[gnasher]

This is from Bulletin 10, http://www.acbl.org/...letins/db10.pdf

The NS bidding went
N     S
pass-1♠
2♣-4♠

2♣ was Drury but not alerted; East had a double of 2♣.

The appeal writeup included the comment, "Once South bid 4♠, West pretty much knew that 2♣ was Drury. Furthermore, he also knew that he could ask about 2♣ before he acted, and if there was a failure to Alert, his partner would get a second chance to act."

Wouldn't that be illegal?

[vang]

"Once South bid 4♠, West pretty much knew that 2♣ was Drury. " -- bullshit.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2011-December-04, 12:01, said:

This is from Bulletin 10, http://www.acbl.org/...letins/db10.pdf

The NS bidding went
N     S
pass-1♠
2♣-4♠

2♣ was Drury but not alerted; East had a double of 2♣.

The appeal writeup included the comment, "Once South bid 4♠, West pretty much knew that 2♣ was Drury. Furthermore, he also knew that he could ask about 2♣ before he acted, and if there was a failure to Alert, his partner would get a second chance to act."

Wouldn't that be illegal?

It is improper to ask "solely for partner's benefit" (Law 20G). However, it could be argued that if asking here is trying to prevent damage from an opponent's potential irregularity, the question would be for the opponents' benefit (helping to prevent a misinformation adjustment against them later).

However, it's a bit deep for the AC to suggest that West (i) ought to conclude that the unalerted 2♣ was Drury; and (ii) ought to take into account the possibility that partner might have doubled an alerted 2♣ Drury bid.

[BunnyGo]

jallerton, on 2011-December-04, 13:16, said:

It is improper to ask "solely for partner's benefit" (Law 20G). However, it could be argued that if asking here is trying to prevent damage from an opponent's potential irregularity, the question would be for the opponents' benefit (helping to prevent a misinformation adjustment against them later).

But if he asks and is told, "no, we just play it is natural here" then he's now put his partner in a bind against leading clubs later.

[jonottawa]

I'm confused. Didn't they lead a ♣ anyway? Maybe they meant ♠6. (There's also a major error in 'Staying awake' on page 4. Guess everybody's getting tired.)

I think giving E/W +450 is an outrage!

But seriously, I don't think the 'Should E have asked?' question is close at all. Hell no he shouldn't ask. Neither should W. (Which is what glen's original post on this hand is getting at.)

If E/W have detailed notes it would also be good to verify that a double of drury shows ♣ for them rather than takeout of ♠.

The committee should have focused exclusively on whether the failure to alert caused the misdefense or not and either the write-up is wrong (and a ♣ wasn't led) or they don't seem to have given that any consideration.

[A2003]

Is it Bulletin error?
Is it ruling NS 4♠ making 5♠ for 450 score.
Table score NS 480 is reversed to 450 for NS.
Bad bridge play by east is rewarded here by the ruling committee.

[crazy4hoop]

I guess it would be prohibitably expensive for ACBL to have screen for all rounds of all NABC+ events. Not suggesting that would be a cure-all but other than having to charge its customers higher card fees to fund them, the downside seems pretty small to me.

[jonottawa]

crazy4hoop, on 2011-December-04, 14:40, said:

I guess it would be prohibitably expensive for ACBL to have screen for all rounds of all NABC+ events. Not suggesting that would be a cure-all but other than having to charge its customers higher card fees to fund them, the downside seems pretty small to me.

You're prohibitably right.

[aguahombre]

This is why I wait for the Casebook site to update, and pretty much ignore appeals reported in the bulletins.

[awm]

I really do not understand this case, considering that west lead a club anyway. The discussion about "protecting yourself" seems rather ridiculous, but how the NOS was damaged given the actual lead at the table is quite mystifying to me!

[jallerton]

Perhaps the Bulletin misreported the opening lead at the table. West has both black sixes, so perhaps he actually led ♠6. Would the 6 be the systemic lead from ♣1062 for this pair?

By the way, it is possible in theory that East would defend differently at trick 2 on a club lead depending on whether he had doubled 2♣. The inferences from the choice of opening lead are different.

[A2003]

jallerton, on 2011-December-04, 16:29, said:

Perhaps the Bulletin misreported the opening lead at the table. West has both black sixes, so perhaps he actually led ♠6. Would the 6 be the systemic lead from ♣1062 for this pair?

By the way, it is possible in theory that East would defend differently at trick 2 on a club lead depending on whether he had doubled 2♣. The inferences from the choice of opening lead are different.

Only on double dummy this can make 6 on 6♠lead.
Because not enough entries to make 6.

---

This line of play is difficult to think at the table to make 6.
If two rounds of trumps played at trick 1 and 2 and then, defense will find two tricks.

Looks like 6♣ was led and east failed to switch to ♥ and then rewarded after complaining of alert situation.

[aguahombre]

jallerton, on 2011-December-04, 16:29, said:

By the way, it is possible in theory that East would defend differently at trick 2 on a club lead depending on whether he had doubled 2♣. The inferences from the choice of opening lead are different.

Yes, and that is why I want to see the real E/W contention when the appeal is published.

