Multiple infractions!
In our club, indeed in the whole city, most members play a strong club system that is a modified version of Precision.
1C opening shows 18+ HCP.
Here's what happened:
N passed
E opened 1C (No alert by W)
S passed (evidently assumed that 1C was strong)
W announced that they play Standard American
S said 'Oh, then may I bid?'
W said 'no you can't' and bid 1S
N bid 2H
E bid 3C
S bid 3H.
(Club game, no system cards.)
W now called the Director, that's me, who was also playing, and complained that N had used UI from partner to bid 2H.
I told W that he was at fault for not alerting partner's bid promptly.
I told S that when W alerted partner's call after she had passed she should have called the Director, not asked W whether she could bid.
I told W that he should not have answered E's question as to whether she could bid, he should have called the Director.
I told N that she should not have used the UI from partner's question to bid 2H.
What a b.....y mess!
What would a sensible ruling look like?
Comments
Why is E's 1C alertable? At best it might be announced as "could be short".
W's announcement about their system (once the auction period has started) is UI to E, although unlikely to be of any consequence.
Assuming E's 1C is not alertable, then S cannot bid. N has UI, and so must justify the 2H bid (no logical alternative...) if EW believe they have been damaged.
Apart from blatant disregard for due process (and Law 81C), EW haven't really committed an infraction, whereas NS may have (use of UI).
Are you saying that a natural 1C opener has to be alerted? What is the wording of the regulation that says so?
If everyone plays a form of Precision, I would certainly have a regulation that says a natural 1C bid was alertable. In much the same way that a Polish 1C opening isn't alertable in Poland, or a weak NT is (or at least used to be) alertable in France.
I understand that a Polish club doesn't have to be alerted in Poland, but I wasn't aware that a natural one was. I wasn't disagreeing that it should be, just checking that it is.
We don't have any special regulations for alerting in India, we follow the WBF rules.
In theory a natural 1C call may not be considered alertable but we have a couple of players who play ACOL and they always announce it as 'natural and passable'. Those who play Standard American announce it as such, either before the auction commences or at the first call. Almost everybody who plays the strong club system alerts a 1D opening as 'prepared' and 1C as 'strong'. So it is a matter of practice rather than regulation.
Even if a 1C opening is not alertable as natural, it should be alerted as 'may be short'. That itself would let the opponents know that it is not a strong club.
W may not have committed an infraction in one sense, but telling S that she could not make a bid was a violation of Law 10A. Should he be allowed to get away with it?
According to David Burn (bridgewinners) execution of at least three players is in order. I suppose you have to > @Vlad said:
Since West made a ruling the TD can iremove their right to rectification under law 11.
A. Action by Non‐Offending Side
The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non‐offending
side takes any action before summoning the Director. If a side has gained through subsequent
action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law, the Director
adjusts only that side’s score by taking away any accrued advantage. The other side retains the
score achieved at the table.
I see it differently. "Wrong", yes, but not an infraction.
EW committed no irregularity or infraction (in the 1C not alerted), therefore there is no rectification to be had, so W cannot violate 10A. Unless I've missed it, the laws do not bar players from quoting the law - indeed players often do so quite normally.
They can certainly quote the law but that does not mean that they can impose the rectification: that comes under law 81C.
On thinking further about this, I believe the appropriate Law to apply would have been 21A:
'No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding'.
If S assumed E's 1C opening to be strong just because 'everybody' plays it that way, and the assumption turned out to be not justified, she did not have any ground to complain. On the contrary, if it had been the other way round, that she overcalled the un-alerted 1C opening by assuming it to be natural and then W gave a late alert saying it was strong, she would have been an aggrieved party.
Would this be the right approach?
Yes, this seems right, although an argument might be presented that the weight of "custom and practice" is so great that your stated alerting rules are not the de facto ones in this instance. Would anyone know what the alerting rules are in this case? Is it a practice that is followed to alert a 1C that is not strong and artificial? If so, does "everyone" follow this?