[Ethel]

Hands are not known.

West is dealer and opens 1NT
LHO bids 2H (no alert)
Partner bids 3C
RHO bids 3H
Dealer asks about the 2H bid and is told it shows Hearts and a Minor and South says "Sorry, should have alerted". Dealer (West) wants the bidding to revert back to East as East did not have the information that the 2H bid was alertable.
What should be done?

Second part: IMO dealer knew what the 2H bid meant and only asked so that East would know what it meant - Not allowed?

[RMB1]

Part one: someone should call the TD, who will establish that there has been misinformation from the failure to alert, and since West has not called after East called, East is entitled to change his call (as described in Law 21B1a).

Part two:

Laws, on 2007, said:

Law 20G1
1. It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit.

But West's question is not solely for partner's benefit, even though he knows the meaning of 2♥. West's question also has the effect of establishing that there has been an irregularity. This is his right (Law 9A1), so I do not think the question is improper.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Robin, although I would suggest to West that he simply call the director, rather than make a comment which might arguably be an attempt to suggest to partner that he change his call, or alternatively, that West is attempting to make a ruling, which is the sole prerogative of the TD.

[aguahombre]

I don't understand West's concern. Are their agreements on what 3C means different if 2H shows hearts and another?

Or is he just being a Secretary Bird? I wasn't there, like you were, Ethel. But I would come to the same conclusion about West's intent to alert partner.

[JoAnneM]

Shouldn't west call the director when the failure to alert occurs, not after his partner bids. He only calls after he knows his partner might be getting in trouble, before that it's okay if the opps forget what they are playing.

I know bluejak thinks I side with the offending side too often, but really only when I see this kind of thing - someone trying to get a win-win instead of doing what he should do immediately.

[blackshoe]

West doesn't know there's been a failure to alert until after South tells him - which was after East had bid 3♣. West asked about the meaning of 2♥ at his first legal opportunity - which also was after his partner (and his RHO) had bid. So I think the view that West is trying for a "win-win" is flawed.

[jdonn]

Would anyone ever take a different action over 2♥ showing hearts and 2♥ showing hearts and a minor?

[bluejak]

JoAnneM, on Aug 2 2010, 07:04 PM, said:

Shouldn't west call the director when the failure to alert occurs, not after his partner bids.  He only calls after he knows his partner might be getting in trouble, before that it's okay if the opps forget what they are playing.

I know bluejak thinks I side with the offending side too often, but really only when I see this kind of thing - someone trying to get a win-win instead of doing what he should do immediately.

He did not know there was a failure to alert until the answer to his question, did he? How was he to know earlier?

Yes, I agree with you, I think you are too fond of siding with the offending side. I think this is a good example. As soon as he knew an infraction had occurred he tried to do something about it, and what he wanted to do was the antithesis of a double shot. I think his ethical approach was reasonable, rather than playing on and trying for an adjustment - which you have complained about when people do it.

Sure, he did the wrong thing: he should just call the TD and leave it to him. But if you are going to treat non-offenders badly both when they try for a double shot and when [as here] they do not, it seems very unfair.

[aguahombre]

The only thing I agree with is the director call. I disagree that there is clearly only one offending side. But, until someone chooses to address Josh's question (and mine, worded differently) we won't know.

1. Do they play Leben only after one-suited overcalls? If so, then it would seem there have been two failures to alert.
2. If they play Leben over Hts only and over H+m, then there still have been two failures to alert, but no damage from the original failure.
3. Did East already know what 2H meant? Did West? West's question might have been intended for East's benefit or just for his own enlightenment.

Maybe I am wrong that a 3-level suit bid when Leben was available is alertable, but I don't recall any competent pair not choosing to alert it.

[mrdct]

RMB1, on Aug 3 2010, 12:07 AM, said:

But West's question is not solely for partner's benefit, even though he knows the meaning of 2♥.  West's question also has the effect of establishing that there has been an irregularity.  This is his right (Law 9A1), so I do not think the question is improper.