For us, the failure to double would have accidentally made the defense easier at trick two. Assuming a club was led anyway, the choice of opening club would have been different in the "blind" vs. leading partner's suit. (Attitude in the blind, but count when leading a suit shown by partner and not supported by the leader).

[Mbodell]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-04, 20:45, said:

Yes, and that is why I want to see the real E/W contention when the appeal is published.

For us, the failure to double would have accidentally made the defense easier at trick two. Assuming a club was led anyway, the choice of opening club would have been different in the "blind" vs. leading partner's suit. (Attitude in the blind, but count when leading a suit shown by partner and not supported by the leader).

For me, the double would make the setting defense more clear. With a double I'd assume partner was just leading the suit I asked him to and would lead back a heart. Without the double I'd balance more strongly partner having either a stiff club or the club K and consider a heart or a club at trick 2. So I think there is a legitimate case here. I agree with the AC, a number of people don't play drury, and since the ACBL doesn't encourage folks to exchange CC or anything (perhaps a cheaper alternative then all screens), I think the NOS was damaged.

[mrdct]

crazy4hoop, on 2011-December-04, 14:40, said:

I guess it would be prohibitably expensive for ACBL to have screen for all rounds of all NABC+ events. Not suggesting that would be a cure-all but other than having to charge its customers higher card fees to fund them, the downside seems pretty small to me.

Screens don't need to be expensive. If you make them yourself you'll get change out of $50. This is the latest one I've made out of polypropylene fluteboard for a set of 10 that the ABF are going to keep in Canberra for the quarter-finals onwards of the National Open Teams.

[phil_20686]

Mbodell, on 2011-December-04, 22:34, said:

For me, the double would make the setting defense more clear. With a double I'd assume partner was just leading the suit I asked him to and would lead back a heart. Without the double I'd balance more strongly partner having either a stiff club or the club K and consider a heart or a club at trick 2. So I think there is a legitimate case here. I agree with the AC, a number of people don't play drury, and since the ACBL doesn't encourage folks to exchange CC or anything (perhaps a cheaper alternative then all screens), I think the NOS was damaged.

Or you might have realized that if partner is leading from a collection of low cards, on an auction where moderate agression is normal, he must have red suit holdings that he doesn't want to lead away from. Thus you can table the Q of hearts. and hope for two to 3 heart tricks before the diamonds come in.

Obviously, its possible that west has as stiff club, but if south is 5-5 in the blacks giving a ruff at trick two doesn't really help you - if declarer draws trumps before playing clubs himself you will have natural tricks. If he plays clubs himself you are in the same position. The only defence that might help you here is to play a trump, then partner can ruff the club and play another trump.

Finally, if partner has the club K, then its still quite likely that you need to play a heart - suppose the layout was AKxxxxx Kx Kxx xx. Of course, it could be as good as AKxxxx AK Kxx xx, then you do need a club.

It just seems obvious to me that a heart is best defence, even though I appreciate it has chances to lose. I do not think you can given the defense two bites at the cherry. If you are prepared to rule back when a club is wrong here, its a 100% to play a club for the defense, even though its inferior, and you win either way.

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on 2011-December-04, 12:01, said:

Wouldn't that be illegal?

To my mind if you are reasonably certain that the oppos forgot to alert, say because it says drury on their CC, then you are "drawing attention to an irregularity" which anyone may do at in time as I understand it.

[iviehoff]

phil_20686, on 2011-December-05, 07:09, said:

then you are "drawing attention to an irregularity" which anyone may do at in time as I understand it.

Not always. In certain cases you are silenced from drawing attention until the proper moment. For example, you are explicitly prevented from drawing attention to your partner's misexplanation until either the end of the auction (declaring side) or the end of the hand (defending side). Dummy is prevented from drawing attention to any irregularity until the end of the hand (though one might make an exception if dummy is drawing attention to an irregularity at the time when he wasn't dummy.)

Drawing attention to an inconsistency between an opponent's explanation to your partner and their convention card is suspiciously similar to asking for an explanation, which you may only do at certain moments. In general, if you don't understand an opponent's explanation, or haven't had enough detail, I think you should wait your turn.

[cherdano]

I find it very strange that the AC committee considers it close as to whether East should have asked at his turn.
He was told at the beginning of the round that the opponents play "strong NT, rubber bridge style". I didn't know that Drury has become common at rubber bridge.
If we equire East to "protect himself" in this situation, maybe the ACBL should just do away with alerts altogether. Meanwhile, if the auction had gone 1S P 2C ask-is-this-drury-answer-no-then-P P, West might well be barred from reopening with a takeout double of clubs (if passing is a LA), and so East's worry about asking is very well justified.

[mycroft]

So, before the opening lead, North corrected South's failure to Alert, right?

No?

Funny, that happened to me later on. I doubt it was the same pair...

Oddly enough, I play Precision, we open all 11s, and we *don't* play Drury. So if my auction goes p-1♠; 2♣-4♠, declarer's going to have a hand with self-sufficient spades and that either improved knowing that partner has clubs, or hoping for a trick or two out of partner's 9-10 high. AKQ-eighth and ♣Kx looks good to me, for instance! So "West is almost certain it's Drury" is odd. But see my first line.