[BudH]

Assume a player makes a conventional diamond bid (let's say it shows the majors, for example, and this time he holds 5=5=3=0 shape) and his partner does not alert and passes. The non-offender in the balance not knowing this re-opens the auction with a double and the bidder now bids hearts.

Pass - 1NT (15-17) - Pass - Pass
2♦ - Pass - Pass - Double
2♥

This looks like egregious use of UI by the 2♦ bidder. What if the player told you as Director he knew partner could have alerted, properly explained when asked, and then passed with long diamonds and a weak hand. But that a combination of opponents holding a maximum of four diamonds between them if that was really happening (possible but very likely) they might have looked for a major suit fit plus that this particular partner has occasionally forgotten conventions is AI to allow him to bid 2♥ despite the UI?

In other words, he decided there was a clearly a better chance partner forgot the convention than partner holding a weak hand with long diamonds.

Acceptable to avoid a procedural penalty?

[mikeh]

There are readers here who can cite the relevant Law, but imo there should be an adjustment to 2D doubled.

The 2D bidder is not permitted to know that his partner failed to alert. The alert procedure is not intended to protect the pair making the alertable call….it is to protect tge opposing pair.

Had partner alerted and then passed, the bidder would be delighted! Indeed, if he held a very good hand, his only regret should be not being able to raise!

I think it clear that there has to be a score adjustment, unless 2H scores worse than 2D x’d (including if the opps double 2H).

Whether there’s a procedural penalty added on is a different topic.in my experience club TD’s are relict to impose procedural penalties. But at a minimum, the 2D (then 2H) bidder should be taken aside and have the situation explained….and should this happen again, now procedural penalties are, imo, in order.

I think a far more interesting issue arises should the 2D bidder have redoubled or bid 3D over the double. Is his partner allowed to ‘wake up’?

[mycroft]

5=5=0=3 might be interesting. 5=5=3=0, no.

But while yes, partnership experience can limit the LAs, "partner forgets sometimes" just makes it easier to read the failure to Alert as "partner forgot system again" rather than "partner forgot to Alert Alertable bids".

What's this "only 4 diamonds", though? Do they guarantee 5-5 for their two-suited overcall? If yes, then 1=1=5=6 is very possible. If no, then even (21)=5=5 ("We're not doubled yet, partner").

This is someone trying to come up with reasons for doing what they really wanted to do, which is use the UI to get out of trouble. I'm sure that's not what they're thinking they're doing, but it is.

There's even a name for it: "unauthorized panic". "when partner tells you via an unexpected Alert, failure to Alert, or explanation that they didn't understand your bid, bid your real suit at the first opportunity to wake them up." Especially popular, at least in this neighbourhood, with unAlerted Drury. It happens All The Time, and while not legal, isn't opprobious unless there is intent.

I would be asking in my polling if 3♦ was in the cards, never mind sitting for the known fit.

As far as the PP is concerned, I'm only awarding one if the score adjustment doesn't seem to trigger realization. I don't punish for use of UI, even gratuitous use of UI, unless they're one of the "try it. if it works, you win. if they call the director, you don't lose" people (on either side of that statement, talking or being talked about) or unless they otherwise make clear to me that these funny rules things aren't going to stop them from avoiding "stupid disasters" their partners tell them they're walking into. Or they make a habit out of this. Or they're experienced enough to Know Better and aren't willing to take a verbal warning.

But the answer to the question in the title, to a certain extent, is "yes". "he won't have that suit (say, ♥KTxxx); he passed in first seat. At these colours, that's a Multi 2♦ opening for him. I know nobody else would do that, but he opened board 5." Now, the UI still says he wants to compete, but the hands look different...

[mycroft]

Spoiler

I see the post on the Other Site, which I assume is the same hand.

It's very interesting - with the correct information, I'm not sure I'm sitting for a "balance of points" double with ♦AQ9 under the "long diamonds". I mean, it's very likely in the case where "I know their agreement is majors, but I also know that South forgot", but they may not be entitled to all of that information.

12C1b: "had the infraction not occurred". There were two infractions: failure to Alert and use of the UI from the failure to Alert. Are they entitled to both the system and that South didn't Alert (and they get to guess what that means)?

Having said that, a reasonable auction IMO, had South Alerted the 2♦ call and passed, is

---

. That could certainly be part of a weighted result...