Do you have to alert when you believe partner is doing something weird?
Our Systems Card clearly states "dbl for T.O, 3NT is 5+/5+ in minors" when oppos open with a weak two.
Our system card clearly states "1NT protective" is 11-14 balanced.
Partner dealt and passed.
RHO opened 2S alerted by LHO.
I passed, as did LHO and now partner comes alive!
He asked about the alert "Lucas Two" was what he got.
He then produced the 2NT bid.
At this point, I believed he was attempting to protect and had an 11-count with some sort of Spade stop, (which is what I told LHO, later, when he asked at his turn). Should I have alerted his 2NT bid?
Comments
If you have no partnership understanding then: yes - although it gives your partner unauthorised information (that you don't know what his call means), that is not of itself an offence.
If asked then say "No agreement - but if this was a 1NT in the protective position it would show 11-14 balanced." (obviously it is virtually impossible for it to be 13-14, but I suppose he could have a poor 12)
I know you are trying to help - but there have been several appeals where someone was trying to help and gave incorrect information.
Note that you don;t say "Undiscussed, but I am taking it as..."
As an aside "Lucas Two" is an incorrect explanation - for example a) opponent may not know what a 'Lucas two' is and b) some players play it as 5 spades and 4+ in any other suit, whilst others exclude hearts. Always describe the meaning of a call, not the name of the call.
I once alerted a bid as "undiscussed, probably artificial". I was correct, too (and failed to correctly guess what my partner meant by it).
The opponents repeatedly tried to badger me into explaining what I was taking it as (and didn't give me a chance to explain all the possible meanings on similar sequences to the sequence we actually had; there were quite a few of them). What should I do in that situation?
Just say "you are not entitled to know what I am taking it as, but I will happily tell you of other agreements that might be relevant".
"Call the director" sounds like a good one.
Quite so. Badgering, even attempted badgering, is unacceptable. The opponents may be under a genuine misapprehension as to the information to which they are entitled, but even if you are under no such misapprehension, it is for the TD to disabuse them.
Abbeybear said
"Quite so. Badgering, even attempted badgering, is unacceptable. The opponents may be under a genuine misapprehension as to the information to which they are entitled, but even if you are under no such misapprehension, it is for the TD to disabuse them."
As an aside, what would be your approach if you were the most experienced TD in the room and you expected that the inexperienced playing TD would be unlikely to know the detail of the answer.
Responding with Gordon's statement sounds to me like a better solution than Call the Director.
You are not Directing at your own table but simply stating the facts according to the rules.
A slight digression, but which Law should I use when badgering occurs? I had an instance a couple of weeks ago when declarer persistently asked his RHO if his partner's lead "could have been from an honour"
Thanks
Law 74 gives a fair amount of leeway
There's also Blue Book 2B2: "The questioning must not amount to harassment".
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live