[blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert

[Jerry Fusselman]

David Grabiner wrote:
> The ACBL Alert chart has the following condition: "Players who, by
> experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to
> Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves."
>
> I have never seen an adjustment for MI denied because of this; what should
> the standard be?
>
> For example, here are some common auctions on which a call is Alertable (or
> Announceable).  Suppose East makes the call with the indicated meaning, West
> fails to Alert or Announce, neither North nor South asks, and N-S claim
> damage.  On which of these auctions are N-S entitled to an adjusted score?
>
> S   W   N   E
>        1C! X   (1C=Precision, X=majors)
>
>        1NT 2C  (one-suited hand, any suit)
>
>            1C
> P   1S  2H  X   (support double)
>
> 1C  P   1S  1NT (unusual sandwich NT by an unpassed hand)
>
>    1NT X   2D  (X=penalty, 2D=transfer)
>
> 1S  1NT P   2D  (transfer)
>
>    1D  P   1S
> P   2C  P   2H  (fourth suit forcing)
>
>            2H
> P   2NT P   3D  (Ogust, good suit, weak hand)
>
>    1NT P   2C
> P   2D  P   3H  (Smolen, four hearts and five spades)
>
> 1C  X   1S  X   (shows four hearts)
>
> My suggestion: if the missing Alert is very common, and the player can ask
> without causing a UI problem, he must ask to protect himself.
>
> I would say that this applies to the first four sequences. <snip>


Interesting position. Let's look at your second example, 1NT-2C.  If
South has long clubs or a void in clubs, you are saying, I think, that
he better not ask, for it might cause a UI problem.  But if his club
holding is average, then he can and should ask, you seem to be saying.
 But when he does ask, it conveys UI that his clubs are unremarkable.

The best solution for examples that are covered by the CC is probably
to always look for CC confirmation of there being no alert, whether
you really need to know or not. That covers numbers 2--4.  For number
1, I would think a Precision player should ask for descriptions of any
interference that comes his way, because strength and distribution
will vary so much.

>
> A player who would pass over a natural bid but double an artificial bid to
> show the suit will create UI if he asks, is told the bid is natural, and
> passes.  Thus a player cannot be expected to protect himself against an
> unalerted transfer or fourth suit forcing.  (The three example sequences are
> ones on which many people do play the call as natural.)
>
> Smolen and Ogust are not universal meanings for these calls, so N-S may not
> suspect that anything is wrong and should not lose a right to an MI
> adjustment.  If N-S wanted to do something during the auction, they are
> entitled to an adjustment.  And if the auction ends and E-W are the
> declaring side, East should correct the MI, and N-S are entitled to an
> adjustment for that infraction if the MI is not corrected and they are
> damaged in the play.
>

I consider Ogust your easiest case.  With Ogust (etc.), you 100% have
to ask about nonalerted replies, for the 2NT call almost guarantees
that either 2NT or the answer should have been alerted.  A nonforcing,
natural 2NT is alertable in the ACBL, and it is almost inconceivable
(to me anyway) how 2NT could be forcing while 3D is unalertable.

If NS are perfect, then they can handle your other cases too. Smolen
and fourth-suit forcing are also on the card.  The Systems-on check
boxes handle your the two transfer cases.  Again, check the CC every
time, or ask every time, for suspicious nonalerts.  And do it with a
uniform degree of scepticism.

This is asking quite a lot of NS, maybe too much.  And still, doing
this, they might be liable for UI adjustments if the hand was too
interesting in a particular case.  They will say, "We check all of the
time," but that statement is often be branded as self serving and
disregarded.

OK, so here is my real recommendation.  Every good player should fill
out a card explaining their styles in matters of tempo, questions, and
examinations of the CCs.  It is available to the opponents to see even
before the round, and you follow it during the round.

For example, on the card is your minimum wait before calling in
balancing seat, before doubling, after a surprise overcall, after an
artificial bid, after a skip bid, when answering a game try, when the
auction is above the four level, and maybe a one or two more.  I
really think this would make an improvement in our game.  The
opponents can see it ahead of time, and you stick to it.  I have been
meaning to try it someday.

Of course, sometimes you will take longer, but never less time than
your promise on the card.

Also on the card is your pattern of asking questions about calls.  One
thing to write down is that you always ask about calls that you know
are usually alerted.  Then, it seems to me, you get fewer instances of
UI, fewer claims of UI, and you have to be told less often that your
statements about your tendencies are merely self serving.

However, another solution is to reread the difficult regulation you
cited: ""Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their
opponents have neglected to
Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves."

The phrase is "have neglected", not "may have neglected" or "probably
have neglected."  It seems possible to me that ACBL tournament
officials do not want you to try to protect yourself in cases you
don't really know for sure---for the obvious UI reasons.

-Jerry Fusselman