[duschek]

The bidding goes (2♠)-X-(XX)-3♦. We play transfers after a pass from RHO. However, we have not discussed the situation after a redouble from RHO.

Should we
1) alert 3♦, because it would have shown hearts after a pass and we are unsure about this sequence, or
2) not alert 3♦, because we have no agreement?

[campboy]

I would go for (1). In particular, OB 5B10 may be relevant.

Quote

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player's partner's actions are also consistent with that agreement.

[blackshoe]

It may depend on where you are. In the ACBL, for example the alert regulation specifically says "when in doubt, alert". Other jurisdictions may have different regs, or practice or precedent.

Oh, I see you're interested in the EBL regs. From their website: "Players are, however, expected to alert whenever there is doubt."

[duschek]

Suppose the 3♦ bidder intends to show hearts, and his partner is not in doubt that it shows diamonds. As I understand your quotes, the player is not expected to alert.

However, whether the call should be alerted or not, i.e., whether a non-alert could lead to MI, should depend solely on the partnership agreement, I believe. Where does this lead us to?

[campboy]

Ah, sorry, misread "EBL" as "EBU" ...

[bluejak]

Certainly I alert: it cannot hurt. If asked, I say:

Quote

It would have shown hearts after a pass but I am unsure about this sequence

[duschek]

bluejak, on Mar 21 2010, 06:26 PM, said:

Certainly I alert: it cannot hurt.  If asked, I say:

Quote

It would have shown hearts after a pass but I am unsure about this sequence

Suppose now that 3♦ is not alerted, and you are summoned as a TD.

The non-alerter states that it did not occur to him that partner also played transfers after a redouble. However, it is a fact that this particular situation remains undiscussed in the partnership. Would you rule MI?

[greenender]

duschek, on Mar 22 2010, 02:32 AM, said:

The non-alerter states that it did not occur to him that partner also played transfers after a redouble. However, it is a fact that this particular situation remains undiscussed in the partnership. Would you rule MI?

In that event I have contradictory evidence as to what each of the players thought the agreement was or should be. I have no basis to judge one way or the other, so I obey the requirement of the law to presume mistaken explanation.

(I do know that the law says the TD is to presume mistaken explanation in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and there is evidence to the contrary, but I still think that presuming MI is correct when the TD has no evidential basis for jumping one way or the other).

[bluejak]

We tend to assume "evidence" means "sufficient evidence to convince the TD [or AC]".

[helene_t]

I thought the general advice was (at least in the EBU, which of course is irrelevant here) is to alert whenever one of the possible meanings is artificial.

I think it problematic to let the alert depend on how you are going to act on it. That would mean that alert tells partner what your own subsequent call means, while a non-alert would not necessarily tell opps that it is safe to assume it is natural. But that's just my opinion.

[blackshoe]

Alerting because you're not sure what it means does not convey that you are going to act as if it has an alertable meaning.

[bluejak]

helene_t, on Mar 22 2010, 02:52 PM, said:

I think it problematic to let the alert depend on how you are going to act on it. That would mean that alert tells partner what your own subsequent call means, while a non-alert would not necessarily tell opps that it is safe to assume it is natural. But that's just my opinion.

The answer - I feel I need a macro here - is always the same: giving MI to opponents is an infraction, giving UI to partner is not. So if the rules say alert - or do not alert - considerations of UI should not affect you.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on Mar 21 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

for example the alert regulation specifically says "when in doubt, alert". Other jurisdictions may have different regs, or practice or precedent.

Thanks. I had never interpreted that statement in that way. I thought it referred to doubt as to whether the call is alertable, not doubt as to what the call means.

[duschek]

aguahombre, on Mar 22 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 21 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

for example the alert regulation specifically says "when in doubt, alert". Other jurisdictions may have different regs, or practice or precedent.

Thanks. I had never interpreted that statement in that way. I thought it referred to doubt as to whether the call is alertable, not doubt as to what the call means.

Well, it does, doesn't it?

[blackshoe]

If you're not sure what it means, you're certainly not sure whether it requires an alert.

[duschek]

blackshoe, on Mar 22 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

If you're not sure what it means, you're certainly not sure whether it requires an alert.

Not true. If I am in doubt whether partner's 1NT opening shows 12-14 or 15-17, I am specifically required not to alert.

[blackshoe]

duschek, on Mar 22 2010, 04:11 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 22 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

If you're not sure what it means, you're certainly not sure whether it requires an alert.

Not true. If I am in doubt whether partner's 1NT opening shows 12-14 or 15-17, I am specifically required not to alert.

In what jurisdiction, and why?

[duschek]

blackshoe, on Mar 22 2010, 04:12 PM, said:

duschek, on Mar 22 2010, 04:11 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 22 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

If you're not sure what it means, you're certainly not sure whether it requires an alert.

Not true. If I am in doubt whether partner's 1NT opening shows 12-14 or 15-17, I am specifically required not to alert.

In what jurisdiction, and why?

EBL, as stated originally. Because...

Quote

If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following: ...
2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a no-trump contract.

[blackshoe]

We are talking about calls which might require an alert, not calls which, whatever they mean, do not. Or at least, that's what I'm talking about.

[duschek]

Well, you told a joke which happened to suggest otherwise. But I am glad that you still want to be on track

Anyway, I am specifically seeking advice on whether to rule MI when an undiscussed call is not alerted, where it has an artificial meaning on a different auction (specifics in my previous posts). I hope someone can help clearing that up for me.