[helene_t]

W------N------E---S
2♣*--pass-2♦--x
2nt----3♠----x---a.p.

Table result: 3♠X-(some telephone number) by North.

E/W play Precision. The 2♣ opening was anounced as "intermediate" but the 2♦ relay was not alerted.

The double by S would (according to NS agreements) show diamonds if 2♦ was artificial but show majors if 2♦ was natural.

South had played against this pair before and knew that 2♦ was artificial. She was aware that her double might be taken by north as showing majors but she didn't ask because she thought that she was not allowed to ask for partner's benefit. She considered if she should take North's 3♠ as fit showing for diamonds (a natural 3♠ bid hardly makes sense here) but North's would get another turn and anyway, 4♦x would have been just as bad as 3♠x.

What do you think? Is it acceptable to ask for partner's benefit when you know that opps forgot to alert?

[aguahombre]

helene_t, on 2015-May-18, 16:14, said:

What do you think? Is it acceptable to ask for partner's benefit when you know that opps forgot to alert?

I do not label this case as "asking for partner's benefit". We both need to know what we are playing, and what we are playing is based upon what 2D means. It is protecting our interests, and I don't care how sure partner is about the last time he encountered this pair and what 2D meant then --- their failure to alert should not gain because it results in our confusion; we ask to eliminate the confusion, that is not solely for partner's benefit.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-May-18, 16:41, said:

I do not label this case as "asking for partner's benefit". We both need to know what we are playing, and what we are playing is based upon what 2D means. It is protecting our interests, and I don't care how sure partner is about the last time he encountered this pair and what 3D meant then --- their failure to alert should not gain because it results in our confusion; we ask to eliminate the confusion, that is not solely for partner's benefit.

Possibly it depends on whether South knew exactly what 2♦ meant or just that it was artificial. But I don't know. If he would double virtually any artificial 2♦, is it important to him now exactly what it mean? Of course in a case like this South might want to make sure they hadn't changed their methods and were playing 2♦ natural.

EDIT: but as per my post below, this is rather disingenuous.

You know, I have always felt a bit unhappy with this law, because an inexperienced partner might not know to ask. Oh well.

[blackshoe]

If you know that 2♦ requires an alert, you know that there has been an irregularity. Law 9A1 says "Unless prohibited by law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call." AFAIK no law prohibits calling attention to this irregularity, so IMO you should do so. Ideally, before you double. "I believe there has been an irregularity here. Director, please!" ought to do it. When the director suggests that you have violated Law 20G1, tell him you're not asking for partner's benefit, you're asking, as agua suggests, for the partnership's benefit.

The alternative is to say nothing, call the director at the end of the hand, and ask for an adjustment on the basis of MI. At which point the director will say "you knew what was going on, you should have protected yourself".

Maybe I'm getting too cynical.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-18, 18:07, said:

The alternative is to say nothing, call the director at the end of the hand, and ask for an adjustment on the basis of MI. At which point the director will say "you knew what was going on, you should have protected yourself".

Maybe I'm getting too cynical.

I think you are. Or, at least, I hope no director would ever rule in such fashion.

[dburn]

Technically, South should neither ask nor double. If it turns out that 2♦ was artificial, the score will be adjusted if the opponents were damaged by presuming it was natural.

As a practical matter at a level of play below the most serious, South might ask then double. In the vast majority of cases this will enable normal play of the board without resort to the local constabulary (whose competence might not extend to providing the correct level of redress if South adopts the technical approach).

[blackshoe]

dburn, on 2015-May-18, 18:23, said:

Technically, South should neither ask nor double. If it turns out that 2♦ was artificial, the score will be adjusted if the opponents were damaged by presuming it was natural.

As a practical matter at a level of play below the most serious, South might ask then double. In the vast majority of cases this will enable normal play of the board without resort to the local constabulary (whose competence might not extend to providing the correct level of redress if South adopts the technical approach).

I infer that you're saying South should not ask, because it would be for partner's benefit, and should treat 2♦ as natural because there was no alert, even though South knows that 2♦ is not natural. This seems technically correct, as you say. South might well then ask and double, and the board might be played normally. But if there's a Secretary Bird on the other side, he might invoke Law 20G1, and now you've not avoided the ruling crapshoot. So I guess you have to judge whether one or both opponents is a SB.

