[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-March-03, 20:22, said:

More than two: any meaning that shows two suits does not require an alert.

I'm not sure that's true.

Artificial cue bids are in general not alertable, unless they have a "highly unusual and unexpected" meaning. I don't think I'd be too far off if I considered anything other than Michaels for a cue bid of an opening 1-bid to be highly unusual and unexpected. IMHO, any other meaning is less expected than the Spanish Inquisition.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-March-04, 11:46, said:

I'm not sure that's true.

Artificial cue bids are in general not alertable, unless they have a "highly unusual and unexpected" meaning. I don't think I'd be too far off if I considered anything other than Michaels for a cue bid of an opening 1-bid to be highly unusual and unexpected. IMHO, any other meaning is less expected than the Spanish Inquisition.

The "highly unusual" etc. business is a general exception to any bid that normally does not require an alert.

From the Alert Procedure:

Quote

Most cuebids are not Alertable. However, any cuebid which conveys a very unusual or unexpected meaning still requires an Alert.
Example: 1♠-2♥-P-2♠
If the 2♠ bid is a heart raise with values or some constructive hand, no Alert is required.
If the 2♠ bid is a transfer to clubs, an Alert is required.
Example: 1♦-2♦
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.

Apparently a two-suited cue bid that includes the suit bid by the opponents is "highly unusual" enough to require an alert. Also apparently any two suiter that does not include the suit bid by the opponents is not unusual enough to meet that criterion. So your "anything other than Michaels is highly unusual" doesn't fly. There is also

Quote

"Highly unusual and unexpected" should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage.

Perhaps the C&C Committee should revisit this in view of the "stranglehold" that Michaels cue bids have achieved over the past half century or so, but they have not done so yet.

[barmar]

I've never understood that "historical usage" vs. "local geographic usage" distinction. Except in highly insular clubs, there's not much difference.

[mycroft]

Interesting. In the OP auction, there is only one Alertable meaning. But remember that 1m-2NT is not Alertable if it shows either hearts and the other minor, nor is it if it shows both minors.

So, now I'm even *more* willing to give Mr. 4000 MPs no recourse. The explanation he was given *was* Alertable (as well as being unusual (as opposed to Unusual) to the point of astonishment); and he should know (or at least suspect) that. So he can either keep N/S in the dark and eat it is it turns out that his side is the one that got tripped, or he can clarify (potentially with the TD there), and potentially let the opponents off the trap - but at least he'll know what his partner's call means (and, of course, he's entitled to *both* auctions).

I, with my somewhat less than 4000 MPs, have been told (despite the fact that it looks like I'm just aiding my partner) that if the auction goes 1♥-p-3♦-p; p to me, and there has been no Alert, that since I know that either there has been a pass of a forcing bid or a failure to Alert, if I don't ask, *we* don't have protection if partner would have done something over a weak 3♦ call. This case seems even clearer.

I'm reasonably sure that this is a doubleshot attempt by Mr. Expert, and the ACBL frowns on this kind of doubleshot (especially by Experts vs non-Experts). But of course it doesn't matter what I believe the motivations are, the regulations tell me what to do.

[Vampyr]

I do not think that you should ever be denied recourse because you have been given an explanation and believed it.

[mycroft]

The problem is that last half. If it was possible to believe it without forgetting everything you ever learned about bridge, fine. But in this case, if you're so gullible that you believed this explanation in this environment, well, you clearly have your entry fee this week, but I'd better get that drink you owe me tonight, because you might not have it next week...

So the regulations say something about your "believe it" responsibility (at least in the ACBL, they do. In the EBU, it's less clear). Effectively, again, "you are not allowed to 'forget' how to play bridge and expect the Director to 'save you'." We've seen that game too many times.

Would I be okay if it were the other way? Sure (well, I'd be okay. Not sure if I'd have any opponents, of course). But it isn't.

