[aguahombre]

This question has probably been explored before, if so just direct me, please. Otherwise, would like input.

When asked by the Director on occasion for advice on a ruling involving failure to alert or disclose, I run into a familiar theme: the alleged offending side did not know their actions were unusual because they are inexperienced and/or not well-read.

Example: jump raises in competition (whether in response to an overcall or an opening) have a check box on the ACBL cc for preemptive and it is all in Black.
Therefore, a pair who play the Jump raise as inv or forcing in competition are playing an unusual style. Here is the rub: How would they know? Anyone who has read up on different ways of showing support probably would not be using a jump raise as anything but preemptive. If they have not, how would they know it is strange?

Does the other side just have to protect itself by always asking questions?

Other situations are related. A player uses a "snapdragon" double but does not even know what Snapdragon is. He, and his partner just think it is a negative double situation, which it is not.

I am sure there are a lot more of these.

[barmar]

First of all, invitational jump raises in competition are not alertable in ACBL. The ACBL Alert Procedures says:

Quote

Natural jump raises in competition are not Alertable regardless of strength. In the same vein, natural jump shifts in competition do not require an Alert regardless of strength.

But to address your more general question, I think players are expected to know what's "standard", or at least common, where they play. It's not feasible for the alert regulations to cover every situation, so it makes a number of references to "unusual" meanings, and players are expected to know whether what they're doing is common or unusual.

A pair that thinks that Snapdragon is just a normal negative double will learn their error the first time an opponent calls the director to complain about misinformation. From then on they should be expected to alert. Many things in bridge are learned from experience (e.g. I learned about reverses the first time I did it with insufficient values and we got too high).

[aguahombre]

So, your answer, Barmar, is YES, the other side has to just protect itself by asking questions in case the opps are playing something unusual. And in a stratified event, perhaps we should make a sometimes difficult effort to subtly discover who is C, and therefore more likely to have different agreements than standard. The pair numbering is not consistent.

Not arguing, here, just still trying to sort it out.

[barmar]

Yes, I think that's what I'm saying.

Recently we had an auction where partner was dealer, and I think the auction went something like:

1♣ (1♦) 1♥ (3♦)
Pass 3NT All Pass

Before leading I looked at LHO's CC and it said weak jump raises, so I found this somewhat surprising. And when dummy came down he had about a 10 count.

After the hand was over I realized that I looked at the wrong section of the CC, I was looking in the section on minor suit openings, not on direct overcalls. I never did check there to see whether his bidding was consistent with their system.

But since I never actually asked or checked there, it's irrelevant; I didn't get MI if I never got the I in the first place.

[bluejak]

Whether it is alerting or Laws on UI or anything else, players tend to have some knowledge of the rules but not an exhaustive one. That's the way it is, and really it always will be. One of the ways players learn the rules is by getting them wrong and being told they have gone wrong.

This is one reason why I and some others on this forum are somewhat dubious about always letting inexperienced players off without punishing them. They will never learn, and punishments in bridge are so minor, why does it matter? Your children will not starve if you get a PP of 10% of a top, but the reaction of some people makes it seem so.

[blackshoe]

The (club level) directors in my area seem to have strong opinions regarding PPs - and they all seem to think PPs are to be avoided at all costs. At least one of them, though, gives "warnings" along the lines of "if you keep doing that, you're liable to get a MP penalty" — and then never carrying though. I suppose the 3rd or 4th time it doesn't happen, the player will figure out it never will.

My own feeling is along the lines of first time, inexperienced player, tell 'em what they did wrong, second time, issue a warning, 3rd time, give 'em a PP (I would give 10% of a top at MPs, in spite of the fact that the "standard" PP in the ACBL seems to be 25%). If they keep on doing it, increase the PP. The thing is, once you give a warning, you'd better damn sure issue a PP the next time, or the player will get the wrong message.

I would, I think, in practice have to do the same with experienced players, because they're the ones who have the experience to be pretty sure they'll "never" get a MP PP in a club game, no matter what they do.

[jeremy69]

I agree that PP's are underused. When they are applied there is much hot air about injustice, putting off players, never entering an event again etc but all that means is that you have got through and there is a better chance that whatever the infraction was is less likely to happen again.

[Trinidad]

I remember a long time ago, when I was playing in the ACBL and had amassed approximately 10 masterpoints, I read the "Ruling the game" column in the Bridge bulletin. There was a case of flagrant use of UI, that a beginner could understand.

I went to my bridge teacher (and TD) and I asked if I had missed something. Was there something in the auction that I misunderstood? Wasn't this absolutely obvious that this was blatant use of UI?

My bridge teacher smiled and replied: "Yes, this is clearly blatant use of UI."

My next question was: "If I, with my total of 10 masterpoints, can see that from a mile, then why was this guy with 8000 masterpoints so inexperienced that he did not get a PP?" He just answered that that was a very good question and smiled again.

I was upset and told him: "If I ever pull something like this, you'd better give me a PP. If you would ever consider me this inexperienced, I would feel insulted!"

Rik