Can you do all that thinking in tempo over 2♦? Well, I'm pretty sure dburn can, but...

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-18, 18:35, said:

even though South knows that 2♦ is not natural.

Does he know, though? Maybe 2♦ was artificial yesterday. Maybe South taught the opponents this system and has written a famous book on it. But are they absolutely, to South's knowledge, playing it? Maybe it is on the CC, which South has looked at... but are the CCs up to date?

I think that South can get out of this one, though I am not sure that the above is entirely honest.

[helene_t]

But even if east is a secretary bird ... what can the director do for him if south had asked? Without wests failure to alert, n would have gotten the information anyway.

[campboy]

dburn, on 2015-May-18, 18:23, said:

Technically, South should neither ask nor double. If it turns out that 2♦ was artificial, the score will be adjusted if the opponents were damaged by presuming it was natural.

I don't think this is consistent. If you shouldn't double without asking then asking is for your benefit (it allows you to double) so you are entitled to ask.

[gnasher]

helene_t, on 2015-May-18, 16:14, said:

South ... knew that 2♦ was artificial.

I have never been in this position, and I never will be. Even if I started the board being absolutely certain of the meaning of 2♦, the non-alert would introduce at least a tiny amount of uncertainty.

[dburn]

campboy, on 2015-May-19, 01:32, said:

I don't think this is consistent. If you shouldn't double without asking then asking is for your benefit (it allows you to double) so you are entitled to ask.

I didn't say you shouldn't double without asking - I said you shouldn't double.

Followers of Jaako Hintikka will claim that if I said you shouldn't double at all, then I implied you shouldn't double without asking. This kind of thinking is useful in the limited sense of proving that you should not do impossible things, but when it turned out to be possible after all to punch followers of Jaako Hintikka in the snoot, they rapidly adopted a more pragmatic approach.

Not that I have any desire whatsoever to punch campboy in the snoot, despite his unfounded accusation of inconsistency. My own view coincides in large part with gnasher's - even if I'm pretty sure 2♦ is artificial, I would be less sure if they didn't alert it. So, I wouldn't ask about it and I wouldn't double it, because I would rely on the rules to protect our side if I did neither, whereas the rules might or might not protect our side if I asked and was unexpectedly told "natural".

[campboy]

dburn, on 2015-May-19, 19:45, said:

I didn't say you shouldn't double without asking - I said you shouldn't double.

Followers of Jaako Hintikka will claim that if I said you shouldn't double at all, then I implied you shouldn't double without asking. This kind of thinking is useful in the limited sense of proving that you should not do impossible things, but when it turned out to be possible after all to punch followers of Jaako Hintikka in the snoot, they rapidly adopted a more pragmatic approach.

Not that I have any desire whatsoever to punch campboy in the snoot, despite his unfounded accusation of inconsistency. My own view coincides in large part with gnasher's - even if I'm pretty sure 2♦ is artificial, I would be less sure if they didn't alert it. So, I wouldn't ask about it and I wouldn't double it, because I would rely on the rules to protect our side if I did neither, whereas the rules might or might not protect our side if I asked and was unexpectedly told "natural".

Sorry, I thought you meant South wasn't allowed to ask. If you merely meant that asking is inadvisable then certainly there is no inconsistency.

[WellSpyder]

dburn, on 2015-May-19, 19:45, said:

I wouldn't ask about it and I wouldn't double it, because I would rely on the rules to protect our side if I did neither, whereas the rules might or might not protect our side if I asked and was unexpectedly told "natural".

At the end of the day, though, it is not up to the rules to protect you. It is up to the TD. And if the TD suspects that you had a pretty good idea that the bid wasn't natural and thinks you may be trying to have your cake and eat it by asking for an adjustment, then you may find you are unprotected after all - however valid your argument might be that the opponents left you no option but to follow the course you did unless you were prepared to risk damaging your own side's interests as a result of their infraction....

