[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-02, 15:21, said:

The ACBL information on their site is woefully inadequate
...
Can anyone provide a link to ACBL's full documentation on alerts?

I suspect that you've already found it.

[Phil]

Quote

4) CUEBIDS

Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert.

...

if the 2 bid shows the majors (Michaels), clubs and spades (top/bottom) or some other two-suiter (not including diamonds, no Alert is required.

Any idea if Ben's auction is considered a 'direct' cuebid?

[mycroft]

Well, Phil, if you're talking "direct cuebid" as in the section of the system card, no - even people that play Michaels throughout often have different ideas after (2H)-3H (I play Leaping Michaels, for instance). 3C is a cuebid by definition; it is direct; is it a "direct cuebid"?

I wouldn't trust the ACBL system card to have information about (2S(S+C))-3C, or to trust it if it is there.

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2011-February-02, 16:34, said:

Try this page on the ACBL website

This is the page I looked at, and I felt that it could have been a lot more helpful.

[bluejak]

jh51, on 2011-February-02, 10:40, said:

It should be noted that the ACBL requires the use of the ACBL convention card or something closely resembling it. If you can make such a solution fit in that format, then OK.

I did: here it is:

bluejak, on 2011-February-02, 07:08, said:

I recommend printing SCs on a plain piece of paper, with notes on the back.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-02, 18:42, said:

This is the page I looked at, and I felt that it could have been a lot more helpful.

ACBL's regulations are rarely accused of being clear and complete. Yet we get by.

[blackshoe]

Heh. Anyone who claimed the ACBL's regs were anything close to clear and complete would be laughed out of town.

[peachy]

jh51, on 2011-February-02, 10:40, said:

It should be noted that the ACBL requires the use of the ACBL convention card or something closely resembling it. If you can make such a solution fit in that format, then OK.

I accidentally upvoted this when meant to reply

System notes - sometimes quite voluminous - are part of the SC. This is true whether the SC is on one page as in ACBL or two pages or both sides of the pages.

[mjj29]

peachy, on 2011-February-03, 09:53, said:

I accidentally upvoted this when meant to reply

System notes - sometimes quite voluminous - are part of the SC. This is true whether the SC is on one page as in ACBL or two pages or both sides of the pages.

Well, the EBU system card is 4-sides A5. My system notes are 52 pages. I've been told off for intimidating the opponents when trying to provide them it all together, so now the system notes stay separate only available on request; or (more usually) when trying to work out which of me or my partner are correct after the hand.

[McBruce]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-02, 13:04, said:

Back to the original post.



Having UI is not an infraction of law. Before the TD can adjust the score or issue a PP, he must show there has been an infraction of law. In the case of UI, that infraction occurs when:

1. The UI comes from something partner did or did not do.
2. The UI could demonstrably suggest* a particular action over a logical alternative.
3. The player in receipt of UI takes the suggested action.

* This means that the TD has to be able to show how the UI could suggest the action - he can't just assume it.

One additional thing is required for score adjustment:

4. The opponents are damaged thereby.

If a director told me "you have UI", I would say "So? OK, now what?"

In this situation, where the meaning of the action taken over 3♣ depends on the meaning of 3♣, that latter meaning is AI to both members of the partnership. So, your partner looks at the SC, and takes some action. At your turn to call, you look at the SC. The information you get as to the meaning of 3♣ is AI. If, given that information you have only one logical alternative action, it is no infraction to take that action.

In the case at hand, the question would seem to be whether bidding clubs later in the auction is "taking advantage of UI", as Law 73C puts it. I submit that we have insufficient information to make that determination.

And until we are given more information about the situation, what we have here is a post complaining about something that clearly is UI but OP appears to be seeking a way out. Was there an adjustment? Did the TD make a questionable ruling? Who knows? Let's hear more.

The alert procedure and the rules about asking questions are not perfect, this has long been known. But if you are put in a difficult situation, surely it is better to get the information you need even if it passes some UI, then continue as best you can. I'm speculating that this was a factor, but allowing the TDs correct ruling, that asking a question can pass UI, to distract you from getting your best possible result cannot be a winning strategy. If you are adjusted against and you have a case, you can appeal.