[Coelacanth]

---

ACBL, from the NABC

Matchpoints

I'm just presenting the auction without the actual hands since I'm primarily interested in a LA discussion.

N opened 2D, Flannery. E bit 2NT; he believed that this was Unusual showing the minors. No alert from W. S passed and W bid 3NT after an extended (1+ minute) hesitation. After S doubled in the passout seat E ran to 4C.
.
Prior to the opening lead W was asked if they had an agreement about 2NT; she admitted being unsure as to its meaning.

The hand was played out and the TD summoned. The NS position: E has UI from W's hesitation that W may be unsure of the meaning of 2NT. This demonstrably suggests not playing 3NTx. Passing 3NT is a LA. Score should be adjusted to 3NTx making however many tricks it makes.

The TD ruled that passing 3NTx was not a LA. NS disagreed; I'll post the hand later and you can make up your own mind. I'm interested in opinions on whether the hesitation demonstrably suggested running (to a player who was happy to sit for 3NT undoubled), and whether S's double has any whiff of a 'double shot' not worthy of protection.

[billw55]

The notion that logical alternatives can be judged without seeing the hand is bizarre. Passing out 3NTx might be one or not: does east hold ♠Kx ♥Ax ♦AJTx ♣KQTxx or ♠x ♥xx ♦KJxxx ♣AQxxx?

Give me east's hand, and I'll give you an opinion.

[RMB1]

billw55, on 2014-July-19, 09:29, said:

The notion that logical alternatives can be judged without seeing the hand is bizarre.

I think the OP might be interested in the "demonstrably suggested" which might be answerable without seeing the hands.

What meanings of 2NT are/are not alertable here?

[pran]

RMB1, on 2014-July-19, 09:46, said:

I think the OP might be interested in the "demonstrably suggested" which might be answerable without seeing the hands.

Yes, but not without knowing the partnership understandings.

[Coelacanth]

billw55, on 2014-July-19, 09:29, said:

The notion that logical alternatives can be judged without seeing the hand is bizarre. Passing out 3NTx might be one or not: does east hold ♠Kx ♥Ax ♦AJTx ♣KQTxx or ♠x ♥xx ♦KJxxx ♣AQxxx?

Give me east's hand, and I'll give you an opinion.

I did ask the question poorly. At this point I'm more interested in what's demonstrably suggested.

The only non-alertable 2NT call in this sequence would be natural. 2NT for the minors here IS alertable, although I suspect that fewer than 10% of ACBL players know that.

[RMB1]

Coelacanth, on 2014-July-19, 10:15, said:

The only non-alertable 2NT call in this sequence would be natural. 2NT for the minors here IS alertable, although I suspect that fewer than 10% of ACBL players know that.

So, in principle, there is UI from the failure to alert 2NT. This suggests running from 3NTX.
But if West is a member of the apparent majority who would not alert an unusual 2NT then perhaps there is no UI.

[nige1]

Coelacanth, on 2014-July-19, 07:01, said:

---

ACBL, from the NABC Matchpoints. I'm just presenting the auction without the actual hands since I'm primarily interested in a LA discussion. N opened 2D, Flannery. E bit 2NT; he believed that this was Unusual showing the minors. No alert from W. S passed and W bid 3NT after an extended (1+ minute) hesitation. After S doubled in the passout seat E ran to 4C. Prior to the opening lead W was asked if they had an agreement about 2NT; she admitted being unsure as to its meaning. The hand was played out and the TD summoned. The NS position: E has UI from W's hesitation that W may be unsure of the meaning of 2NT. This demonstrably suggests not playing 3NTx. Passing 3NT is a LA. Score should be adjusted to 3NTx making however many tricks it makes. The TD ruled that passing 3NTx was not a LA. NS disagreed; I'll post the hand later and you can make up your own mind. I'm interested in opinions on whether the hesitation demonstrably suggested running (to a player who was happy to sit for 3NT undoubled), and whether S's double has any whiff of a 'double shot' not worthy of protection.

