[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-September-11, 03:00, said:

I have no problem with a player expecting an alertable bid from partner automatically alerting it without noticing that the bid is insufficient.

Neither do I, but that wasn't my question. Having expected a sufficient heart bid, and knowing that it requires an alert, and at the same time recognizing that the actual heart bid was insufficient, what does the law require? If you're going to call attention to the irregularity (perhaps by calling the director) are you obligated to alert first, or not? If you do alert, how should you explain if asked? I would think "If it were sufficient, it would be a transfer" - and in that case one should alert even if transfers are normally announced. Now that I think about it some more, I think one is obligated to alert first. That's just my current opinion, though.

[rwbarton]

Hmm. The IBer's LHO can accept the IB, right? Let's say they pass; what are you going to do now? If you are going to accept the transfer by bidding 2♥, then maybe you really should alert the insufficient bid.

But if it's illegal to have an agreement about an IB, then when an opponent accepts an IB, they put you in the untenable position of having to bid in an auction where you are not allowed to have any agreements... can they really do this?

[pran]

pran, on 2012-September-11, 03:00, said:

I have no problem with a player expecting an alertable bid from partner automatically alerting it without noticing that the bid is insufficient.

blackshoe, on 2012-September-11, 09:42, said:

Neither do I, but that wasn't my question. Having expected a sufficient heart bid, and knowing that it requires an alert, and at the same time recognizing that the actual heart bid was insufficient, what does the law require? If you're going to call attention to the irregularity (perhaps by calling the director) are you obligated to alert first, or not? If you do alert, how should you explain if asked? I would think "If it were sufficient, it would be a transfer" - and in that case one should alert even if transfers are normally announced. Now that I think about it some more, I think one is obligated to alert first. That's just my current opinion, though.

Law 9A4 said:

There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side [...]

So a player who notices that his partner's bid is insufficient is under no obligation to draw attention to this fact.
But if he does then

Law 9B said:

1. (a) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.
[...]
2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

so the player must not now (for instance) alert the bid until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification. Instead any relevant alert must be made after the Director has completed his explanation of matters unless the insufficient bid is already explained (under the Director's control or guidance).

[bluejak]

rwbarton, on 2012-September-11, 11:49, said:

Hmm. The IBer's LHO can accept the IB, right? Let's say they pass; what are you going to do now? If you are going to accept the transfer by bidding 2♥, then maybe you really should alert the insufficient bid.

But if it's illegal to have an agreement about an IB, then when an opponent accepts an IB, they put you in the untenable position of having to bid in an auction where you are not allowed to have any agreements... can they really do this?

But is it illegal to have an agreement about an IB?

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-September-11, 16:03, said:

So a player who notices that his partner's bid is insufficient is under no obligation to draw attention to this fact.
But if he does then

so the player must not now (for instance) alert the bid until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification. Instead any relevant alert must be made after the Director has completed his explanation of matters unless the insufficient bid is already explained (under the Director's control or guidance).

you still haven't answered my question.

[rwbarton]

bluejak, on 2012-September-11, 17:27, said:

But is it illegal to have an agreement about an IB?

I thought it was illegal in the ACBL, though I'm not sure where I got that idea or where I should look to check. I don't know whether it is illegal in other places.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-11, 18:59, said:

you still haven't answered my question.

I have stated my opinion on correct procedure in the situations where a correct procedure exists.

However I cannot find any "correct procedure" defined for the specific case where a player notices that his partner's bid is insufficient and decides to keep quiet about it as permitted in Law 9A4.

This should not cause any problem for instance in Norway because (as far as I know) nobody can claim damage from an alert of a call that need not be alerted. The alert here simply "alerts" opponents that they may have a reason to ask about the call.

[blackshoe]

Okay, Sven, you don't want to answer the question. Fair enough. I give up.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-12, 09:34, said:

Okay, Sven, you don't want to answer the question. Fair enough. I give up.

Does Sven have an obligation to answer questions posed here?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-11, 18:59, said:

you still haven't answered my question.

It seemed to me that he did. You asked "if he's going to draw attention to the IB, should he alert/announce first?". Sven said no, because once attention is drawn you must call the TD, and must not take any action until the TD explains the situation. What's missing from that answer?

If there's a detail that's not clear, say so -- don't just passive-aggressively repeat the question.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-12, 09:34, said:

Okay, Sven, you don't want to answer the question. Fair enough. I give up.