Was west familiar with the north-south methods (i.e. had he perused their convention card)? Ordinarily I wouldn't think west has any business asking about a non-alerted 2♥ overcall which is presumed to be natural. I guess he might have a hand considering introducing his ♠ suit if he has a small doubleton ♥ and good ♣ support and might want to rule-out a two-suiter on his left by asking whether or not NS have other bids available to show two-suiters.

If west knows that 2♥ shows a two-suiter his correct action is to call the TD, not ask what a non-alerted bid is. The correct way to draw attention to the irregularity is to pick-up the NS convention card and say "your convention card says you play multi-landy so shouldn't 2♥ have been alerted? .... I think I better call the director ... director please!".

[aguahombre]

mrdct, on Aug 3 2010, 05:43 PM, said:

If west knows that 2♥ shows a two-suiter his correct action is to call the TD, not ask what a non-alerted bid is.  The correct way to draw attention to the irregularity is to pick-up the NS convention card and say "your convention card says you play multi-landy so shouldn't 2♥ have been alerted?  .... I think I better call the director ... director please!".

And, of course, this choice of action would not be intended for partner's benefit.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on Aug 4 2010, 12:43 AM, said:

If west knows that 2♥ shows a two-suiter his correct action is to call the TD, not ask what a non-alerted bid is.  The correct way to draw attention to the irregularity is to pick-up the NS convention card and say "your convention card says you play multi-landy so shouldn't 2♥ have been alerted?  .... I think I better call the director ... director please!".

You have a Laws-given right to ask about a call at your turn to call, unless it is solely for partner's benefit. So you have an absolute right to ask if you suspect something is wrong, and I really do not think you can say he has to do it some other way when th Laws give him that right.

[barmar]

mrdct, on Aug 3 2010, 07:43 PM, said:

Was west familiar with the north-south methods (i.e. had he perused their convention card)?

The OP said she thinks he was. I don't know what she bases this on, or how sure she is.

Instead of asking what 2♥ means (since the asker thinks he already knows, but wants to be sure partner does), would it be appropriate to ask if there was a failure to alert 2♥? If they say "yes", you call the director and let him straighten things out. If they say "no", you presume that you were mistaken about the conventional meaning.

[mrdct]

barmar, on Aug 5 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

mrdct, on Aug 3 2010, 07:43 PM, said:

Was west familiar with the north-south methods (i.e. had he perused their convention card)?

The OP said she thinks he was. I don't know what she bases this on, or how sure she is.

Instead of asking what 2♥ means (since the asker thinks he already knows, but wants to be sure partner does), would it be appropriate to ask if there was a failure to alert 2♥? If they say "yes", you call the director and let him straighten things out. If they say "no", you presume that you were mistaken about the conventional meaning.

I like this approach.

[dburn]

bluejak, on Aug 4 2010, 06:31 PM, said:

You have a Laws-given right to ask about a call at your turn to call

...unless, of course, discouraged from doing so by some absurd local regulation.

[bluejak]

Wrong. You have a Laws-given right to ask a question whether discouraged or not by some local regulation which you do not seem to have read. Since you probably wrote it I expect you think there is no need to read it, but you do give a very strong indication on this forum of it saying something completely different from what it does say.

But it certainly does not remove your Laws-given right. And, of course, as I expec you know perfectly well, the reason for the discouragement is not relevant in this case therefore the local regulation you wrote does not affect it.

[dburn]

bluejak, on Aug 5 2010, 06:31 PM, said:

Wrong.  You have a Laws-given right to ask a question whether discouraged or not by some local regulation which you do not seem to have read.  Since you probably wrote it I expect you think there is no need to read it, but you do give a very strong indication on this forum of it saying something completely different from what it does say.

But it certainly does not remove your Laws-given right.  And, of course, as I expect you know perfectly well, the reason for the discouragement is not relevant in this case therefore the local regulation you wrote does not affect it.