I believe that, ACBL regulations state that UNT isn't normally alertable. An attempt to show the minors over a 2♦ opener with a 2N overcall, however, must be alertable. Hence, whatever the EW agreement, East has the UI from West's failure to alert that that partner hasn't understood his intended meaning. The hesitation (expressing doubt) reinforces this message. Both sets of UI clearly suggest that East should bid. On almost all East hands, pass would be an LA. However, I agree with Billw33 that the director should still examine East's hand. For example, the director might decide that pass isn't an LA for East, if he holds, say
♠ - ♥ - ♦ x x x x x x ♣ J x x x x x x
East's alleged use of UI seems to have occurred after South's double. If, in spite of this, the director judges SEWOG law to be relevant, somehow, then he might examine South's hand.

[RMB1]

If this only a UI case then the irregularity is 4♣, so whether the Double is wild or gambling or very silly is irrelevant because it occurred before the irregularity so Law 12C1(b) can not apply.

[Coelacanth]

nige1, on 2014-July-19, 10:32, said:

I believe that, ACBL regulations state that UNT isn't normally alertable. An attempt to show the minors over a 2♦ opener with a 2N overcall, however, must be alertable. Hence, whatever the EW agreement, East has the UI from West's failure to alert that that partner hasn't understood his intended meaning. The hesitation (expressing doubt) reinforces this message. Both sets of UI clearly suggest that East should bid. On almost all East hands, pass would be an LA. However, I agree with Billw33 that the director should still examine East's hand. For example, the director might decide that pass isn't an LA for East, if he holds, say
♠ - ♥ - ♦ x x x x x x ♣ J x x x x x x
If the director judges SEWOG law to be relevant then he might examine South's hand in view of his double.

The hand was Board 21 from the Friday evening pair game.Link maybe

East's hand is x, KJxx, J98x, KQxx. Unusual is perhaps an apt description of his 2NT call. NS felt that West, as an unpassed hand, could well have something like AKx, xx, KTx, Axxxx where 3NT has solid chances. I would certainly raise a natural 2NT to (at least) 3NT with that hand.

There's also the question of damage. 4C failed by two tricks, so 3NTx would need to be down two for damage to have resulted. Not clear whether that is likely or at all probable.

[blackshoe]

Coelacanth, on 2014-July-19, 10:15, said:

I did ask the question poorly. At this point I'm more interested in what's demonstrably suggested.

The only non-alertable 2NT call in this sequence would be natural. 2NT for the minors here IS alertable, although I suspect that fewer than 10% of ACBL players know that.

Are East and West among the 10% or among the 90%? If they're among the 90%, then while the failure to alert is MI, it is not unexpected and therefore does not convey UI to East. I grant you the long tank may convey UI. It may not be that West is unsure what 2NT means, it may just mean that West has a problem choosing his call given that he knows that East has an unusual NT. The fact that West said she was unsure during the clarification period does not affect the considerations regarding LAs or what could (not is) demonstrably be suggested during the auction.

[ggwhiz]

I don't think an alert or lack of one has any bearing when there is clearly UI from the long pause. Since west is an unpassed hand I can't imagine any holding where passing 3ntx is NOT a logical alternative.

[Coelacanth]

ggwhiz, on 2014-July-20, 09:10, said:

I don't think an alert or lack of one has any bearing when there is clearly UI from the long pause. Since west is an unpassed hand I can't imagine any holding where passing 3ntx is NOT a logical alternative.

My thoughts are pretty much in line with this.

NS chose not to appeal. This was a qualifying session. The table result (4C -2) was an average plus while 3NTx going 2 or 3 off would be a near top. Since the NS pair qualified, the only thing at stake was carryover.

[nige1]

Coelacanth, on 2014-July-19, 10:15, said:

The only non-alertable 2NT call in this sequence would be natural. 2NT for the minors here IS alertable, although I suspect that fewer than 10% of ACBL players know that.

blackshoe, on 2014-July-19, 12:40, said:

Are East and West among the 10% or among the 90%? If they're among the 90%, then while the failure to alert is MI, it is not unexpected and therefore does not convey UI to East.

