[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2015-March-16, 13:41, said:

I always alert it. But that's because I think it's alertable amongst bridge players, regardless of what the regulations say.

I am in favour of telling the opponents what they might need to know, but I would prefer it if the regulations required me to tell the opponents what they might need to know. Also, when ruling against someone else, including SBs, I rule according to the regulations. And no disapprobation should apply to anyone who chooses to follow the letter of the law.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2015-March-16, 14:21, said:

I might have to rule in favour of EW - the fact that East might have good clubs does not necessarily mean that a sacrifice of 5 Clubs by West would be profitable - so is not demonstrably suggested. East could have been 3-3-3-4 with 4 clubs to the AK and wanting a club lead.

The requirement for 5♣ to be demonstrably suggested would apply, for example, if East had asked about 4♣ and then passed. For Law 16B or Law 73C to apply, there has to be UI, and the TD call after an infraction is AI.

[lamford]

 toukie, on 2015-March-16, 13:16, said:

I think pass is alertable when double is alertable, as it shows a hand that does not wish to make an alertable double.

There is a certain logic to what you say, but the EBU Blue Book clarifies the issue:

4 B 4 Calls above 3NT
Once the auction is above the level of 3NT, no calls are to be alerted except for:
(a) Artificial suit bids above 3NT made on the first round of the auction (defined as the first bid and the next three calls) e.g. 1S pass 4C (splinter) or pass pass 1S pass 4C (splinter). In both cases 4C is alerted
(b) Lead-directing passes
(c) Doubles or redoubles that are lead-directing but ask for the lead of a suit other than the suit doubled (or redoubled)
(d) Doubles and redoubles of no trump contracts that call for a specific suit to be led.

A pass is only alertable if it is lead-directing; in this case it is just says "lead what you like, but I am not asking for a suit other than this one".

[lamford]

 Bbradley62, on 2015-March-14, 09:40, said:

<snip> EW have opposite meanings for double and pass, depending on what 4♣ means; therefore, East must know what 4♣ means before he makes his call, regardless of what he holds.

BB 4A6 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable or announceable category.

So East is quite entitled to assume that the call is natural and correctly not alerted, and only a moron would double a natural 4C for takeout with the actual East hand.

[blackshoe]

 gnasher, on 2015-March-16, 16:53, said:

Oh good, does that mean that you've accepted that it is, in fact, UI; that it's UI even if the director can't prove it; and that this UI does, in fact, matter?

If it's UI, it's UI even if the director can't prove it. However, if he can't demonstrate how whatever action he wants to rule against demonstrably could have suggested by the UI (which, IMO, requires him to also show what the UI is) then it doesn't matter, because he can only adjust the score if he can demonstrate that.

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2015-March-16, 18:00, said:

A pass is only alertable if it is lead-directing; in this case it is just says "lead what you like, but I am not asking for a suit other than this one".

Don't you think that gives you some direction as to what to lead?

[gnasher]

 blackshoe, on 2015-March-16, 20:54, said:

If it's UI, it's UI even if the director can't prove it. However, if he can't demonstrate how whatever action he wants to rule against demonstrably could have suggested by the UI (which, IMO, requires him to also show what the UI is) then it doesn't matter, because he can only adjust the score if he can demonstrate that.

I think, or at least hope, that you mean it doesn't matter to the director. It does matter to the other 98% of the people for whom the rules were written.

But anyway, I still don't agree with you. The director can usually find out if there was UI by asking questions like "When your partner thinks there's been a failure to alert, does he always call the director? "At what point does he usually call him?" "Have there been any other failures to alert during this session?" "Did anyone call the director on those occasions?"

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2015-March-17, 02:27, said:

Don't you think that gives you some direction as to what to lead?

In no greater way than a pass would give you some direction as to what to lead if double had said "lead this suit". If the auction goes 1H-(P)-1S-(P)-4C(correctly not alerted)-(P) when you play that double says "lead a club", would you alert that because Pass gives you some direction that a diamond is called for? A similar scenario occurs when someone passes over a UCB or similar. That (often) says, "My suit is no better than average". Do you alert this because it gives the partner some direction as to what to lead? If, in this example, Pass said, "lead a club", I would agree with you. But it might just as easily be a balanced one-count. Not likely, however, when the TD is called, which provides the "I". Whether that is AI or UI is for this forum to decide; I notice a general reluctance to rule on this case.

