[greenender]

Scoring: IMP

---

This is the S hand in fourth seat. Teams of 8, as it happens, scored by the slightly weird method of aggregating all four results and then using the normal teams of 4 IMP scale, with ultimate concersion to VPs.

W opens 2♦, weak with both majors, ostensibly 5-9 with 5-4 or slightly stronger with 4-4.

N doubles, medium balanced or any very strong hand.

E passes, not alerted.

E's pass is logically played as one of two things (and all the Ekren merchants that I have played against play one or the other, AFAIK): either showing ♦s, suggesting 2♦X as a possible resting place opposite a semi-fit; or as showing no preference between the majors. (It is clearly techically superior to play the first method, with XX showing no preference, but that's by the way).

S reasoned that the EBU definition of a natural pass relates to the last denomination named, i.e. ♦s, so an unalerted pass should show the first option, whereas a "you choose between the majors" pass, being unrelated to ♦s, should have been alerted. Being unwilling to defend 2♦X, he bid 3♣.

The N/S methods, which are well-documented, are that a pass shows a willingness to defend 2♦X opposite a balanced 13-16, and implies a willingness to penalise at least one of the majors. 2NT would be Lebensohl, and 2M would show values with a stop in that suit but not in the oM.

You can assume in S's position that E/W definitely have an agreement for the meaning of pass, and that it is one of the two outlined. They were also a pair that were more likely than some at this level (first division County League) to have a good grasp of the more esoteric bits of the alerting rules.

Two questions:

1. Is S's interpretation of the alerting rules correct?

2. Should he have been expected to protect himself by asking, despite the fact that he believed that a positive inference was available to him from the lack of alert?

[bluejak]

1. Yes, in my view. A pass that tells partner to bid again is artificial, and technically always alertable. In practice people rarely alert it in positions where it is obviously forcing [eg hearts are agreed, 3♠ is bid showing a void, double, pass is never alerted].

In the actual sequence there is no doubt anyway: it is very normal to play in diamonds.

2. More tricky. My experience of the Multi is that in the sequence 2♦ (Dbl) Pass players rarely alert when it says "bid your major". I am quite sure they are required to - same as this situation - but as a matter of practice they do not.



What's so strange about team of eight scoring? I have played in many events over the years scored that way.

[lamford]

greenender, on Dec 23 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

2.  Should he have been expected to protect himself by asking, despite the fact that he believed that a positive inference was available to him from the lack of alert?

I don't see how there would be much danger of creating UI by asking what pass shows, as you will be bidding if it shows the expected and non-alertable meaning of desiring to play in two diamonds, and if not, you will be able to show off your knowledge of the OB, and call the director promptly over the failure to alert, in order to avoid further infraction.

[greenender]

bluejak, on Dec 23 2009, 09:54 AM, said:

2.  More tricky.  My experience of the Multi is that in the sequence 2♦ (Dbl) Pass players rarely alert when it says "bid your major".  I am quite sure they are required to - same as this situation - but as a matter of practice they do not.

In my view there is a difference: plenty of relatively unsophisticated players play a Multi, at least in the parts of the country where the Multi is common; many of these will not even have considered anything other than that pass shows no interest; and they are the sort of players who are relatively unlikely to know the alerting rule in this particular instance, their instinct being not even to dream that a pass that "shows nothing" might conceivably be alertable. By contrast most of the (much fewer) players who play Ekren are (in my experience) likely to be rather more sophisticated both in terms of having a positive agreement and in terms of being likely to know the applicable alerting rule.

I am sure that as a result my partner (I was N) would have asked about the pass in a Multi sequence, but he felt that in practice the inference that E held diamonds was a reliable one in all the circumstances.

I asked because, as in most of these team of 8 matches, there was no TD present. Before deciding whether to bother a TD on the telephone at a late hour, there was therefore something of a free-for-all discussion amongst both teams at the end of the match.

N/S readily conceded that there was misinformation, but one of their team-mates (a player with international experience) was vociferous in the view that nobody in their right mind should call without asking in this position, and that a TD should rule accordingly. (To be fair, I am with her in the sense that I would probably have asked myself, as Lamford advocates, but I didn't personally see why we should be disadvantaged when partner though he had a clear and reliable inference)

In the end we worked out that giving us 50% of the relevant telephone number and 50% of the table result (we accepted that a weighted score would have been appropriate, as it was not completely clear that we could have extracted the penalty) would have moved us only from the bottom end to the top of a 19-1 result, so we let it go and went home.

