Alerting / Announcing
N/S pair had recently agreed to play Benjamin Acol with responding partners bid being a relay bid. North opens 2 Diamonds. South announces “that is Strong, 23plus” and bids 2 hearts. North does not alert or announce and bids 3NT. South (dummy) puts his hand down which contains 3 small Hearts. The opposition object that South’s 2 heart bid was artificial and should have been alerted/announced. North had not alerted/announced his partners 2 heart bid because he had forgotten their agreement to respond with relay bids over strong artificial opening bids and presumed South 2 hearts responding bid promised good heart support. The opposition complained that they had been disadvantaged by the lack of and alert/announcement to the 2 heart responding bid and wanted compensation – what should the Director rule?
Comments
2D is not announced according to EBU Blue Book - it is alerted
2H should be alerted
There is misinformation from the lack of alert of 2H. I think we must take at face value the opponents being unaware that 2H is usually artificial (negative/waiting/relay) in response to a "strong 23+" 2D.
The opponents were damaged if they would have doubled 2H for the lead, or would have led H if 2H had been alerted. Damage and compensation are not automatic, the adjusted score has to be related to the misinformation.
(There is no automatic penalty for failure to alert - a penalty to NS would not compensate EW.)
Robin – thanks for the reply to my question.
Clearly Opener should alert his partners artificial bid.
In this case Opener did not know it was an artificial bid (had forgotten their agreement) and took it as natural – if he did not know and believed it be natural how could he be expected to alert it as artificial?
Because North thought 2H was natural, we wouldn't expect North to alert. despite the fact that he should have done. All this doesn't stop EW from having been mis-informed.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Players have a duty to know their system and to make the meanings of calls clear to their opponents by means of alerts, announcements and answers to questions. If NS agreed to play this system and North forgot that 2H was artificial and required an alert, that's not EW's fault and if they are damaged by the failure to alert they will be due some compensation in the form of an adjusted score.
If North's forgetting had damaged their own side (they'd incorrectly assumed 2H was natural and raised to a high level and gone off, for example) that's their own fault for not knowing their system, they can't have any redress, and EW won't be asking for any.
If North claims that they had never agreed that a 2H response was artificial so they didn't have to alert it, the director would have to consider this, but probably not for long, as it's very unusual not to play the next step over an artificial game-forcing bid to be natural. They'd be likely to rule as if North had got it wrong.
Thanks for the helpful comments.
Do I take it then from what has been said here that if a partnership has an agreement to play an artificial bid forgetting about that agreement can not be used an excuse for not alerting it? And that de facto, means that there is NO excuses for any failure to alert/announce and all failures potentially penalty incurring?
I'm not sure about "duty" for players to know their system, but it is certainly and obviously in a partnership's interests to know their system. Law 40C allows players to mis-bid to a certain described extent.
Here, Pont, your Opening Post describes a failure to alert an alertable call, and we are in the realms of mis-information (MI).
You write of "NO excuses" and of "penalties" but I think you are looking at things far too strictly. As Robin says, there is no automatic penalty. I would only consider penalising alerting errors if there were cause to believe that the MI was deliberate, and I have never been in that position.
Here there was MI through lack of an alert. We should not be grilling players for "excuses" or lack thereof, but we actually want to sit up and address:
Just put the cane away! :))
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Shouldn't East have asked South what he understood the meaning of 2Hs to be? Similar situations arise when you have bidding such as 1NT (P) 2S (P) 2NT End with the 2S not being alerted. The person on lead can always ask about the meaning of the 2S bid, perhaps better still to ask about the meaning of all the bids. The danger of course is if the opposition was thinking of overcalling and thought the 2S was natural. Would asking about the 2S bid (before passing/bidding) indicate perhaps a good holding in Spades?
"I'm not sure about "duty" for players to know their system"
I thought I'd reworded that before posting it. It's not a legal requirement to know your own system, but it is to inform your opponents what your system is.
And Pont, no, there is no excuse for not alerting an alertable call (OK, there may be excuses, such as not knowing the alerting regulations for rare or complex situations, but that doesn't change how the rules are applied). Redress is normally restricted to an adjusted score to compensate the opponents for damage caused. I think a procedural penalty could also be applied after warnings if the offenders consistently fail to alert.
"Shouldn't East have asked South what he understood the meaning of 2Hs to be?"
Experienced players are expected to ask about calls they suspect have not been disclosed properly, but only if it's safe for them to do so without creating unauthorized information, which you correctly highlight in your example. Some calls should always be either alerted or announced (1NT openers, two-of-a-suit openers) and the director is unlikely to hear claims of damage if partner did neither. Even in your example (1NT - 2S; 2NT) it's not impossible that 2S is natural and partner hasn't quite learned the lesson about weak take-outs.
Thanks for the helpful replies.
What then, if N's RHO had asked N what the 2H bid meant and N had replied "that's his best/strongest suit" (believing that to be true)? Clearly S can not jump in and correct that as that would be UI for N. When S puts dummy hand down and ops see the 3 small H's and complain that they have been misinformed - what would you rule?
Hi Pont
Very valid question which I don't think many players have been told or know about. Law 20 5 F(b) seems to cover it (it is mentioned later in Law 75). Once North fails to alert Souths' bid of 2 Hearts then South must remain silent until the final pass. Then South should prevent East leading and call the director. They should then explain that no alert was made by North for the 2H bid. The director will then ask South to explain the correct sytem understanding, and follow either Law 21 B or Law 47E if Law 20 F 6 is appropriate. I am not sure that West would be willing to have their last pass back (Law 21 B 2). So now the director has to follow law 21 3. Which Robin and Senior_Kibitzer have said in that the director has to determine what damage , if any, has been inflicted by the offending side (West might have doubled the 2H bid for a lead which might/could have got the contract down). So effectively the director might do a poll of similar class of player to these involved to see what the West hand might do had they been given the correct information.
So in effect it isn't really a "ruling" but a "judgement" based on the poll. In this situation I would let the hand play out (if West didn't want to change their bid) and adjust after the poll information had been collated.
There are papers about polling on the ebu site.
Hope that helps
E & O E
Thanks Dibbler for the comprehensive and helpful reply
This was from the OP as an explanation of a 2D Benji opening. I find myself often recommending to players to add "if balanced" if that makes for a more accurate explanation.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Yep - many players are slovenly in their descriptions - I often hear 2 clubs alerted as "Strong" which could easily be misinterpreted as a strong hand with clubs. This would be particularly true if their partner (mistakingly) just announced it as such - I have heard it happen.
(As a tautology if you explain a bid as "23 plus" (and that is the agreement) you don't actually have to use the word "strong". You WOULD have to make clear if the hand might not be strong e.g. "Game force or 8+ playing tricks in clubs - the hand might not be strong unless partner will show a diamond suit." (This gets round the problem usually associated with the Benji 2C opening bid).
(There is also a tendency for some players to alert and explain "That is our strongest bid" - this of course is not true: the explanation should probably be "This is our strongest opening bid at the two level" -and then to further define it if necessary.)