Even if you conclude that the pass should have been alerted as "I may well prefer a club lead", there is no damage from the failure to alert. South would still bid 4S if pass had been alerted.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2015-March-17, 02:59, said:

The director can usually find out if there was UI by asking questions like "When your partner thinks there's been a failure to alert, does he always call the director?

I would expect the answer to that question to be "no", but I would still not conclude that the TD call was UI, because 16A1c so clearly specifies that it is AI.

[campboy]

What do E/W do when it goes 1♠ - 4♣ (alert)? If they routinely ask then they do not give UI in this situation, and so South's infraction is the only cause of information being transmitted. It would be inequitable to regard it as unauthorised for E/W.

If they do not routinely ask then they are probably transmitting a lot of UI on other boards without anyone realising. I think to play this method ethically you have to ask about an alerted 4♣ bid as a matter of course. When I played something similar (double here would be "lead clubs" if Swiss/Gerber, but "lead hearts" if a splinter), which was before the previous "no alerts above 3NT" regulation, I did so.

 lamford, on 2015-March-14, 13:49, said:

If 4C is natural, which is the only non-alertable meaning of 4C, then double would be takeout. East had no obligation to ask whatsoever. NS had an absolute obligation to read the alerting regulations and follow them. I get irritated when we have an auction 1C-(Pass)-1H-(2H) or 1C-(Pass)-1S-(2S) and the opponents ask "What is that?". "Natural", I reply, "which is why I didn't alert it".

That's not quite an equivalent situation. I wouldn't bother to ask there, but I would ask about 1♠ - 4♣ (no alert) because I know the relevant regulation is fairly new.

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2015-March-17, 04:29, said:

 gordontd, on 2015-March-17, 02:27, said:

Don't you think that gives you some direction as to what to lead?

In no greater way than a pass would give you some direction as to what to lead if double had said "lead this suit".

The extent of the lead direction inferences is certainly similar. However, the fact that the meaning is the exact opposite of what you would expect makes it alertable.

So, where most passes are somewhat lead directing in an expected way, the pass in your example is somewhat lead directing in an unexpected way.

As an opponent, I would like to know that the probability for a club lead has increased, rather than decreased (as I would normally expect) after the pass.

I don't want to get into the Blue book regulations, but to me this pass is alertable, since to me any alert regulation starts with the main rule about alerts: "Alert what will be unexpected to your opponents."

Rik

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2015-March-17, 04:29, said:

In no greater way than a pass would give you some direction as to what to lead if double had said "lead this suit".

I think that's general bridge knowledge. The other situation is quite unusual.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2015-March-17, 05:46, said:

If they do not routinely ask then they are probably transmitting a lot of UI on other boards without anyone realising.

Do you think "absence of a question" is UI because 16B1a gives "for example" before the list of things that are UI. I notice that the list has both an alert and the absence of an alert, but not the absence of a question. I presume you think that not asking about an alerted bid can convey UI in the same way as asking about it. If East had asked about 4C in this example, and been told it was a splinter and then passed, and West then bid 5C, how would you rule?

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2015-March-17, 06:17, said:

Do you think "absence of a question" is UI because 16B1a gives "for example" before the list of things that are UI. I notice that the list has both an alert and the absence of an alert, but not the absence of a question. I presume you think that not asking about an alerted bid can convey UI in the same way as asking about it.

Well, the "for example" in 16B1a certainly means it is not ruled out. But the main reason I think it is UI is Law 73B1 (my emphasis):

Quote

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

 lamford, on 2015-March-17, 06:17, said:

If East had asked about 4C in this example, and been told it was a splinter and then passed, and West then bid 5C, how would you rule?

I would attempt to find out whether East normally asks in this position. If it transpires that he only asks when the answer changes what call he would make, I think there is significant UI and the 5♣ call is illegal.

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2015-March-17, 06:13, said:

The extent of the lead direction inferences is certainly similar. However, the fact that the meaning is the exact opposite of what you would expect makes it alertable.

No, the extent of the lead direction inference from double saying "lead this suit" and pass, saying that "I don't want to double to say don't lead this suit", is not similar at all. The double in the first method shows good clubs, the pass in the second method will include the vast majority of hands where you have no view on what should be led at all.