[blackshoe]

greenender, on Dec 23 2009, 12:18 PM, said:

N/S readily conceded that there was misinformation, but one of their team-mates (a player with international experience) was vociferous in the view that nobody in their right mind should call without asking in this position, and that a TD should rule accordingly. (To be fair, I am with her in the sense that I would probably have asked myself, as Lamford advocates, but I didn't personally see why we should be disadvantaged when partner though he had a clear and reliable inference)

I agree. I've never really understood this "protect yourself" thing anyway, particularly where failure to alert when required is concerned. Such failure is a breach of regulation. The laws prescribe a rectification for it. I see no reason to not apply the prescribed rectification in a player's failure to realize that he "needed to protect himself".

The OB uses the phrase "obvious misinformation cases". This one is not obvious, whatever the vociferous teammate may think. The OB also refers to not putting one's own side's interests at risk. It does so in the context of an implausible explanation. It is not implausible that the call in question did not require an alert, so I would not "protect" the OS by denying redress to the NOS.

[barmar]

I think the "need to protect yourself" comes from the requirement to determine if the infraction was the proximate cause of the damage. If the NOS could easily have saved themselves, that may sever this causality link.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Dec 23 2009, 01:25 PM, said:

I think the "need to protect yourself" comes from the requirement to determine if the infraction was the proximate cause of the damage. If the NOS could easily have saved themselves, that may sever this causality link.

In law, it seems to me, the question regarding severing the causality link is a question of "serious error" (Law 12C1{b}). Even if failure to ask regarding a non-alert is regarded as a "serious error" (which is at the very least debatable), the OS should still get their score adjusted, if the other criteria for that are met.

[bluejak]

Quote

N/S readily conceded that there was misinformation, but one of their team-mates (a player with international experience) was vociferous in the view that nobody in their right mind should call without asking in this position, and that a TD should rule accordingly.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. In my view, players of international experience should not produce vociferous comments as to why their team-mates should be allowed to break the rules and get away with it. I expect mediocre players to think the rules do not apply to them - seems to be the way of the world - but better players should consider a reasonable ethical stance.

Quote

I agree. I've never really understood this "protect yourself" thing anyway, particularly where failure to alert when required is concerned. Such failure is a breach of regulation. The laws prescribe a rectification for it. I see no reason to not apply the prescribed rectification in a player's failure to realize that he "needed to protect himself".

This comes from a fear of the double shot, and while I generally do not approve there have been some really silly efforts. 1NT p 2♣ Stayman was alertable in England until fairly recently. It was not unheard of for a player to pass over an unalerted 2♣ with medium clubs and then try to claim he would have doubled for the lead if it had been alerted.

I think it is reasonable to have such a rule: but it should be strictly applied to situations where a player should obviously protect himself. If it is not obvious, then do not use the rule.

Legally, the argument is that in such a case the failure to ask caused the result, not the MI, so no adjustment is necessary for either side.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Dec 23 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

I think it is reasonable to have such a rule: but it should be strictly applied to situations where a player should obviously protect himself. If it is not obvious, then do not use the rule.

The OB does use the word "obvious" in this context, so if that's the way it works in practice, I'm okay with it, up to a point. But do English TDs always make sure it's obvious that this rule should be applied?

Quote

Legally, the argument is that in such a case the failure to ask caused the result, not the MI, so no adjustment is necessary for either side.

Sorry, but I think this argument is severely flawed. Failure to ask (when it is obvious to do so) may contribute to the damage, but that doesn't negate the fact that there was MI to begin with.

[jallerton]

greenender, on Dec 23 2009, 02:28 PM, said:

S reasoned that the EBU definition of a natural pass relates to the last denomination named, i.e. ♦s, so an unalerted pass should show the first option, whereas a "you choose between the majors" pass, being unrelated to ♦s, should have been alerted.  Being unwilling to defend 2♦X, he bid 3♣.

You can assume in S's position that E/W definitely have an agreement for the meaning of pass, and that it is one of the two outlined.  They were also a pair that were more likely than some at this level (first division County League) to have a good grasp of the more esoteric bits of the alerting rules.

Two questions:

1.  Is S's interpretation of the alerting rules correct?

2.  Should he have been expected to protect himself by asking, despite the fact that he believed that a positive inference was available to him from the lack of alert?

Bluejak said:

1. Yes, in my view. A pass that tells partner to bid again is artificial, and technically always alertable. In practice people rarely alert it in positions where it is obviously forcing [eg hearts are agreed, 3♠ is bid showing a void, double, pass is never alerted].

In the actual sequence there is no doubt anyway: it is very normal to play in diamonds.

Lamford said:

I don't see how there would be much danger of creating UI by asking what pass shows, as you will be bidding if it shows the expected and non-alertable meaning of desiring to play in two diamonds, and if not, you will be able to show off your knowledge of the OB, and call the director promptly over the failure to alert, in order to avoid further infraction.

I'm a little surprised at these answers. The "expected" nature of an agreement does not determine whether or not it needs to be alerted in the EBU. Rather than coming up with a ruling based on what you think the alerting rules ought to be, why not read the Orange Book itself?