Wrote it? Not I - to the best of my knowledge, none of the purple prose in the green or yellow or orange or tangerine books coruscated from my pen (or, as it might be, sty). That is just as well, for people such as Grattan Endicott and David Stevenson and Frances Hinden are far better at writing this sort of thing than I am.

For the curious, the regulation in question is 3E in the Orange Book. I don't propose to reproduce it here in full, but the minatory tone of the first sentence is typical:

Orange Book said:

A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences.

Actually, he should not and it does not. The entire rationale behind this absurd local regulation [ALR] is summarized somewhat diffidently (and justifiably so) in 3E4:

Orange Book said:

Perhaps an example would help. A player opens 1♣ which is not alerted, and the next player, before passing, asks the meaning of the 1♣, or even worse says “Is that natural?” If 3NT is reached, and the questioner’s partner leads a Club from two or three small cards the questioner must expect that the TD will not allow the result to stand, but will adjust it.

What reason has this player to ask? The questioner knows it is a natural bid because it was not alerted. Experience shows the questioner often happens to have several Clubs.

In fact, the "example" that led to the creation of the ALR in the first place was lead-directing questions after Stayman, not after opening bids of 1♣. Not that it matters - nowadays, almost everyone knows not to cheat over either. Moreover, the current regulations wrt announcements and alerts have had the beneficial effect (often ignored by the naysayers) that it's very much harder to cheat when the opponents open a weak no trump or a nebulous club than it used to be, so that the primary reason for the ALR has more or less disappeared.

The primary reason against it, though, has not. Suppose I have:

♠xxx ♥xxx ♦AKJ10x ♣xx

and suppose LHO opens 1NT (announced as weak), partner passes, and RHO bids 2♦ (alerted by LHO). What should I do?

[bluejak]

dburn, on Aug 6 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

Wrote it? Not I - to the best of my knowledge, none of the purple prose in the green or yellow or orange or tangerine books coruscated from my pen (or, as it might be, sty). That is just as well, for people such as Grattan Endicott and David Stevenson and Frances Hinden are far better at writing this sort of thing than I am.

The origin of the regulation certainly pre-dates Frances Hinden and David Stevenson, but I fancy that it was produced by a Committee that included David Burn.

dburn, on Aug 6 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

Orange Book said:

A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences.

Actually, he should not and it does not.

Not so. The reason they should be aware, and the consequences referred to, are because of a Law, namely:

Law 16B1A said:

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on Aug 3 2010, 04:51 PM, said:

The only thing I agree with is the director call.  I disagree that there is clearly only one offending side.  But, until someone chooses to address Josh's question (and mine, worded differently) we won't know.

1.  Do they play Leben only after one-suited overcalls?  If so, then it would seem there have been two failures to alert.
2.  If they play Leben over Hts only and over H+m, then there still have been two failures to alert, but no damage from the original failure.
3. Did East already know what 2H meant?  Did West?  West's question might have been intended for East's benefit or just for his own enlightenment.

Maybe I am wrong that a 3-level suit bid when Leben was available is alertable, but I don't recall any competent pair not choosing to alert it.

The OP didn't mention where this happened (or say that either pair was competent), though 3♣, if forcing, would be alertable in the EBU.

While I agree that it is very unlikely that the difference in explanation will affect East's call, it is not something we should dismiss, particularly without having seen East's hand. (And of course had the bid been 3NT it is much easier to think of hands where he might want to change it).

[campboy]

bluejak, on Aug 6 2010, 12:33 PM, said:

dburn, on Aug 6 2010, 04:14 AM, said:

Orange Book said:

A player has the right to ask questions at his turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences.

Actually, he should not and it does not.

Not so. The reason they should be aware, and the consequences referred to, are because of a Law, namely:

Law 16B1A said:

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

I suspect it depends on what you think "should" means. Is the intended meaning here that he would be well-advised to be aware of the possible consequences or that it is a breach of regulation to be unaware of them? I would consider the first meaning to be the only reasonable one, yet it is the second which is consistent with the use of "should" in the laws.