[aguahombre]

pran, on 2015-March-18, 04:23, said:

illegal communication is one irregularity, using UI is another.

Yep... you do get it.

[Zelandakh]

This (If it was stated)

lamford, on 2015-March-14, 06:38, said:

he also struggled to construct a non-alertable meaning of 4♣

and this

lamford, on 2015-March-14, 06:38, said:

his partner clearly would have doubled if 4♣ had been Gerber (or even Swiss or similar), but did not want to double a splinter.

are the UI. The TD should warn E-W that their method combined with only calling the TD creates significant UI whether they subsequently bid or not and remind them of their obligations. I would not issue a PP since West was acting under a reasonable, if flawed, interpretation of the rules.

[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2015-March-18, 05:13, said:

Not sure I know of a venue that does fulfil that condition. Most regulations specify some calls which are not alertable regardless of how unexpected the meaning is, usually doubles or bids above 3NT after the first round of bidding.

Just getting into a discussion about regulations ia already taking your eye off the ball, but I will humor you.

It is sensible to prohibit alerts in some situations (or rather: postpone alerts until there are no, or less, UI issues). Those situations would be exceptions to the rule. One such situattion could be calls above 3NT after the first round of bidding.

The situation that EBU has created is:
Calls with an unexpected meaning are alertable.
   Exception: Calls with an unexpected meaning above 3NT are not alertable
      Exception to the exception: Calls with an unexpected meaning above 3NT are alertable in the first round of the bidding
         Exception to the exception to the exception: Passes with an unexpected meaning above 3NT are not alertable in the first round of the bidding
            Exception to the exception to the exception to the exception: Passes with an unexpected meaning that is lead directing above 3NT are alertable in the first round of the bidding

And after all this, the question pops up: What to do about a pass above 3NT in the first round of the auction that is not explicitly lead directing but does have unexpected lead directing implications? Are they an exception to the exception to the exception to the exception to the exception or not?

If you take your eyes off the ball, then your answer is: the regulation (does / doesnot)¹ say that it is alertable, so that is what I will do.
¹ Pick the convenient interpretation of lead directing: Is a lead directing implication "lead directing" or not?

But the correct answer to that question is: Forget all these regulation mechanics, because that is not what bridge is about. Focus on the ball -full dosclosure- and alert.

Rik

[gordontd]

Trinidad, on 2015-March-18, 08:11, said:

The situation that EBU has created is:
Calls with an unexpected meaning are alertable.
   Exception: Calls with an unexpected meaning above 3NT are not alertable
      Exception to the exception: CallsBids with an unexpected meaning above 3NT are alertable in the first round of the bidding
         Exception to the exception to the exception: Passes with an unexpected meaning above 3NT are not alertable in the first round of the bidding
            Exception to the exception to the exception to the exception: Passes with an unexpected meaning that is lead directing above 3NT are alertable in the first round of the bidding

FYP

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-18, 07:37, said:

The TD should warn E-W that their method combined with only calling the TD creates significant UI whether they subsequently bid or not and remind them of their obligations.

There is another thread in another section for the most hopeless/clueless comment, and I wonder if the above strayed in from there. The East-West method is the most common in top-level bridge, whereby double of a splinter asks for the lead of some other suit, usually specified, and double of Gerber or Swiss, or similar other, asks for a lead of that suit. E-W are fully aware of the problem if they ask over an alerted 4C, whether they then pass or make another call, and often check the CC before the round to find out whether the opponents play splinters or some other method. In this case, the CC did not have any entry for "splinters". The TD call was not part of the "method" of EW in the slightest. How on earth would they know whether there would be a failure to alert? It was the correct and legitimate method for EW to draw attention to the infraction. Asking about a non-alerted 4C and then passing would certainly have conveyed more UI and could indeed be construed as illegal communication. If anyone merits a PP it is NS for failing to alert an alertable call and failing to disclose their methods in the manner specified by the regulatory authority.

Half of the posts on here are addressing the question of whether Pass of 4C should be alerted, without indicating in what way NS might have been damaged by the lack of an alert. An interesting academic exercise, but more relevant to a thread in which the failure to alert a negative-inference lead-directing pass causes damage. I wonder if such a hand will occur at a North London club in the near future ...

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2015-March-18, 08:29, said:

FYP

Q.E.D.

If an experienced TD gets caught in the maze of EBU alert regulations, something needs fixing (and it is not the mentioned experienced TD ).

Rik

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2015-March-18, 05:13, said:

Also, you should not "volunteer" alerts. You should follow the alert regulations in force. Alerting a call which you are not supposed to alert is an irregularity. And the only time at which is appropriate to volunteer an explanation is at the end of the auction, when your side is declaring. Otherwise, you should wait until asked. You can volunteer as much information as you want on the CC, of course (and when I played a similar method it was prominently on the front of mine).

pran, on 2015-March-18, 05:49, said:

It might be considered an irregularity in Norway, but I have never heard of reactions other than a friendly remark that such alerts are not required.

In fact I believe the general attitude here is that "if you are in doubt then alert".

