[aguahombre]

Interesting. The same common sense is present in the EBU (from the posters' comments), but the laws applicable to common sense situations are so very different from the ACBL.

The Alert Chart is very clear in two different places in the ACBL:
---not alerted: conventional notrump overcalls by a passed hand
---alerted: any 1NT overcall with a lower limit of less than......etc.

But, of course, lots of things are different over there; like cuebids which are not an offer to play in the cuebid, and jump out at you as something you might want to ask about. This is not a suggestion for any change in anyone's laws. I wouldn't want the post to be bumped.

It is merely an observation --and a restatement for the casual reader that the answers by Blackshoe are for EBU only, in case you assumed differently because he is an ACBL director.

[gordontd]

barmar, on May 7 2010, 11:42 PM, said:

karen4, on May 7 2010, 08:20 AM, said:

I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

I think it is. The damage was caused at least as much by his own inattention as by the lack of alert.

L12C1b says:

Quote

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)

Is the part in brackets satisfied? Had there been no infraction, the failure to notice the first pass would have had no effect.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Can you give me any examples of partnerships that play a 1NT overcall by a passed hand as 10-11 balanced? I've played a fair bit of bridge in my life in everything from a senior citizens daytime duplicate to a world championship and I've never come across it.

Yes. I have played in a match against a pair who did this (reasonable club pair). Mind you it went for 1100!

[helene_t]

gordontd, on May 8 2010, 08:29 AM, said:

barmar, on May 7 2010, 11:42 PM, said:

karen4, on May 7 2010, 08:20 AM, said:

I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

I think it is. The damage was caused at least as much by his own inattention as by the lack of alert.

L12C1b says:

Quote

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)

Is the part in brackets satisfied? Had there been no infraction, the failure to notice the first pass would have had no effect.

Good point.

But I don't think this is a case of consequential damage at all. A 1NT overcall was not alerted. N and S made (if we take their words that they play FP only if 1NT is natural) different assumptions about what such an un-alerted 1NT bid means.

As it happens, the failure to alert the 1NT bid was (if we don't buy into the argument that 1NT by a passed hand is self-alerting) an infraction. But that is not what caused the damage. NS would have had the same misunderstanding if E had expected W to hold a balanced 11-count.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on May 8 2010, 01:46 AM, said:

It is merely an observation --and a restatement for the casual reader that the answers by Blackshoe are for EBU only, in case you assumed differently because he is an ACBL director.

It's an EBU case. I said so, in my second post in the thread. So EBU regulations apply. If it were an ACBL case, ACBL regulations would apply. If it were a matter of the Laws, not regulations, then in most cases it wouldn't matter which jurisdiction applied, as the laws are (mostly) the same for both.

[aguahombre]

My bad. Used a one syl word same as four syl word, wrong.

[nige1]

karen4, on May 7 2010, 07:20 AM, said:

I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

I agree with Karen that is the main question but under EBU jurisdiction, there is an additional problem: even if you are aware that the 1N bidder is a passed hand, it is still dangerous to "protect" yourself by asking about the 1N overcall. If you ask and pass, you transmit unauthorised information that will handicap partner: he must then eschew normal actions, suggested by the UI, if there is a reasonable logical alternative.

"Protect-yourself" is one of those superfluous rules that damage non-offenders and encourage and reward offenders.

[aguahombre]

nige1, on May 9 2010, 07:19 AM, said:

but under EBU jurisdiction, there is an additional problem: even if you are aware that the 1N bidder is a passed hand, it is still dangerous to "protect" yourself by asking about the 1N overcall. If you ask and pass, you transmit unauthorised information that will handicap partner: he must then eschew normal actions, suggested by the UI, if there is a reasonable logical alternative.

Jurisdiction does not matter for that purpose. Whether alerted or not, the bid itself carries its own alert because it is unusual, even if not "unusual", and should be asked about --always.

Asking and then passing could cause opener to not rebid 2H with 5-5 in the majors for fear that responder might have a long minor which she would have bid unless 1NT was for the minors. That would be the reason for always asking.

Now you only have to be believed when you say that you always ask. But, you could add that you discovered on BBO fora some people who actually treat 1NT as natural.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on May 9 2010, 11:44 AM, said:

Jurisdiction does not matter for that purpose. Whether alerted or not, the bid itself carries its own alert because it is unusual, even if not "unusual", and should be asked about --always.

Interesting theory. What's its legal basis?

[aguahombre]

The basis of protecting one's self in a possible ui situation by always asking, so as to not give any ui? That needs to be a written law?

Would you prefer that there be no way to avoid being litigated? You also need to know what the NT is, so you will know whether your bid will be unus/unusual, and/or what partner's bid will mean if you pass

[blackshoe]

No. "The bid itself carries its own alert..."

[aguahombre]

Doesn't a NT bid by a passed hand alert you that something is probably artificial? Isn't that one way of expressing the reasoning behind (at least in some places) not wasting time alerting cuebids, or this bid?

But the fact that some misinformed players apparently think 1NT is natural by a passed hand, and might be playing it that way, is reason enough to ask --making sure.