EBU Orange Book said:

5 E Basic alerting rules
5 E 1 Passes and bids
Unless it is announceable (see 5 C and 5 D), a pass or bid must be alerted if
(a) it is not natural; or
[b] it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.

Quote

5 F ‘Natural’ bids and passes
5 F 1 The following are considered ‘natural’ for alerting purposes:
(a) A bid of a suit which....
[b] A bid of no trumps which....
[c] A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

A pass which shows diamonds after 2♦*-(dbl) specifies a suit holding, and therefore is not "natural", according to 5F[c]. A pass which is "not natural" must be alerted according to 5E1(a).

On the other hand, unless it shows something in particular, such as guaranteeing equal length in the majors, a neutral pass comes under the definition of "natural". It is not alertable under 5E1(a).

It could be argued that this neutral meaning is "potentially unexpected", in which case it would be alertable under 5E1[b]. However, as different people find different meanings potentially unexpected, and few people (even some national tournament directors!) get the alerting rules correct all of the time, I really think that South should have asked about the pass before calling if the meaning affected his bidding.

I would not adjust the table score, because even if the failure to alert is deemed to be an infraction, no damage was caused thereby. The alternative meaning (♦) definitely would have been alertable so any claims that he assumed an unalerted double to show ♦ when he couldn't be bothered to ask should be resisted.

[MFA]

jallerton, on Dec 25 2009, 08:58 PM, said:

EBU Orange Book said:

5 E Basic alerting rules
5 E 1 Passes and bids
Unless it is announceable (see 5 C and 5 D), a pass or bid must be alerted if
(a) it is not natural; or
[b] it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning.

Quote

5 F ‘Natural’ bids and passes
5 F 1 The following are considered ‘natural’ for alerting purposes:
(a) A bid of a suit which....
[b] A bid of no trumps which....
[c] A pass which does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings.

A pass which shows diamonds after 2♦*-(dbl) specifies a suit holding, and therefore is not "natural", according to 5F[c]. A pass which is "not natural" must be alerted according to 5E1(a).

On the other hand, unless it shows something in particular, such as guaranteeing equal length in the majors, a neutral pass comes under the definition of "natural". It is not alertable under 5E1(a).

I'm on the other hand a little surprised by this.

I'm not really going to challenge your interpretation of the English rules, because I don't know anything of those, but I have always thought that it was a universial principle, that a pass is natural if it shows willingness (desire) to play in that contract.

We have just that rule explicitely in the Danish regulations (Players' Handbook) and I thought it was a translation of a WBF rule, but perhaps it's not.

[barmar]

Notice that the rule says "does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings." Length in the suit bid is expected if you pass an artificial opening. On the other hands, if passing 2♦-(Dbl) showed length in some other suit, that would be unexpected, and would require an alert.

[MFA]

greenender, on Dec 23 2009, 07:18 PM, said:

N/S readily conceded that there was misinformation, but one of their team-mates (a player with international experience) was vociferous in the view that nobody in their right mind should call without asking in this position, and that a TD should rule accordingly.  (To be fair, I am with her in the sense that I would probably have asked myself, as Lamford advocates, but I didn't personally see why we should be disadvantaged when partner though he had a clear and reliable inference).

This.
'Protecting oneself' is a very important principle in practical bridge. A player should actively help clearing up ambiguities about his opponents' alerts and explanations, if something is likely to be muddy.

Bridge is about making the decisions at the table with full information, not about sitting passively with only partial information (when we know that this is quite likely to be the case) and then hoping to rely on a convoluted and unclear interpretation of some 5F1[c] to save the situation afterwards. If we are unclear in any way: Ask. The other thing is bad bridge philosophy imo, and there is generally 'no mercy' from me in such situations when I'm sitting in the AC.

[bluejak]

I give an answer that follows the Orange book, and am criticised for not reading the Orange book. This makes no sense to me. When I write in a forum there is no rule that I have to always quote an authority, in fact some of the least readable and most boring and in my view unhelpful posts are where all someone does is to quote great chunks of Laws or Regulations and so forth.

I am prepared to be criticised when I have clearly got a Law or Regulations wrong, but being criticised for getting it right?

Quote

... when he couldn't be bothered to ask should be resisted.

How do you know he could not be bothered to ask? How do you know he does not just rely on alerts without realising that players are meant to protect themselves?

The trouble with sort of argument to suggest we should rule against someone is that while assuming facts not in evidence it does by its nature ["could not be bothered"] automatically make us feel he was in the wrong.

Perhaps we should just follow the facts and the Orange book, rather than biasing ourselves against one of the players for something he may or may not have done?