That's not only the attitude in the ACBL, it's the regulation.

IMO — perhaps it's my ACBL experiences — an alert regulation should not provide a list of things you don't alert, except by applying the positive list of things you do alert. That's what the alert chart does: it has a column titled "no alert", but neither the alert procedure nor the chart actually prohibits any alert. In the ACBL, things in the "no alert" column are there because they're not whatever is in the "alert" column.

The ACBL regulation also says, in block capitals, "when in doubt, alert". It would be awfully hard, IMO, to tell someone that he has committed an irregularity if he's alerted something that doesn't actually require an alert, especially if he says he alerted because he wasn't sure.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-18, 11:27, said:

...the alert chart .... has a column titled "no alert", but neither the alert procedure nor the chart actually prohibits any alert. In the ACBL, things in the "no alert" column are there because they're not whatever is in the "alert" column.

The ACBL regulators might be surprised that their clear intention to bar alerts of Puppet Stayman when it is 2c/1NT or 3c/2nt (making the answer alertable but not the Puppet bid itself) was not successfully conveyed to players and directors.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-18, 11:37, said:

The ACBL regulators might be surprised that their clear intention to bar alerts of Puppet Stayman when it is 2c/1NT or 3c/2nt (making the answer alertable but not the Puppet bid itself) was not successfully conveyed to players and directors.

Was it "an intention to bar"? On what do you base this assertion?

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-18, 11:38, said:

Was it "an intention to bar"? On what do you base this assertion?

It is part of the movement to eliminate alerts which can only serve to remind the partnership of its own methods before the response to the convention has been made. Another is alerting of 2N in response to a weak two-bid which everyone knows is a convention but the partnership might get reminded what continuation it asks for.

The very fact that it was made non-alertable after being alertable before makes it clear and self-evident that the ACBL does not want it alerted. So, I guess the basis of my assertion would be common sense, even if the discussion before the change hadn't expressly stated the obvious.

[campboy]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-18, 11:27, said:

The ACBL regulation also says, in block capitals, "when in doubt, alert". It would be awfully hard, IMO, to tell someone that he has committed an irregularity if he's alerted something that doesn't actually require an alert, especially if he says he alerted because he wasn't sure.

Fair enough. I should really have said "which you are supposed to not alert" rather than "which you are not supposed to alert", as there is a big difference. The EBU alert regulations are worded rather differently, and are clearer that certain calls are not to be alerted (for some cases, though not this one, they even say "must not be alerted").

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-18, 12:09, said:

It is part of the movement to eliminate alerts which can only serve to remind the partnership of its own methods before the response to the convention has been made. Another is alerting of 2N in response to a weak two-bid which everyone knows is a convention but the partnership might get reminded what continuation it asks for.

The very fact that it was made non-alertable after being alertable before makes it clear and self-evident that the ACBL does not want it alerted. So, I guess the basis of my assertion would be common sense, even if the discussion before the change hadn't expressly stated the obvious.

None of this is valid. First off, you now assert a "movement" with no evidence to back it up. You say that "everyone knows" a 2NT response to a weak two bid is a convention. Does that include the people, however few they may be, who play it as natural?

"The very fact that it was made non-alertable after being alertable before makes it clear and self-evident that the ACBL does not want it alerted"

No it does not.

Basically you're making a bunch of assertions and expecting us to accept them as true without backing them up.

[toukie]

lamford, on 2015-March-18, 08:55, said:

There is another thread in another section for the most hopeless/clueless comment, and I wonder if the above strayed in from there. The East-West method is the most common in top-level bridge, whereby double of a splinter asks for the lead of some other suit, usually specified, and double of Gerber or Swiss, or similar other, asks for a lead of that suit. E-W are fully aware of the problem if they ask over an alerted 4C, whether they then pass or make another call, and often check the CC before the round to find out whether the opponents play splinters or some other method. In this case, the CC did not have any entry for "splinters". The TD call was not part of the "method" of EW in the slightest. How on earth would they know whether there would be a failure to alert? It was the correct and legitimate method for EW to draw attention to the infraction. Asking about a non-alerted 4C and then passing would certainly have conveyed more UI and could indeed be construed as illegal communication. If anyone merits a PP it is NS for failing to alert an alertable call and failing to disclose their methods in the manner specified by the regulatory authority.

Half of the posts on here are addressing the question of whether Pass of 4C should be alerted, without indicating in what way NS might have been damaged by the lack of an alert. An interesting academic exercise, but more relevant to a thread in which the failure to alert a negative-inference lead-directing pass causes damage. I wonder if such a hand will occur at a North London club in the near future ...

So this hand was made up. I suspected it was.




I was the one who questioned whether the pass should be alerted. I wasn't suggesting NS were damaged by the failure to alert, I was merely drawing attention to the fact that an alertable bid had not been alerted, much the same as east did with the failure to alert the splinter.

In answer to the question could a failure to alert a negative-inference lead-directing pass causes damage, well ....