It would be equally important where 1NT is not alertable by a passed hand, but is alerted anyway. Maybe they are alerting you to the fact that they are not playing it as unusual by a passed hand, or maybe they are just alerting it anyway.

Hence, one should always ask, no matter what the jurisdiction --no matter whether alerted or not.

[blackshoe]

One always has a right to ask about opponents' auction - see Law 20. Whether a particular call requires an alert is a matter of regulation. Whether a particular call should raise a red flag even when not alerted is a matter of opinion (in most jurisdictions).

[aguahombre]

Ok, so other than establishing that when someone asks about legal basis they might be refering to laws or to regulations, and I shouldn't use "law" interchangably with "regulation" ---and establishing that "a bid carries its own alert" is not quite the same as "a bid which jumps up and bites us on the butt as very likely to be conventional", how does any of that suggest I was wrong when I stated that it would be best to:

Ask about the meaning, whether the bid is alerted or is not alerted (and whether it is alertable or is not)
Ask, every time, so that no UI can be inferred from the question.

[blackshoe]

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm just saying it's an opinion - and hence not a basis for a ruling.

[aguahombre]

As previously noted, it would not be a good thing if I ever made a ruling.

It was brought up that the alleged NOS should protect themselves. I agree.
It was brought up that asking and passing would cause UI. I suggested how that could be avoided.

Lord help us all if I ever tried to make a real ruling. There probably isn't a paragraph I could cite to back up, "Come on, guys: what are you trying to get away with, now?"

[bluejak]

mrdct, on May 7 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

Can you give me any examples of partnerships that play a 1NT overcall by a passed hand as 10-11 balanced?  I've played a fair bit of bridge in my life in everything from a senior citizens daytime duplicate to a world championship and I've never come across it.

Sure. At some of the clubs I play in some pf the players do not play the unusual no-trump. To them a no-trump is a no-trump.

If such a player heard his partner overcall 1NT he would take it as natural.

Are you sure that all your 'senior citizens daytime duplicate' played a no-trump overcall as other than natural?



Having read some but not all the posts in this thread I am amazed that none of them seem to consider the level of players. If a very poor player relies on an alert he should get redress when there is none, passed hand or no. If an international tried that argument we would all laugh at him.

Also, of course, if we do decide it is a serious error that does not mean no adjustment, just that we adjust differently for the two sides.

barmar, on May 7 2010, 11:42 PM, said:

karen4, on May 7 2010, 08:20 AM, said:

I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

I think it is. The damage was caused at least as much by his own inattention as by the lack of alert.

No doubt true, but so? Several posts in this and other similar threads seem to try to give a reason for the event, assuming there can be only one reason. But most things in this life happen because of a combination of reasons, and this is a good example. Would the player have gone wrong if there had been an alert? No. Would the player have gone wrong if he had noticed the 1NT bidder had passed? Probably no.

So the reason he went wrong is not because of the MI solely nor his inattention solely. No is there any reason to argue which led to the happening more: it needed both for the error to occur.

The error occurred because of MI, even if only in part. There was MI, there was damage, there was a causal link. So you adjust in full for the offending side, and consider Law 12C1B for the other side.

[karen4]

aguahombre, on May 9 2010, 02:32 PM, said:

Doesn't a NT bid by a passed hand alert you that something is probably artificial?  Isn't that one way of expressing the reasoning behind (at least in some places) not wasting time alerting cuebids, or this bid?

But the fact that some misinformed players apparently think 1NT is natural by a passed hand, and might be playing it that way, is reason enough to ask --making sure.

It would be equally important where 1NT is not alertable by a passed hand, but is alerted anyway.  Maybe they are alerting you to the fact that they are not playing it as unusual by a passed hand, or maybe they are just alerting it anyway.

Hence, one should always ask, no matter what the jurisdiction --no matter whether alerted or not.

I assume this is not a response to the original problem. In the original problem South thought the situation was that West overcalled 1NT as a non-passed hand. I personally would never consider asking whether an unalerted 1NT overall by I hand that hadnt originally passed was natural (though I hope I would notice that he had passed originally )

[nige1]

nige1, on May 7 2010, 06:29 AM, said:

You may judge it ridiculous to agree a no-trump overcall by a passed-hand as natural, but some partnerships do have that agreement ...

mrdct, on May 7 2010, 08:56 AM, said:

Can you give me any examples of partnerships that play a 1NT overcall by a passed hand as 10-11 balanced?  I've played a fair bit of bridge in my life in everything from a senior citizens daytime duplicate to a world championship and I've never come across it.

Many have encountered such bids. Ordinary players like me make such bids with say
♠ AJx ♥ KQJx ♦ xxx ♣ xxx in auctions like
_P (1♠) _P (_P)
1N
It's more dangerous in the auction we're discussing...
_P (_P) _P (1♠)
1N
But at favourable vulnerability, we've seen worse bids. Whether or not MrDct or anybody else approves of them, these are legal agreements. Undiscussed, some of us would regard them as default agreements, especially in protective positions.

[aguahombre]

nig1: Yes, the first case --a balancing action by a passed hand ---1N is played as natural by us. Partner passed 1S, but is not a passed hand.

that is not the OP's auction.