[bluejak]

MFA, on Dec 25 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

We have just that rule explicitely in the Danish regulations (Players' Handbook) and I thought it was a translation of a WBF rule, but perhaps it's not.

It may or may not be, but where alerting is concerned WBF rules have no force in the EBU.

[MFA]

bluejak, on Dec 26 2009, 03:41 AM, said:

MFA, on Dec 25 2009, 11:29 PM, said:

We have just that rule explicitely in the Danish regulations (Players' Handbook) and I thought it was a translation of a WBF rule, but perhaps it's not.

It may or may not be, but where alerting is concerned WBF rules have no force in the EBU.

Right. I know.

[jallerton]

barmar, on Dec 25 2009, 10:45 PM, said:

Notice that the rule says "does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings."

Indeed it does, but in the sequence given, only a neutral pass neither unexpectedly conveys values, nor specifies suit holdings.

Now I see the problem. The wording of the regulation is ambiguous. I interpreted the word "unexpectedly" to attach only to "convey values", whereas you interpret it to mean "does not [unexpectedly convey values[ or [unexpectedly specify suit holdings]."

Even taking your interpretation of the wording of this section of the Orange Book, it is still a matter of judgement on every particular sequence as to what is expected.

For example, you consider that the "expected" meaning of 2♦(majors)-(X)-Pass is to show ♦, but is Opener expected to pass out 2♦x with (i) any hand or (ii) only with tolerance for ♦ or (iii) use his judgement? Which is expected? Are you sure?

What about this related sequence?

(1♦)-2♦(majors)-(X)-Pass. It's still technically best for the pass to show ♦, but is that the expected meaning? Does it make a difference if 1♦ was Precision and potentially only a doubleton (or even a void)?

What about 1NT-(P)-2♣-(X)-Pass? Or 2♣[Strong]-(X)-Pass? Or think up your own sequence. Many partnerships will have agreements for these sequences (plenty won't, of course) but even though many might think they are playing the "normal" meaning, not all of these "normal" meanings will be the same!

Just because the passer's partner believes that a particular meanng is not unexpected (or not even "potentially unexpected") then he cannot be sure that his opponent has the same expectations. Hence it would be wise to alert whenever there is a partnership agreement for the pass, in case someone considers it to be "potentially unexpected".

Similarly the opponent cannot be sure that the passer's partner has the same idea as he of what may or may not be "potentially unexpected" and it would be naive to draw a definite conclusion of the exact meaning of a pass from a lack of alert in this situation.

[RMB1]

I would like to think that passes that can be passed out (i.e. non-forcing) should not be alerted. But there are many positions where players expectations of the meaning of pass differ. Often they will differ within a partnership. The practical approach in such positions is to alert if you have a clear partnership understanding (even when you think that your agreement coincides with general bridge knowledge) and to not alert if you have no (partnership) understanding.

In the European Championship 2004, there was a sequence like 1C(2H)P(P),X(XX)P. Gold and Townsend knew their pass of a redouble was to play, thought that was the only way to play this sequence, thought this meaning was natural, and not did not alert. Their opponents may have thought that this was the right meaning for the pass, but in the absense of alert thought that the pass was neutral, and did the wrong thing. The TD found no consensus as to whether a pass showing a positive desire to defend was alertable (with firm views on both sides) and ruled misinformation. England appealed, expecting the only question to be the number of tricks in 2HXX, but were unsuccessful. See EBL Appeal Booklet 2004 Appeal 10, Sweden v England.

Robin

[jallerton]

MFA, on Dec 25 2009, 10:29 PM, said:

I'm not really going to challenge your interpretation of the English rules, because I don't know anything of those, but I have always thought that it was a universial principle, that a pass is natural if it shows willingness (desire) to play in that contract.

We have just that rule explicitely in the Danish regulations (Players' Handbook) and I thought it was a translation of a WBF rule, but perhaps it's not.

Unfortunately, it's not a universal principle.

In the 2004 European Championships in Malmö, the following sequence occurred:

N - E - S - W
1♣-2♥-Pass-Pass
Dbl-Rdbl-Pass-Pass-
Pass

1♣ was natural (although potentially short if 18-19 balanced)
2♥ shows 4 hearts and a longer minor suit, opening values.
Rdbl showed extra values

South's 2nd pass meant that he wanted to defend 2♥xx. N/S did not alert the pass (they both thought it was the natural meaning) but West assumed that the unalerted pass was neutral and passed. After North had also passed, West established the real meaning of the pass and called the TD. The TD decided that the failure to alert did constitute misinformation and allowed West to change his call.

Edit: cross-posted with Robin! The same thing occurred to us at the same time!

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on Dec 30 2009, 05:19 PM, said:

After North had also passed, West established the real meaning of the pass and called the TD.

Huh. Why is West asking questions at his partner's turn to call?