[aguahombre]

dburn, on 2015-May-19, 19:45, said:

.... unfounded accusation of inconsistency. My own view coincides in large part with gnasher's - even if I'm pretty sure 2♦ is artificial, I would be less sure if they didn't alert it. So, I wouldn't ask about it and I wouldn't double it, because I would rely on the rules to protect our side if I did neither, whereas the rules might or might not protect our side if I asked and was unexpectedly told "natural".

Interesting. We have a different definition of inconsistency. Gnasher's view seems to be that since the failure to alert makes him unsure, he would be asking without fear that it is "solely for partner's benefit". Your view seems to be that since you are unsure, you should not ask, allow their possible infraction to damage you by not using a tool available --- and hope the TD gives you your concept of equity.

[steve2005]

Personally I'd ask just in case, you cant count on director to protect you so many things could happen where it ends up with no redress.

But take a slightly different situation. Say p opens a 1N and opponent doubles with no alert. If this is a penalty type double you play a system which is primarily runout. If the double is artificial you play regular system, plus redouble says your interested in a penalty.

Here you have to ask. Even if they have a cc, maybe your playing weak NT and often people only have cc filled for strong and have not written down what they do over weak. You have to be absolutely sure here as almost all your bids will have completely different meaning depending on the answer.

[barmar]

steve2005, on 2015-May-20, 11:54, said:

Personally I'd ask just in case, you cant count on director to protect you so many things could happen where it ends up with no redress.

But take a slightly different situation. Say p opens a 1N and opponent doubles with no alert. If this is a penalty type double you play a system which is primarily runout. If the double is artificial you play regular system, plus redouble says your interested in a penalty.

Here you have to ask. Even if they have a cc, maybe your playing weak NT and often people only have cc filled for strong and have not written down what they do over weak. You have to be absolutely sure here as almost all your bids will have completely different meaning depending on the answer.

The alternate logic is that you're allowed to believe what you read on the CC. If it doesn't say that they play different defenses over strong and weak, you're entitled to assume they play whatever is written over any strength. If it turns out they do have different defenses, but didn't fill in the CC properly (if I'm in a rush to fill out the CC I'll just write the name of the convention in each column, rather than fill in the meaning of each bid), you've received MI and the TD can adjust if you were damaged as a result.

Some RAs have some form of the "experienced players should protect themselves by asking if they suspect MI" rule. This is where it gets hazy, because it's a judgement call whether this applies in any particular situation.

[campboy]

steve2005, on 2015-May-20, 11:54, said:

Here you have to ask. Even if they have a cc, maybe your playing weak NT and often people only have cc filled for strong and have not written down what they do over weak. You have to be absolutely sure here as almost all your bids will have completely different meaning depending on the answer.

I disagree. In the original case I might well ask, since I am pretty sure there has been a failure to alert, and asking is unlikely to damage my side. It will damage us if I get the answer "natural" (but I "know" it isn't natural so that's highly unlikely) or if there has been an actual misunderstanding, rather than a forget-to-alert (but surely everyone knows their methods here).

In the 1NT (x) case, though, I have no reason to think there was a failure to alert, and even if there was I risk waking opponents up to a misunderstanding. So I would not ask, would continue the auction on the assumption it was penalty, and would expect to receive redress if it wasn't.

[Vampyr]

campboy, on 2015-May-20, 12:35, said:

I disagree. In the original case I might well ask, since I am pretty sure there has been a failure to alert, and asking is unlikely to damage my side. It will damage us if I get the answer "natural" (but I "know" it isn't natural so that's highly unlikely) or if there has been an actual misunderstanding, rather than a forget-to-alert (but surely everyone knows their methods here).

In the 1NT (x) case, though, I have no reason to think there was a failure to alert, and even if there was I risk waking opponents up to a misunderstanding. So I would not ask, would continue the auction on the assumption it was penalty, and would expect to receive redress if it wasn't.

Here in the EBU, we have the "right" to assume the unalerted meaning of any call that is not alerted. Other jurisdictions may handle this differently (for instance, in the example you gave, there might be jurisdictions where virtually no doubles are alerted. So you can assume nothing and must ask every time).