If NS ended up buying the contract, that knowledge could give some clue to the winning line of play.
For example with xxxx in the splinter suit and a better holding an an unbid suit east might well double to say don't lead a club as a lead it's likely to give a free finesse, so if it's not doubled declarer could perhaps draw the inference that east probably has at least one club honour.

If declarer had say AQJ opposite dummy's singleton, it gives him a clue whether to take an ordinary finesse or a ruffing finesse.

How do you answer the the question "Well if I had been alerted to the fact that east had made a negative-inference lead-directing pass of course I would have played him for the club king, it's obvious...."

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2015-March-18, 12:09, said:

Another is alerting of 2N in response to a weak two-bid which everyone knows is a convention but the partnership might get reminded what continuation it asks for.

Eh? The alert conveys the information that 2NT is conventional. "Everyone" already knows that 2NT is conventional. Hence the alert adds nothing to what the partnership already knew, and no one has been reminded of anything.

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2015-March-19, 02:48, said:

Eh? The alert conveys the information that 2NT is conventional. "Everyone" already knows that 2NT is conventional. Hence the alert adds nothing to what the partnership already knew, and no one has been reminded of anything.

If the answer to "please explain", was "conventional" you would be right. But the answer is "asking for feature" or "ogust".

Anyway, that is why 2NT is not alertable... only the answer being alertable.

All is well, though. I don't really need to convince anyone why something was made non-alertable. Heck, I can't even get the message across that when the RA expresslly writes "NO ALERT" it means don't alert it.

[blackshoe]

toukie, on 2015-March-19, 01:29, said:

How do you answer the the question "Well if I had been alerted to the fact that east had made a negative-inference lead-directing pass of course I would have played him for the club king, it's obvious...."

That's not a question.

[toukie]

blackshoe, on 2015-March-19, 08:11, said:

That's not a question.

Alright then, How do you answer the assertion "Well if I had been alerted to the fact that east had made a negative-inference lead-directing pass of course I would have played him for the club king, it's obvious...."

[toukie]

Returning to the original post .....

lamford, on 2015-March-14, 06:38, said:

He had agreed with this partner that doubling a splinter said "don't lead this suit", so his partner could well have good clubs for his pass.

His partner might have good clubs for his pass, but that does not mean he has club length.
I don't think you would double 4C to discourage the lead with AKx but I think you would double with xxxxxxx

So good clubs doesn't mean club length, if it does the explanation was wrong.

So, I think, either west is a weak player who misunderstood his own methods and got lucky when partner did actually have club length when he need not have had, or west has given a misexplanation of their methods.

[lamford]

toukie, on 2015-March-19, 09:07, said:

<snip> or west has given a misexplanation of their methods.

West was not asked to give an explanation of their methods, but his explanation to the TD as given in the OP was correct. Double of a splinter would have said "don't lead a club". Pass just said "I don't want to double". He admitted using what he regarded as the AI of the TD call to judge the increased probability of East having good clubs and club length. There was no agreement between East and West regarding a different meaning of Pass with or without a TD call. If I had been TD, I would have ruled no adjustment as SB only used AI, caused by North-South's two infractions. In addition, a splinter followed by a sign-off strongly suggests club length with East, and both of those are also AI.

Interestingly, if 4C had been alerted and East had asked about it and then passed, I would adjust unless East could prove that he always asked about every alerted bid, and I think campboy would as well. Maybe this shows that one should ask about every alerted bid, even if one knows the meaning, but this will slow down the game somewhat.

[toukie]

lamford, on 2015-March-19, 09:35, said:

West was not asked to give an explanation of their methods, but his explanation to the TD as given in the OP was correct. Double of a splinter would have said "don't lead a club". Pass just said "I don't want to double". He admitted using what he regarded as the AI of the TD call to judge the increased probability of East having good clubs and club length. There was no agreement between East and West regarding a different meaning of Pass with or without a TD call. If I had been TD, I would have ruled no adjustment as SB only used AI, caused by North-South's two infractions. In addition, a splinter followed by a sign-off strongly suggests club length with East, and both of those are also AI.

Interestingly, if 4C had been alerted and East had asked about it and then passed, I would adjust unless East could prove that he always asked about every alerted bid, and I think campboy would as well. Maybe this shows that one should ask about every alerted bid, even if one knows the meaning, but this will slow down the game somewhat.

Again, supposing east's clubs have been AKx. He would double Gerber, pass over a splinter, and probably pass over a natural 4C.
Further east must surely know that there is a lot of confusion of what should and should not be alerted over 3NT (the evidence is in this stream), so therefore knows it is very likely that the bid is alertable and that south is confused about what should and should not be alerted.
If he assumes the bid is natural and he passes and it later transpires that the bid was Gerber, he fears being told that he needs to protect himself in this situation by asking if the bid was alertable.
Therefore, he is practically obliged to ask if the bid was alertable.
Therefore, I don't think him asking says much at all about his hand. The only hands he could hold that does not need to ask would be a hand that would make the same bid over all possible meanings of 4C.
I think west has made a false assumption and got lucky.