[barmar]

Both ACBL and EBU say something about experienced players "protecting themselves". But it's not clear how far you have to go. I think it includes asking about an unalerted bid, because you think the opponent either forgot or didn't realize it was alertable. But challenging or ignoring a clearly-given explanation may be more than they require.

[mycroft]

Okay. Go ahead and ask as many people as you want what (1♥)-2NT means in their partnership. Call me back when you find one that plays it as spades and a minor (no points if they play a weird Ghestem variant where it shows spades and a *specific* minor); collect if they don't know that that agreement is Alertable. Note that I have run into one pair who played it that way. In 25ish years of playing.

Any expert who decided "oh, these C players must play this backwards from EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE ACBL" rather than "South is confused; she's got the meanings for Michaels and Unusual 2NT backwards." - I want to know how much he's paying the pro that won the other 3400 Masterpoints for him, because clearly *he* can't figure out which one of the 99% vs 1% lines to take on all the other hands either.

Similarly, if I believed the expert when he told me that, as opposed to "I know they're having a bidding misunderstanding, let's not disabuse them of it, and collect our good score. Oops, it was us that got trapped by it. Director, <smarm>please</smarm>!" - I too would be up for most gullible of the year award.

It's not that you have to challenge every clearly-given explanation to protect yourself. If it's reasonable that the explanation is correct, these people are just weird, fine. It's the ones that are mindbogglingly obviously WRONG, or that almost certainly are brainos, that you have to protect yourself against. At least enough to check the card.

But, of course, asking to check the card might wake up South to the fact that he got the explanation wrong, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

[barmar]

I'm sure West was very suspicious of the explanation, just as East was. But what are they supposed to do about it? East chose to ignore it, West gave them the benefit of the doubt. Can you really fault either of them?

Face it, MI makes things very difficult, I don't think there's an easy solution. But is it really appropriate to penalize the NOS?

[mycroft]

Check the card? Ask if that wasn't a 2♥ call? Anything you would do if I was telling you this story in the bar and I gave you that explanation for the call over drinks?

And we're not penalizing the NOS. We're just saying that they need to do the minimum necessary to show competence; or at least the minimum required to make the preponderance of the evidence that they are not playing "okay, they're having a mixup; let's keep 'em in the dark and get our top, knowing that if they manage to luck out, we'll call the TD and try to win that way." - if they want to keep their options for rectification open. The Laws allow for that in several cases - Law 11A, Law 12C1b, Law 50 preamble, the change in onus on claims if agreement is withdrawn, Law 65D - and it is fair for regulations to do the same thing. If you do something that is either an attempt at a doubleshot or otherwise hoodwink the opponents and take advantage of their unfamiliarity with the Laws and Regulations, you lose your right to rectification. That doesn't mean the OS doesn't get what they should get, it just means that, in the words I keep hearing from players, "we're not going to let you win though the director what you couldn't win at the table."

I don't know where my limit of "protect yourself" lies for a 4000 MP player. But I do know it's somewhere to the left of "Bull****." Which would be my response if somebody of the calibre of our 4000 MP players (heck, since a D18 masterpoint is worth about 2 D16 MPs or about 3.5 D9 ones, the calibre of our 2000 MP players) tried that line on me on this hand. Well, at least it would be if they were griping to me in the bar about the horrible ruling they got and tried the "they told me that their unusual 2NT call was Michaels, and why wouldn't I believe them?" sobstory; when I'm working (bridge; I'm a software integrator by trade; profanity is the language all computer programmers are fluent in), I try to limit the number of cursewords I use to somewhere around zero. Because I'm male and Canadian, my translation is "Seriously?" rather than, as the old joke goes, "That's interesting..."

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-March-08, 12:43, said:

I'm sure West was very suspicious of the explanation, just as East was. But what are they supposed to do about it? East chose to ignore it, West gave them the benefit of the doubt. Can you really fault either of them?

Face it, MI makes things very difficult, I don't think there's an easy solution. But is it really appropriate to penalize the NOS?

Wish I could upvote...