[lamford]

---

This hand caused some ill-feeling at a local club, at matchpoints, and also showed the EBU alerting regulations in a bad light. East asked about the Four Hearts bid, expecting it to be natural when he would have made a takeout double, but when he was told it was a transfer to spades he passed. West led the ace of hearts and gave his partner a heart ruff with his lowest heart. East underled the ace of clubs and a further heart promoted the jack of spades for one off and a complete top.

South was not happy. He claimed that West had worked out that his partner must have a takeout double of a natural Four Hearts, and had used the UI. East claimed he had to ask, as bids above 3NT were not alerted. West thought the AH was a normal lead, as there was a chance his partner had four spades, and it might be necessary to get his side's tricks quickly.

How do you rule?

[mrdct]

This is quite a difficult one as I quite agree with West's reasoning that the ♥A is the stand-out lead on this hand absent the UI, however, there is UI from East's query of the 4♥ bid which does make the ♥A lead more attractive from other logical alternatives which would at the very least be in West's contemplations so I don't think we have much choice but to adjust this to 4♠=.

The manner in which East went about his enquiries could be of some relevance and the TD should investigate that angle too.

East could possibly protect himself by asking about 4♥ in a more nonchalant manner or maybe a casual glance at the North-South convention card followed by "oh sorry, is it my turn to bid?". If North-South have an inadequately completed convention card that might give East something of a lifeline too.

[AlexJonson]

Well done E/W.

Next board?

[BunnyGo]

Is 4♥ not alerted in the EBU? I don't know the regulations, but in the ACBL it is alerted (even though most bids over 3NT are not alerted).

[pran]

BunnyGo, on 2011-December-01, 16:39, said:

Is 4♥ not alerted in the EBU? I don't know the regulations, but in the ACBL it is alerted (even though most bids over 3NT are not alerted).

In general: No alert above 3NT unless screens are in use.

[paulg]

BunnyGo, on 2011-December-01, 16:39, said:

Is 4♥ not alerted in the EBU? I don't know the regulations, but in the ACBL it is alerted (even though most bids over 3NT are not alerted).

It is not alertable in the EBU as only artificial opening bids at the four level, not responses, are alertable. From my reading of the ACBL regulations, it should be announced not alerted.

It should be alerted in Scotland and WBF competitions, as it is an artificial bid on the first round of the auction.

[blackshoe]

Announced in the ACBL, neither announced nor alerted in England and Wales.

I'm not so sure there's an LA to the ♥A lead, looking at West's hand. I'm inclined to rule "no infraction", but I'd poll first.

[jallerton]

paulg, on 2011-December-01, 17:05, said:

It is not alertable in the EBU as only artificial opening bids at the four level, not responses, are alertable. From my reading of the ACBL regulations, it should be announced not alerted.

It should be alerted in Scotland and WBF competitions, as it is an artificial bid on the first round of the auction.

Can you name any WBF competitions which are played without screens, Paul?

[Vampyr]

sorry logged in on wrong account and the question is addressed to the wrong paul as well. Doh...

[gnasher]

Although the regulations are the main cause of this sort of problem, East had two ways to protect himself, both requiring a degree of foresight:
- He could have ensured that the opponents' convention card was face up in front of him.
- He can have a policy of always asking about such auctions.

Regarding the ruling:
- I think that all three non-trump leads are logical alternatives.
- In this auction, does East sometimes ask and sometimes not? If he always asks, there is no UI and no need to consider the matter further. Otherwise, there is UI suggesting a heart over other leads.
- Did NS have two convention cards that contained the relevant information, and were these made available to EW in good time? If so, I adjust the score to NS +620. If not, I'll find a way not to inflict undeserved rectification on EW. (I think that the legal way to do this is to adjust it to 4♠= under Law 16, but then adjust it back to 4♠-1 under Law 12A1. Is that correct?)

[gnasher]

jallerton, on 2011-December-01, 17:37, said:

Can you name any WBF competitions which are played without screens, Paul?

Sometimes there aren't enough screens for all of the tables in the lesser events.

[phil_20686]

The director might also find out whether east has a habit of asking randomly about bids that might be alterable. I try to do this above 3N as it covers yourself in these situations. It also conceals your intentions from the opposition. I don't think that my legitimate questions about their system should mean they are entitled to information about my hand. The easiest way to avoid that is to ask, if not always, at least a large fraction of the time.

If not, its clear that there is UI, but I still don't think that you should rule against EW. I think we as a community just need to suck it up as a consequence of the alerting rules. It seems incredibly unfair if on this auction west can basically never lead a heart with 6 or seven hoping for a ruff in partners hand. Moreover, if you start making these rulings players will respond with the perfectly legitimate strategy of having the agreement that any unaltered bid that looks like it might he natural is assumed to be natural. In this case, east would dble. West doesnt need to ask he "knows" that partner has t/o of hearts. Partner will now only ask if he has long natural hearts. Having established that the bid is artificial, double would now be hearts.

