[mrdct]

Scoring: IMP

---

The auction was:

South:West:North:East
2♥(1):pass(2):3♦(3):pass(4)
pass(5):dbl :pass:3NT
all pass

(1) Not alerted. Described on card as "6♥ 5-9hcp can be 5♥ & weaker at fav vul".
(2) Picked up NS convention card, studied it in detail, huddled and then passed.
(3) Not alerted and not documented in NS's convention card or notes.
(4) Huddled and then passed.
(5) Huddled (was trying to decide if 3♦ was forcing and took advantage of the AI of EW's huddles to conclude that this was EW's hand). Immediately after south passed east says "If I'd known 3♦ was non-forcing I would have bid" and calls the director.

The director firstly admonished east for making the verbal comment that she did and instructed west to be careful not to take advantage of this or any other UI. The director then ruled that the auction continue and EW duly bid and made 3NT with a couple of overtricks.

NS called the director back to the table to argue that passing out 3♦ was a logical alternative for west.

EW made a counter argument that if they had known 2♥ could be so bad and that 3♦ was non-forcing they would've easily bid to 3NT.

How would you rule?

[campboy]

Is a non-forcing 3♦ alertable in this jurisdiction?

[mrdct]

campboy, on Jun 8 2010, 07:58 PM, said:

Is a non-forcing 3♦ alertable in this jurisdiction?

The relevant Australian regulation is:

3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz.

a. The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples:
•Responder’s first round jump shift on weak hands.
•A non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid (whether or not after intervention).
•A pass which forces partner to take action (e.g. SWINE).

b. The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples:
•A natural NT overcall in the direct position, which does not promise a stopper in the overcalled suit.
•A jump raise of opener’s one-level bid which may be weak or pre-emptive.
•A single raise of partner’s suit which may be strong or forcing e.g. 1♦ - 2♦ forcing.
•The rebid in a canapé sequence where the second suit may be longer than the first.
•A 1♥ opening which denies holding 4+ spades.

On that basis 3♦ possibly should have been alerted as a "non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid" but it seems that NS may not necessarily have had that agreement and south simply choose to pass based on the AI "table feel" from EW's huddles.

[Phil]

Without trying to untangle this, I feel like I need to take a shower after reading this thread.

[pran]

mrdct, on Jun 9 2010, 02:57 AM, said:

campboy, on Jun 8 2010, 07:58 PM, said:

Is a non-forcing 3♦ alertable in this jurisdiction?

The relevant Australian regulation is:

3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz.

a. The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples:
•Responder’s first round jump shift on weak hands.
•A non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid (whether or not after intervention).
•A pass which forces partner to take action (e.g. SWINE).

b. The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples:
•A natural NT overcall in the direct position, which does not promise a stopper in the overcalled suit.
•A jump raise of opener’s one-level bid which may be weak or pre-emptive.
•A single raise of partner’s suit which may be strong or forcing e.g. 1♦ - 2♦ forcing.
•The rebid in a canapé sequence where the second suit may be longer than the first.
•A 1♥ opening which denies holding 4+ spades.

On that basis 3♦ possibly should have been alerted as a "non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid" but it seems that NS may not necessarily have had that agreement and south simply choose to pass based on the AI "table feel" from EW's huddles.

I don't give much importance to the initial huddle by West. He is in this situation entitled to a ten second pause for thought and I shall assume that his "huddle" was within this limit.

From the quoted regulation it is clear to me that the 3♦ bid is alertable. North/South has no documentation of an agreement that 3♦ is forcing and that South has misbid, so the Director shall use Law 75C and rule misinformation.

East's verbal remark is of course improper, but in view of the above shall not bar West from doubling. Consequently I would rule that the table result stands.

(I wonder why the Director did not use Law 21B1a and let East change his pass to another call?)

[Cyberyeti]

Interesting

•A non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid

Note this is an example, not part of the rule itself.

I understand this when responding to bids at the 1 level, but I've been told "why on earth are you alerting that" when I alert our highly constructive but non forcing changes of suit to our weak 2s (where S would fit right in, that's not a bad hand by our methods).

Does everybody alert Precision 2C-P-2H ? For example.

I don't think the change of suit being non forcing is unexpected in any way in either case.

The description of the 2H on the card seems to be perfect, so it all hangs on the interpretation of whether the example is set in stone, or whether the rule that the meaning must be unexpected (which I don't think this is) takes priority.

[campboy]

mrdct, on Jun 9 2010, 02:57 AM, said:

On that basis 3♦ possibly should have been alerted as a "non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid" but it seems that NS may not necessarily have had that agreement and south simply choose to pass based on the AI "table feel" from EW's huddles.

I would say that a call is "forcing" if by implicit or explicit partnership agreement a pass is not permitted. So if this pair did not have an agreement about it being forcing then it is non-forcing and should, by my reading of the regulation, have been alerted. Thus East should have been offered the chance to change his call and there is TD error. Law 82C says that we should now be treating both sides as NOS, so I think that means EW get table result, NS get the score for 3♦, which looks like it is off one on best defence but could easily make.

If the director had offered East a change of call, there is the issue of whether passing is an LA, since he has UI suggesting double. I would like to see the results of some sort of poll before I try to guess that one

[bluejak]

Very annoying. I decide what to say, and am just about to write it, when ...

Ok, campboy wrote it for me. Alertable, TD error, whatever.

As for whether everyone alerts a NF 2♥ response to a Precision 2♣ [the regulation is the same n the EBU] who cares? If they do not, we rule against them, of course, if there is damage.