[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on Apr 15 2010, 02:51 PM, said:

greenender, on Apr 15 2010, 07:30 AM, said:

I think partner has been a bit of an idiot, frankly.  If he wanted to double 3♠ with Ax, then he should either have done so without further ado, or have checked about the 3♠ bid and then doubled when he found out the agreed meaning.  Calling the TD when he did, coupled with the UI from his other extraneous goings-on, has put you under totally unnecessary pressure to no good purpose.

The danger of doing this is that the partner of the 3S bidder says "no it's natural, I didn't alert it" and I'm put in a similar UI position when he passes. This sort of thing happens not infrequently on the auction 1D-X-1S-2S where this is played as a 5 card suit with X used with 4, and people assume it can't be natural.

The situation after a jump overcall is a bit different, but inboth cases it is quite reasonable for your partner to know, during the auction, the status of their bid of a suit first bid by you. The EBU have relaxed their restrictions on asking questions during the auction, and this seems to be a case where you would not be under any restrictions.

In the actual circumstances, I think that you and your partner got what you deserved.

[peachy]

Codo, on Apr 15 2010, 05:52 AM, said:

There is no UI for me. Had they alerted, partner had not been in a position to say something. So I had lead a spade....

There *is* UI. Your partner's actions and reactions.
And it is also clear what the UI conveys (spade honor).

Being in possession of this particular UI, low spade lead cannot be allowed. If a spade is lead, the Q.

[RMB1]

Most posters seem to be answering on the basis that the choice of lead is the end of the matter.

Yes, you have UI and should avoid a spade lead if the UI suggests a spade lead over logical alternative leads.

Then at the end of the hand you recall the TD and explain that if 3♠ had been alerted, partner would have doubled to show a spade honour and you would have led a spade.

[jallerton]

Robin is correct about the procedure (of course).

In this case, where it is so implausible that 3♠ might be natural, when the TD is called at the end of the hand he should have regard to a paragraph in the Orange Book:

Quote

5 H Misinformation and Penalties
5 H 1 A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk.

[Cyberyeti]

jallerton, on Apr 15 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

Robin is correct about the procedure (of course).

In this case, where it is so implausible that 3♠ might be natural, when the TD is called at the end of the hand he should have regard to a paragraph in the Orange Book:

Quote

5 H Misinformation and Penalties
5 H 1 A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk.

I agree that he knew its likely meaning, but the "and " rather than "or" is important here, can partner know that he can ask safely here, if he's then told it's natural and he passes, UI is being conveyed.

Btw, partner is a fairly well known and successful premier grandmaster who's been around for years, he just has a very shallow grasp of the rules.

[jallerton]

If my partner has made a WJO in spades and I hold ♠Ax, I feel I can ask wihout putting my interests at risk.

In the very unlikely event that the bid is described as natural, I'll make a penalty double. I don't see what damaging UI is conveyed by my question!

[lamford]

jallerton, on Apr 15 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

Robin is correct about the procedure (of course).

In this case, where it is so implausible that 3♠ might be natural, when the TD is called at the end of the hand he should have regard to a paragraph in the Orange Book:

Quote

5 H Misinformation and Penalties
5 H 1 A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side’s interests at risk.

In addition, I think he can also rule that 3♠ was not alertable in any case:

[OB] 5 B 9 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable.

Surely this fits that category.

[helene_t]

RMB1, on Apr 15 2010, 07:33 PM, said:

Then at the end of the hand you recall the TD and explain that if 3♠ had been alerted, partner would have doubled to show a spade honour and you would have led a spade.

Sounds more like p was sleeping and made up this nonsense about the alert in order to cover for his failure to double.

Unless maybe if p is a beginner.

Of course I don't know this, I would have had to be at the table.

[bluejak]

lamford, on Apr 15 2010, 11:06 PM, said:

In addition, I think he can also rule that 3♠ was not alertable in any case:

[OB] 5 B 9 General bridge inferences, like those a new partner could make when there had been no discussion beforehand, are not alertable.

Surely this fits that category.

Be serious, Paul.

Orange book 06 rev 09 said:

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;

I am quite certain it "fits that category".