Its seems like this strategy ought to be illegal, but misunderstanding an unalerted bid cannot be illegal for obvious reasons. I think if you rule against EW you have created an obscene incentive to game the rules.

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on 2011-December-02, 07:42, said:

Although the regulations are the main cause of this sort of problem, East had two ways to protect himself, both requiring a degree of foresight:
- He could have ensured that the opponents' convention card was face up in front of him.
- He can have a policy of always asking about such auctions.

Regarding the ruling:
- I think that all three non-trump leads are logical alternatives.
- In this auction, does East sometimes ask and sometimes not? If he always asks, there is no UI and no need to consider the matter further. Otherwise, there is UI suggesting a heart over other leads.
- Did NS have two convention cards that contained the relevant information, and were these made available to EW in good time? If so, I adjust the score to NS +620. If not, I'll find a way not to inflict undeserved rectification on EW. (I think that the legal way to do this is to adjust it to 4♠= under Law 16, but then adjust it back to 4♠-1 under Law 12A1. Is that correct?)

He has a third way - he could just double without asking.

[lamford]

phil_20686, on 2011-December-02, 08:06, said:

He has a third way - he could just double without asking.

And what does he do when South redoubles saying he really likes hearts, when 4H transpires to be pick a major - still not alertable in the English Barking Union?

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on 2011-December-02, 08:05, said:

Moreover, if you start making these rulings players will respond with the perfectly legitimate strategy of having the agreement that any unaltered bid that looks like it might he natural is assumed to be natural. In this case, east would dble. West doesnt need to ask he "knows" that partner has t/o of hearts. Partner will now only ask if he has long natural hearts. Having established that the bid is artificial, double would now be hearts.

Its seems like this strategy ought to be illegal, but misunderstanding an unalerted bid cannot be illegal for obvious reasons. I think if you rule against EW you have created an obscene incentive to game the rules.

Luckily this is already illegal under law 73B1 ("Partners shall not communicate by means such as ... questions asked or not asked of the opponents"), and probably also 73B2 ("The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws").

If your partner acts over an opposing call without asking what it meant, you should:
- Find out what it meant.
- In determining what partner's bid means, assume that he also knew what the opposing call meant.
- Treat partner's failure to ask, and the consequences thereof, as UI.

In this example, if East doubles 4♥ without asking, West should find out what 4♥ meant, then bid 5♥ and go for 1400.

[StevenG]

gnasher, on 2011-December-03, 02:53, said:

In this example, if East doubles 4♥ without asking, West should find out what 4♥ meant, then bid 5♥ and go for 1400.

In tournament play, perhaps. But, ordinary players in a normal club environment? It would be probable that neither East nor West would even consider the possibility that 4♥ would not be natural.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2011-December-03, 02:53, said:

Luckily this is already illegal under law 73B1 ("Partners shall not communicate by means such as ... questions asked or not asked of the opponents"), and probably also 73B2 ("The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws").

However, 40B3 is very curious:

Quote

The Regulating Authority may disallow prior agreement by a partnership
to vary its understandings during the auction or play following a question
asked, a response to a question, or any irregularity.

I assume that it doesn't mean what it says, but the result is that I have no idea what it means.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-03, 04:40, said:

I assume that it doesn't mean what it says, but the result is that I have no idea what it means.

I think it does mean what it says: the RA may prohibit you from varying your agreements based on a question. Of course, whether the RA does this or not, law 73B1 makes it illegal to vary agreements based on a question asked by your side. Such a prohibition therefore only affects whether you can vary agreements based on opponents' questions.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2011-December-03, 08:22, said:

I think it does mean what it says: the RA may prohibit you from varying your agreements based on a question. Of course, whether the RA does this or not, law 73B1 makes it illegal to vary agreements based on a question asked by your side. Such a prohibition therefore only affects whether you can vary agreements based on opponents' questions.

It should be specified really. Also it should not say "any irregularity", because although everyone assumes it means you can have methods after the opponents' irregularities, that is not what it says.

But back to the questions bit -- there seems to be little practical value in being allowed to vary your methods based on the opponents' questions -- they may not ask their questions at a time that is convenient for us -- ie when we want to use the "B" variant. On the other hand, if we choose to assume that the question implies interest in acting, then maybe it can gain to have different agreements based on whether they ask or not.

This causes our agreements to exist in a kind of quantum superposition. Which is fun.

[mjj29]

Vampyr, on 2011-December-03, 09:47, said:

It should be specified really. Also it should not say "any irregularity", because although everyone assumes it means you can have methods after the opponents' irregularities, that is not what it says.

How about after an insufficient bid by your partner accepted by the oppenents? It seems reasonable to be able to change your agreements so that you have a meaning for a 2H rebid by 2NT opener....