If there is any question to me that I haven't answered now I must have overlooked or completely misunderstood it.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2012-September-12, 09:43, said:

Does Sven have an obligation to answer questions posed here?

No one has an obligation to post anything here.

If a player has a choice between alerting before calling the director in an IB situation, and not alerting before calling the director, which should he do and why?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-12, 16:53, said:

If a player has a choice between alerting before calling the director in an IB situation, and not alerting before calling the director, which should he do and why?

It doesn't seem like the Laws specify this, so he can do them in whichever order he wishes.

It's unlikely that he'll gain either way, since the most likely result when the TD is called is that the IB will not be accepted and partner will have to make it sufficient.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-12, 16:53, said:

No one has an obligation to post anything here.

If a player has a choice between alerting before calling the director in an IB situation, and not alerting before calling the director, which should he do and why?

Either.

Personally I would probably not alert if (at the time) I already have noticed the irregularity, decided to draw attention to it, and therefore call the Director. But that would be my own choice and nobody's business.

[bluejak]

rwbarton, on 2012-September-11, 21:09, said:

I thought it was illegal in the ACBL, though I'm not sure where I got that idea or where I should look to check. I don't know whether it is illegal in other places.

You are probably right about the ACBL. But the OP said nothing about the ACBL, and it is not a general rule.

[McBruce]

Another approach to this:

Suppose you play Landy-only against a strong 1NT opener, but DONT against a weak 1NT opener. LHO opens 1NT, RHO fails to announce the range (if required) and partner, who is more familiar than you are with these opponents and their system, bids 2♥. Should you alert this because it may show both majors, or should you not alert it because it may be natural (and it's not your fault you don't know if playing somewhere where the 1NT range is announceable)?

I think you should alert, because partner's call MAY be alertable. If they ask, you can give them the whole story. If you don't alert and RHO bids 2♠, I guess the ethical thing to do would be to ask the range and own up if partner has shown both majors. RHO will be allowed to withdraw the 2♠ call but you might get penalized if the TD decides you have gained an advantage from the withdrawn call somehow.

Second example: partner makes a call and you cannot remember the specifics of your agreement about it, but you are fairly sure that it is conventional. Damage is less likely if you alert than if you do not.

So if the principle is 'alert anything that is or MAY be alertable,' I see no problem with alerting partner's insufficient bid, if you think any of the possible intended meanings of the insufficient bid is alertable. Called to a table where this happened, I would remind the next player that the alert may simply mean the alerter believes that the intent of the illegal bid may be conventional in some way, then rule on the insufficient bid.

[aguahombre]

McBruce, on 2012-September-14, 05:23, said:

Another approach to this:

Suppose you play Landy-only against a strong 1NT opener, but DONT against a weak 1NT opener. LHO opens 1NT, RHO fails to announce the range (if required) and partner, who is more familiar than you are with these opponents and their system, bids 2♥. Should you alert this because it may show both majors, or should you not alert it because it may be natural (and it's not your fault you don't know if playing somewhere where the 1NT range is announceable)?

Let's say the announcement of range is required where we are playing, just for this discussion. My question is about your partner's dilemma. He knows what you might not know about their NT. The opps have already committed the irregularity of failing to announce. Does partner have the right to insist on compliance? Is he doing so for the benefit of partner, or is he doing it for everyone's benefit ---to avoid the confusion you point out in your post?

The fact that nobody will really know partner's intention is not really germain; she will know and does not want to be in violation of the rules.

[blackshoe]

If partner knows, or should know, because of familiarity with opponents or from looking at their card, the range of their NT, she should not ask, because it could be construed as asking for your benefit. If you have doubt about whether partner's 2♥ requires an alert, the alert regulation, in the ACBL at least, tells you to alert. If they ask, you say "it depends on your NT range", and call the director, because now attention has been called to an irregularity, and all four players are responsible to call the TD.

[aguahombre]

O.k., that was the question. The answer seems to be that if I have knowledge about them, I lose my right to call attention to the irregularity because doing so would result in my committing an irregularity. Awkward, and prone to confusion ---but probably best.

[barmar]

Asking them their NT range could be construed as asking solely for partner's benefit, so could be prohibited. But calling attention to the fact that they failed to announce their range, and calling the TD about it (since it's an infraction), is not asking a question.

This would be a more difficult problem if the alert regulation were that you must announce some NT ranges, but not others (the situation that many ACBL players either wish for, and some actually think is true). Then you don't even know if there's been an infraction without knowing their range (which may be why ACBL hasn't given in on this).