[relpar]

An interesting situation, and an interesting ruling, came up in an ACBL Club game.
With E/W vulnerable, West opened 1NT with ♠AJx, ♥Qxx, ♦AT8x, ♣KQT. North bid 2♣, which was allegedly alerted by South, in a very soft voice and with no use of a Stop card. East, after a break in tempo, in which he was waiting to hear an alert, Passed with ♠xx, ♥AJx, ♦J9, ♣A9xxxx. South now bid 2♦ (the partnership were playing Hamilton with the 2♣ showing a single-suited hand). North and West are very experienced players, East marginally less experienced and South is a relative novice. After South's 2♦ bid, West asked North the meaning of that bid, and received the answer that South was required to make that bid so that North could Pass or correct. West then asked South whether the the 2♣ bid was natural and was told "No". No other explanation was given, and none was sought. West now doubled the 2♦ bid and North called the Director, raising the possibility that West's Double could have taken into account East's break in tempo after the 2♣ bid. The Director let the double stand. North passed and East now bid 3NT. Contract making. The Director let the result stand, advised South of the necessity to ensure that the opponents hear the Alert, and cautioned West about letting a break in tempo influence his bidding. Subsequently the Director allocated a Procedural Penalty against West for the Double. The Director reasoned that if West did not Double East would NOT stop short of game, probably now bidding 3♦.
Were the Director's actions appropriate in the circumstances detailed above?

[pran]

The only part of this director's actions that I approve is: The Director let the double stand. North passed and East now bid 3NT. Contract making. The Director let the result stand, advised South of the necessity to ensure that the opponents hear the Alert

[bluejak]

Ok, let us go through this. Was there an alert? No, because a player who alerts is responsible for making sure his opponents see it - alerts are given by the alert card with bidding boxes. So South misinformed his opponents by not alerting adequately.

If there had been no MI, E/W would presumably have bid and made 3NT: in fact they bid and made 3NT. No damage from MI.

There was UI from the BIT, and West's double might have been affected. Was pass an LA? Was double suggested over pass by the BIT? Was there damage?

Answering the last first, without the double, E/W would presumably have bid and made 3NT: in fact they bid and made 3NT. No damage from UI. No need to consider LAs.

So result stands.

Then the TD gave a PP for the double. There is no reason for this. PPs are given in UI positions to strong, experienced players who clearly use UI to make totally unacceptable calls in unambiguous positions. The double of 2♦ does not meet this standard so the PP was inappropriate.

[Sadie3]

I firmly believe that alerts should be made using the alert card in the bidding boxes, however, I do not think that ACBL requires the use of the alert card. If a player makes an alert using a 'soft' voice and no alert card they run the risk of being called on a 'failure to alert.' It is not uncommon for ACBL players to request that all alerts and announcements be made both verbally and visually, since so many of our players do have hearing problems. I would like to see the use of the alert card become mandatory. Also, I would like to have the "stop" card removed from all bidding boxes.

[bluejak]

ACBL Alert Procedures said:

Using bidding boxes, an Alert is made by tapping an Alert card on the table or by tapping the Alert strip on the side of the bid box. In addition, the Alerter must say "Alert."

So an alert that is spoken only has not been given correctly.

ACBL Alert Procedures said:

IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ALERTER OR ANNOUNCER TO ENSURE THAT THE OPPONENTS ARE AWARE THAT AN ALERT HAS BEEN MADE.

This clarifies who is responsible for it being clear an alert has been made.

[blackshoe]

As David points out, the use of the Alert card (or tapping the Alert strip) is mandatory in the ACBL, notwithstanding the fact that almost no one (at least around here) does use it. I confess I tend to forget to use it myself.

[bluejak]

Ah. I did not know that. Nearly everyone uses the alert card or strip in the Nationals.

[Sadie3]

"HOW TO ALERT
Using spoken bidding, the partner of the player making an Alertable call says "Alert."
Using bidding boxes, an Alert is made by tapping an Alert card on the table or by tapping the Alert strip on the side of the bid box. In addition, the Alerter must say "Alert."
Using screens, ALL Alerts are immediate - there are no delayed Alerts. All Announcements become Alerts."

I don't see anywhere where it says "mandatory". Nor do I see anywhere where there is a penalty recommended for not using the box when boxes are available.

[blackshoe]

Introduction to the Laws said:

Established usage has been retained in regard to… “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized)…

As regulations are an extension of the laws, this applies just as much to regulations as to the laws themselves. So using (or tapping) the Alert card or strip is correct procedure*, failure to do so is not correct procedure, but the law does not suggest a PP for violations. Note that the law does not prohibit a PP either, so whether to issue one is left — as it should be IMO — to the discretion of the TD.

