[Cyberyeti]

Scoring: MP

---

(1♦)-2♠-(3♠)-P
(3N)-P-(P)-P

I ask what 3S (unalerted) was. Asking for a stop. At this point partner indicates that there should have been an alert and wheels in the man.

I'm known for some pretty fruity favourable WJOs (systemically with a different partner, xxxx is sufficient, and this is pretty widely known locally), it is by no means inconceivable that you might want to play 3♠ natural over this, although with this partner we play them a bit more sane.

It appears to me that partner may have been about to double 3♠ had it been alerted to show a top honour.

I now have to find a lead. The opponents have caused the problem with the faulty non alert, but I have ethical issues with potential UI from partner's actions.

What should my thought processes be trying to find a lead, and what would you lead ?

[helene_t]

Which jurisdiction are you in?

I don't think 3♠ is alertable in most places. I can't imagine anyone would play that as natural. If they are concerned that 2♠ may be a 4-card suit (lol) then they would play penalty doubles.

Anyway, partner's remark that it should be alerted probably doesn't tell you much.

[Cyberyeti]

helene_t, on Apr 14 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

Which jurisdiction are you in?

I don't think 3♠ is alertable in most places. I can't imagine anyone would play that as natural. If they are concerned that 2♠ may be a 4-card suit (lol) then they would play penalty doubles.

Anyway, partner's remark that it should be alerted probably doesn't tell you much.

EBU.

There was extra non verbal stuff going on at the table, it was pretty clear that partner would have acted differently if 3♠ had been alerted, and that having his final pass back wouldn't have helped, so what other conclusion can I draw.

[jdonn]

Is it correct to say 3♠ is alertable if it's any meaning but natural? Otherwise what is the rule in force?

[helene_t]

Well I guess I have to lead a non-spade then. But it sounds like partner has been smoking some good stuff if he would have acted differently over an alerted 3♠ bid, as if it makes any difference whether it is alerted or not.

[blackshoe]

jdonn, on Apr 14 2010, 06:47 PM, said:

Is it correct to say 3♠ is alertable if it's any meaning but natural? Otherwise what is the rule in force?

Without looking it up, I believe you're correct, Josh.

[Cyberyeti]

jdonn, on Apr 14 2010, 05:47 PM, said:

Is it correct to say 3♠ is alertable if it's any meaning but natural? Otherwise what is the rule in force?

That's my understanding. There may be a "general bridge knowledge" qualification on that.

[blackshoe]

What did the TD tell you?

[jdonn]

Cyberyeti, on Apr 14 2010, 06:13 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 14 2010, 05:47 PM, said:

Is it correct to say 3♠ is alertable if it's any meaning but natural? Otherwise what is the rule in force?

That's my understanding. There may be a "general bridge knowledge" qualification on that.

Seems that way to me. I have to say that given that no one ever anywhere that I have ever heard of plays it as natural, and it would make no sense no matter what style of 2♠ overcalls (as helene says the farthest anyone would go is to play penalty doubles) then I really can't attach any relevence to a failure to alert and blame your partner for not doing more to protect himself at the time of the bid. I mean was he just going to sit there an assume it was natural, as though that is anywhere near as likely as there being a failure to (make a completely meaningless) alert?

Maybe my answer is legally wrong, but I'm not giving any sympathy to a player who relies on the lack of an alert that is about 1000 times more likely to have been forgotten than to not have been needed. So if some lead but a spade is an LA then I believe you must choose it, and I'm not going to adjust the score afterwards based on the failure to alert.

[Cyberyeti]

jdonn, on Apr 14 2010, 06:18 PM, said:

Cyberyeti, on Apr 14 2010, 06:13 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 14 2010, 05:47 PM, said:

Is it correct to say 3♠ is alertable if it's any meaning but natural? Otherwise what is the rule in force?

That's my understanding. There may be a "general bridge knowledge" qualification on that.

Seems that way to me. I have to say that given that no one ever anywhere that I have ever heard of plays it as natural, and it would make no sense no matter what style of 2♠ overcalls (as helene says the farthest anyone would go is to play penalty doubles) then I really can't attach any relevence to a failure to alert and blame your partner for not doing more to protect himself at the time of the bid. I mean was he just going to sit there an assume it was natural, as though that is anywhere near as likely as there being a failure to (make a completely meaningless) alert?

Maybe my answer is legally wrong, but I'm not giving any sympathy to a player who relies on the lack of an alert that is about 1000 times more likely to have been forgotten than to not have been needed. So if some lead but a spade is an LA then I believe you must choose it, and I'm not going to adjust the score afterwards based on the failure to alert.

OK, be this as it may, I now even more clearly have UI. What do I do with the lead problem ? What am I allowed to think ? Is it so clear to lead a spade anyway ? and if so which one ?

My suspicion is that the UI suggests that a small spade is right rather than a large one if I'm going to lead a spade, but that a spade lead is probably best anyway, so I should lead a large spade.

[jdonn]

Bridgewise, I would under normal circumstances lead a spade but I think a heart is an LA given that we may have no entries.

[EricK]

If failure to alert was an irregularity, then doesn't partner (and everyone else) have a legal obligation to call the directly as soon as they realise this?

[helene_t]

No. If the TD got called for every failure to alert then he would go nuts.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on Apr 14 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

What did the TD tell you?

You don't expect the TD to give you a sensible answer in a backwater club where he may be about to play the board next do you ?

This TD is more clued in than most, but we were already a board behind and he just said lead something.

The punchline to this is that declarer had S K10xx, and no way of reaching hand to score the K unless we played 2 rounds of them. This would be the 9th trick, so a heart lead is a big winner.

I led a spade which is not fatal, unfortunately partner returned one which is

[Fluffy]

the UI completelly bans a low spade lead IMO.

[Codo]

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....

[Lanor Fow]

I'm sure that can't be correct Codo.

Assume the same thing happened, (no alert, corrected) and this time instead of just reacting partner had said "But had you alerted I would have doubled, I have the Ace and King of spades", are you implying that that too wouldn't be UI?

[greenender]

EricK, on Apr 15 2010, 01:38 AM, said:

If failure to alert was an irregularity, then doesn't partner (and everyone else) have a legal obligation to call the directly as soon as they realise this?

No. There is no obligation to draw attention to an irregularity, and no obligation to call the TD unless someone has drawn attention.

It would have been better had bluejak's attempt (on the last major revision of the OB) to get the alerting status of such cue-bids reversed, but I agree that the overwhelming likelihood is that the failure to alert has been forgetful or lazy, rather than that partner should have assumed that 3♠ was natural.

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.

Since partner did seem to hold ♠Ax, I will charitably assume that his antics were not founded on the desire to get you to lead something else, on the footing that you would be ethically constrained to lead a non-♠. If that were the case, of course, I would recommend that the player concerned be swiftly consigned to the ranks of ex-partners, or indeed ex-players.

[Cyberyeti]

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.

[jdonn]

Cyberyeti, on Apr 15 2010, 08:51 AM, 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.

In theory you are right. In practice everyone should know 3♠ here is never played as natural. Ever.