Alert with no explanation
If a player alerts his partner's bid as he knows it is not natural but does not know what it does mean, what is the procedure for the TD ?
I think I read somewhere that the TD should take the player away from the table and let the bidder explain his bid to the opposition. Is that correct ?
Comments
"Alert"
"What does it mean"
"Not sure but I am not 100% certain it's natural/ non alertable".
"Director please"
Players have the right to know what the bid shows (+ inferences from the fact that other bids weren't made etc) - law 20. So it is a good idea to take a player away from the table to minimise the UI.
"I am going to take your partner away from the table while you give an explanation of what the call shows in your partnership agreements."
(This could cause some problems since it is only the person who is next to make a call who can actually ask the questions - so you may have to send the player away for a second time! - or even a third, if a query arises later on as the auction develops!)
Returns with partner.
"OK - may I remind you that the fact that partner does not necessarily know what your call means, is unathorised information - you must proceed on the basis that he does until it is obvious that he doesn't."
If they have an agreement about the bid but the partner of the bidder cannot remember the agreement, then having the bidder explain the agreement without his partner at the table is a practical way of ensuring the opponents are informed about the agreement.
If they don't actually have an agreement but general bridge knowledge tells you that it is likely to have one of two not natural meanings, then the bid should be alerted and the possibilities explained to the opponents together with any potential analogous agreements the pair have that might help inform a guess as to what the bidder intended. But it would be wrong to ask the bidder to explain his bid to the opponents if there isn't actually any agreement about what it means.
South calls, North alerts, West asks, North says "lets have the TD", ... "I think its alertable but I can't tell you our agreement".
TD does best to take North away from the table, and let North tell the TD what he knows, then the TD returns with North remaining absent.
The TD then asks South whether there is an agreement or understanding, if there is South should be asked to explain the agreement/understanding; if there is no agreement/understanding, South does not have to explain what they have or what general bridge knowledge they are trying to employ.
North returns. TD explains that South has UI from North's alert and from North's uncertainty.
At the end of the auction, if North/South are declaring then they should be offered the opportunity to clarify anything they now know (perhaps prompted by the rest of the auction). East/West should be firmly discouraged from saying "if I knew that I would have done ...".
At the end of the hand the TD can rule on any misinformation and use of unauthorised information.
That is great. Many thanks
What you say to E/W at this point is along the lines of "I am now going to ask N/S if there is anything further that they now know about the auction which you should be aware of before the contract is played. As a result of what they now tell you, you may feel that you would already have taken different action if you had had that information earlier. If so, please say nothing at this stage, but call me back at the end of the hand if you think you have been damaged."