*If that's not enough to make it mandatory, there's

Law 74A3 said:

Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.

or, if you need more

Law 72B1 said:

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

(I will grant you that 72B1 does not apply if the infringement is not intentional, but I don't think that's really relevant to the point at hand).

Now, if you can point to an ACBL regulation or interpretation that says that use of the alert card or strip is optional (as they have done wrt the Stop Card) that would be different — but I don't think there is such a statement.

Of course, what's really relevant, whatever the alerter does, is whether or not his opponents understand that he's made an alert. If they don't, he hasn't, regardless how he did it.

[bluejak]

Sadie3, on Nov 21 2009, 07:31 PM, said:

"HOW TO ALERT
Using spoken bidding, the partner of the player making an Alertable call says "Alert."
Using bidding boxes, an Alert is made by tapping an Alert card on the table or by tapping the Alert strip on the side of the bid box. In addition, the Alerter must say "Alert."
Using screens, ALL Alerts are immediate - there are no delayed Alerts. All Announcements become Alerts."

I don't see anywhere where it says "mandatory".  Nor do I see anywhere where there is a penalty recommended for not using the box when boxes are available.

Correct, it does not say "mandatory". It does not need to. If the rule in the USA is that correct procedure is to drive on the right of the road, that does not mean that you can drive on the left if you feel like it, and you will certainly be penalised if you do so. The wording "Using bidding boxes, an Alert is made by tapping an Alert card on the table or by tapping the Alert strip on the side of the bid box" tells you how to alert.

Penalties are very rarely recommended in bridge for any infraction of procedure. It is generally an area where the TD is expected to use his judgement based on various things like how much trouble failure to follow rules causes to other contestants, whether this player has been warned, and so on. But while many infractions are tolerated without penalty, when failure to follow the rules causes damage then an adjustment is given.

[Sadie3]

I think that it is wonderful that bluejak and blackshoe so completely support each other on this forum and I totally agree that one should always use the alert card whenever alerting. I think the alert card should be used because it makes the alert very clear. One has the visual and the audible notification.


I have read, reread, re re read and re re re read the alert procedure and I think it says it is required to verbally say "alert" and that it is a requirement to make sure that your opponents are aware that you have alerted. I think that it is in the "grey" area that one use the bidding box. Does anyone know if it is legal to refuse to use a bidding box completely anymore and only use audible bids?

[blackshoe]

The alert regulation says

Quote

Using bidding boxes, an Alert is made by tapping an Alert card on the table or by tapping the Alert strip on the side of the bid box. In addition, the Alerter must say "Alert."

I don't see any gray area at all.

The bidding box regulation says

Quote

1. Bidding boxes will be used in all events held at NABC's except
I/N events (0-500). Their use will be optional in I/N events.
2. Units and Districts are encouraged to use bidding boxes in their games.
3. Handicapped players requiring bidding boxes will have preference when availability is limited.
4. Non-handicapped players may use bidding boxes, if available, in games in which such use is not mandated as long as no player at the table objects.

So, if the TO specifies that bidding boxes will be used, you can't refuse to use them. If the TO does not so specify, then if any player objects to their use, no one at that table in that round may use them. If a handicapped player wishes to use bidding boxes, though, no one can refuse (I didn't quote that part of the reg, but it is in there).

[barmar]

Isn't there also a rule that says that handicapped players can opt not to use bidding boxes if their disability makes it difficult?

But fully-able players can't refuse to use them if the event requires them.

[blackshoe]

The last paragraph of the section of the ACBL bidding box regulation titled "bidding box policy" says

Quote

When bidding boxes are in use for this reason*, no player has the right to refuse to play with them. Players who have a handicap which precludetheir use will have a distinctive card. The card will be displayed on thetable and read, "due to a physical or visual handicap, we are not using bidding boxes."

*That a handicapped player has required their use - ER

I suspect that the ACBL did not intend to tie the last two sentences of that paragraph to the first.

The dilemma occurs when one player must use bidding boxes (because he can't hear spoken bidding) and another cannot use them (because he cannot read them). In practice, I've seen that solved by both using bidding boxes (by three players) and using spoken bidding (by all four players). OTOH, we do have players who can't remember spoken bidding at all. They tend to get very confused.

[barmar]

All the times when I've been at a table where there was a player who could not pull bidding cards, he would speak his bids and one of the adjacent players would then pull out the cards on his behalf, so that we would have the written record of it. Conversely, if there's a visually impaired player, we would all pull bidding cards and speak our bids simultaneously (and do the same thing when playing cards during the play period). So everyone is accomodated.