If pass says "lead a club", then you (and gnasher and gordontd) are right. If pass says I don't want to double to say "don't lead a club", then I think pass is not alertable. Quite frankly, the idea that pass is alertable here is from cloud-cuckoo-land, with due deference to the EBU senior TD.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2015-March-17, 06:24, said:

Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

That I think refers to matters such as the methods used by the German doctors. Also for there to be a different meaning to pass depending on whether there was a question or not would, of course, be illegal. In this case, all East did was call the TD when there was an infraction. He did not need to ask or not ask a question as South then told the TD that 4C was a splinter. Which question or lack of question are you suggesting East used to communicate?

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2015-March-17, 06:35, said:

That I think refers to matters such as the methods used by the German doctors. Also for there to be a different meaning to pass depending on whether there was a question or not would, of course, be illegal. In this case, all East did was call the TD when there was an infraction. He did not need to ask or not ask a question as South then told the TD that 4C was a splinter. Which question or lack of question are you suggesting East used to communicate?

In the section of my post you quoted I was not talking about this case at all. I was responding to your general question about whether the absence of a question could give UI.

The (non-exhaustive) list in 16B1/73C does not mention a question not asked, probably because it is rare for a question not asked to transmit significant information. But in a situation where not asking does give significant information, I think 73B1 makes it clear that such information is extraneous.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2015-March-17, 08:06, said:

In the section of my post you quoted I was not talking about this case at all. I was responding to your general question about whether the absence of a question could give UI.

The (non-exhaustive) list in 16B1/73C does not mention a question not asked, probably because it is rare for a question not asked to transmit significant information. But in a situation where not asking does give significant information, I think 73B1 makes it clear that such information is extraneous.

I misunderstood your post. I agree that there are some situations where not asking conveys information, but I think that can only apply after an alert. For example, 1NT-(2C*)-3NT would say "I don't care what 2C shows, I am happy to bid 3NT anyway". If the player asked and was told it was hearts and another and now bid 3NT, that might show no heart stop and not four spades, perhaps. That seems to fit into the category of a potentially different meaning with or without a question, and therefore illegal communication.

I have frequently observed that a player with no interest in bidding passes without asking after 1NT is overcalled artificially. The silent pass should be alerted as 0-7. The 1NT bidder does not double 2M back in, even with a doubleton and a maximum, and nobody notices that UI has been passed and used. Probably everyone should always ask but I have never seen a UI ruling against someone for not asking about an alerted bid. Perhaps there should be.

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2015-March-17, 06:27, said:

No, the extent of the lead direction inference from double saying "lead this suit" and pass, saying that "I don't want to double to say don't lead this suit", is not similar at all.

That is not the comparison I meant, and I thought it is not the comparison you meant originally.

The comparison that I am talking about (and I thought you were talking about is):
1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass;
4♣-Pass¹
1 Double would have meant: "Don't lead clubs", i.e. pass is mildly suggesting a club lead

and

1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass;
4♣-Pass²
2 Double would have meant: "Please lead clubs", i.e. pass is mildly suggesting a diamond lead

These two meanings are similar in the strength of the inference. The second meaning is the expected meaning, the first meaning is (very) unexpected, and, hence, alertable according to any sensible alert regulation.

Rik

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2015-March-17, 09:34, said:

That is not the comparison I meant, and I thought it is not the comparison you meant originally.

The comparison that I am talking about (and I thought you were talking about is):
1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass;
4♣-Pass¹
1 Double would have meant: "Don't lead clubs", i.e. pass is mildly suggesting a club lead

and

1♥-Pass-1♠-Pass;
4♣-Pass²
2 Double would have meant: "Please lead clubs", i.e. pass is mildly suggesting a diamond lead

These two meanings are similar in the strength of the inference. The second meaning is the expected meaning, the first meaning is (very) unexpected, and, hence, alertable according to any sensible alert regulation.

Rik

Firstly, I think more people are doubling splinters to say "don't lead this suit" or to ask for a specific other suit. Certainly in a recent national final, few played that double said "lead this suit", so the "very" is nowhere near my experience.

But even if you right, then that hardly comes under the heading of a "lead-directing" pass.