful contract. It made in practice only because of good luck (not luck you could really count on) in the card locations and, arguably, a misdefence. But the misdefence is nowhere near bad enough to deny EW redress.

[lamford]

 iviehoff, on 2012-October-22, 04:40, said:

5D was not bid to make, it was bid as a sacrifice. As a sacrifice, it is terrible, because it is a phantom sacrifice. 5C is failing to make for reasons that S can see plain in his hand, terrible breaks. To make, 5D is a awful contract. It made in practice only because of good luck (not luck you could really count on) in the card locations and, arguably, a misdefence. But the misdefence is nowhere near bad enough to deny EW redress.

5C is only failing because two rounds of diamonds stand up. And 5D is only beaten on the ace of spades lead. South clearly has UI. Does this demonstrably suggest that 5D would be more successful? Not at all. Partner might have been thinking of doubling 5C. He might have done if he had known East had clubs and hearts. 5D was a lucky shot, and even if not an LA is not demonstrably suggested. No adjustment.

[Codo]

I see no alternative to 5 ♦ nonvul. too.

[mycroft]

The question is UI, yes; but barring knowledge of this North, UI resulting from asking about an Alerted call in a competitive auction at one's first turn to do so is minimal. I can't imagine "anyone" under 1500 ACBL points not asking - this is so odd a situation to Alert (and frankly, I'd be expecting that the answer was going to be the G word, at least until the 5♣ response!)

So we're back to the potential BIT. Again, in a competitive auction that got very high and reasonably artificial very quickly, I would expect some thinking anyway. I know that there are those who would pass like lightning with a zero count, and we'd have to work that out, too.

So I'm punting this one to the TD. There's decisions that have to be made that are based on who's North, and how long, and how interested, that I don't know and the TD does. And that's not even going with South's potential "I'm bidding 5♦ because I'm void in clubs and they're making it; I only bid 3 to start with because they weren't going to get to game" - the validity of which I'm not sure I'm comfortable with (and I've given out several rulings that start "you're allowed to think that way, as long as partner doesn't pooch it for you. But when your partner shows strength illegally...", even to newer players; might as well learn the rules early - if for no other reason than they'll start to notice when people WeaSeL against them, too!)

The TD should have been called back after -550, and should have asked to be called back (..."if there may be an issue" optionally). At which point we'd be more interested in the disputed BIT, and potential UI from the question.

[jeffford76]

 iviehoff, on 2012-October-22, 04:40, said:

We adjust for Unauthorised Information, not for BITs. I would adjust even if there was clearly no BIT, because the question is UI. 5D is a poor bid which has been made safer by N's show of interest in the auction by asking a question.

I think this depends on locale. Where I play, it is expected that you ask about an alerted bid, and since you're asking whether you have interest or not, it doesn't convey UI to ask. I would not enjoy playing where I only ask when I'm interested, giving UI every time I don't. So I do think the BIT is the key, not the question.

[RMB1]

 jeffford76, on 2012-October-22, 13:05, said:

Where I play, it is expected that you ask about an alerted bid, and since you're asking whether you have interest or not, it doesn't convey UI to ask.

But South did not ask about 4♣ - so do we conclude this is not somewhere where it is expected to ask about alerted bids?

[jeffford76]

 RMB1, on 2012-October-22, 15:24, said:

But South did not ask about 4♣ - so do we conclude this is not somewhere where it is expected to ask about alerted bids?

An ACBL sectional is typically full of local players. The director probably knows whether the specific north typically asks. I would not make an assumption about the culture in general from the behavior of the inexperienced player sitting south.

[bluejak]

 mycroft, on 2012-October-22, 11:42, said:

I can't imagine "anyone" under 1500 ACBL points not asking ...

So I was just about to point out that South didn't ask - and then Robin beat me to it!

[the hog]

 Codo, on 2012-October-22, 06:48, said:

I see no alternative to 5 ♦ nonvul. too.

Then why open 3D to start with. This sort of masterminding is what breaks up partnerships.

[Bbradley62]

Maybe that's why South is playing with a pickup partner at a Sectional

[barmar]

 RMB1, on 2012-October-22, 15:24, said:

But South did not ask about 4♣ - so do we conclude this is not somewhere where it is expected to ask about alerted bids?

Since it's so rare for preempters to have anything to do unless forced, he can possibly be excused from this expectation. His partner, on the other hand, might or might not have something to think about, so he should be consistent in asking.

What's important is to be consistent. "Preempters don't ask, non-preempters always ask" is a reasonable practice if followed consistently.

[sailoranch]

I was North on this hand. The director adjusted to 5♣-1 based on the UI from asking about the alert. She stated that the question suggested values and thus made it safer for South to bid. She also stated that bidding again after preempting was unusual, so it was implicit that she judged pass to be an LA. There was no poll mentioned. My understanding was that the ruling was based on asking about the alert, and so establishing whether there was a BIT became moot.

I tend to ask a lot of questions, but I think my asking habits would have been irrelevant since my partner would have been unfamiliar with them. I am not aware of any local practice regarding questions about alerts.

Anyway, I was mostly interested in what the UI would have suggested and whether pass was an LA. Thanks for all of your replies.

Also, I was vague about the BIT since I was there and I am biased. Fwiw though, I thought I was closer to an insta-pass than a hesitation, after the explanation anyway.

[Trinidad]

Just my $0.02.

Yes, a question about an alerted call is UI, by the definition of UI. I hold the view that a normal question of an alerted call does not give any meaningful UI, but let's suppose that we can conclude from the UI (question + possible BIT) that partner really does have a problem. Does this UI then suggest bidding 5♦ over pass? To answer that we will need to figure out what partner's problem was.

Now what can partner's problem be? He passed initially, so he doesn't have diamond support. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that he was contemplating bidding 5♦. For the same reason, it is impossible that he was thinking of bidding anything else (such as 5♠), so the only thing that partner might have been considering is a penalty double with a decent hand and a misfit. I would say that this UI says that 5♦ will never make and that 5♣ will most likely go down. It screams "PASS!!!". Pass is strongly suggested over any possible LA, except for double. I would say that bidding anything (i.e. other than pass or double) is not merely bending over backwards to avoid taking advantage of the UI: It amounts to making a double backflip.

Rik