Fascinating point. If a partnership claim ignorance of alert-obligations are they immune to UI implications? I hope not.

In this case, the hesitation provides significant additional UI. All the UI suggests bidding rather than passing. IMO, pass is an LA and NS were damaged. If, however, the director judges they weren't, he should still consider a PP against EW to avoid reinforcing their behaviour. (see Cascade's comments in the Changing rules and regulations PP thread).

[Cyberyeti]

ggwhiz, on 2014-July-20, 09:10, said:

I don't think an alert or lack of one has any bearing when there is clearly UI from the long pause. Since west is an unpassed hand I can't imagine any holding where passing 3ntx is NOT a logical alternative.

The sample hand the OP gave for partner AKx, xx, KTx, Axxxx is interesting, imagine partner holds that, is thinking "what range is 2N, 15-17 or bigger, should I be bidding 3N/4N/6N", now if this was the case, I'm sure the opps would argue that removing was a LA if he passed.

That partner didn't know what 2N was is not necessarily an indication to pull.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-July-20, 13:34, said:

Fascinating point. If a partnership claim ignorance of alert-obligations are they immune to UI implications? I hope not.

In this case, the hesitation provides significant additional UI. All the UI suggests bidding rather than passing. IMO, pass is an LA and NS were damaged. If, however, the director judges they weren't, he should still consider a PP against EW to avoid reinforcing their behaviour. (see Cascade's comments in the Changing rules and regulations PP thread).

Immune? No, of course not.

The second sentence of your second paragraph is insufficient. Can you demonstrate how the UI suggests bidding on?

[barmar]

nige1, on 2014-July-20, 13:34, said:

Fascinating point. If a partnership claim ignorance of alert-obligations are they immune to UI implications? I hope not.

Maybe. The Law says that UI comes from an unexpected alert or failure to alert. If you don't think your bid is alertable, and partner doesn't alert it, the failure to alert is not unexpected. Does it matter why you didn't expect the alert? The non-expectation could be because the bid is non-alertable, or it could be because it's alertable but the partnership is confused about alert regulations.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-20, 19:59, said:

Immune? No, of course not. The second sentence of your second paragraph is insufficient. Can you demonstrate how the UI suggests bidding on?

It's a matter of judgement and the director might need a poll to establsih whether pass is an LA. IMO, hesitation usually suggests that a player is considering another action; if East is also worried that West believes his 2N bid to be natural, then that is another reason to bid 4m. If Blackshoe and Barmar are right that ignorance of alert-rules exonerate a partnership of relevant UI obligations, then the director might ask West why he failed to alert and East whether he noticed. A possible problem with that approach is that it further rewards truth-economists.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2014-July-20, 13:34, said:

Fascinating point. If a partnership claim ignorance of alert-obligations are they immune to UI implications?

Claiming ignorance isn't sufficient. For it to be relevant, they would actually have to be ignorant. For practical purposes, they would also have to convince the Director of their ignorance.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2014-July-21, 08:04, said:

If Blackshoe and Barmar are right that ignorance of alert-rules exonerate a partnership of relevant UI obligations…

I don't think either Barry or I said that.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-July-19, 12:40, said:

Are East and West among the 10% or among the 90%? If they're among the 90%, then while the failure to alert is MI, it is not unexpected and therefore does not convey UI to East.

nige1, on 2014-July-21, 08:04, said:

If Blackshoe and Barmar are right that ignorance of alert-rules exonerate a partnership of relevant UI obligations, then the director might ask West why he failed to alert and East whether he noticed. A possible problem with that approach is that it further rewards truth-economists.

blackshoe, on 2014-July-21, 14:26, said:

I don't think either Barry or I said that.

Sorry. I didn't intend to misrepresent your views. That's why I quoted them verbatim, as above.