[blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert

[Jerry Fusselman]

On 2/11/07, 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;

Here is one: Albequerque 1997 has a nonalerted support redouble (case
23), where the committee says the NOS should have asked if it was a
support redouble because they play the same convention.

Here are three more:  Cases 29, 33, and 36 of Cincinnati 2000, and all
deny any adjustment for MI due to "inadequate self protection."  I am
especially interested in case 36, and I have some questions about it
at the end.

In case 29, all agree there was MI, and all agree that had there been
no MI, E-W would have had no problem.  Both sides got the table result
(great for N-S).  The consensus was that E-W should have known that a
possibly short 1D opening must have been limited and Precision without
being told so.  Well, one knew it was Precision, and one
didn't---causing their disaster.

But I have heard of just such a system:  A 15--17 notrump with
1D-P-1x-P-1NT showing 13-14 and 1C-P-1x-P-1NT showing 11-12.  This is
not Precision, but it would also have the alert that 1D might have
two.

In case 33, the committee says that N-S should have known that a hand
limited by passing 1NT would never play Lebensohl, so EW's explanation
must be disregarded, thus cancelling the MI.  (Table result stands for
both sides.)  As a matter of bridge logic, that pronouncement is
really stupid.  For example, Lebensohl there can be a great help to
distinguish single-suited hands from two-suited hands.  Besides, not
everyone has carefully discussed whether Lebensohl is still on by a
hand that initially passed 1NT.  Are NS supposed to learn to disregard
all explanations that suggest a convention that the committee will
find suboptimal?  What if North disregards their explanation but South
doesn't, causing a misunderstanding with the continuation?   This
principle that guided the committee should be tossed into a garbage
can.

In case 36, West deals and the auction goes 2S-P-3H-all pass.  3H was
not alerted, though it should have been, because it was nonforcing.
Here the NOS supposedly should have known to protect themselves with a
director call at the correct time.  This time, the OS does lose their
result, but the NOS get the table result due to inadequate protection,
even though the panel determined that South would have entered the
auction with the correct information.

After his final pass, North found out by asking East that 3H was not
forcing.  The director was called after trick two, which doomed the
NOS, for the director did not ask at that time if they would have done
anything differently with correct information.  Let us look at the
crucial decision of when to call the director:

After East's 3H call?  Cohen suggested South calling the director here
if "he sensed a failure to Alert a nonforcing 3H bid."  Wolff and
Colker say that South calling the director here is a bad idea because
it could restrict North's options in the auction and play.

After West passed?  Director said that since North and South failed to
call here, there shall be no adjustment for either side.  Gerard said
"of course there was no reason to call then, [unless] North was
considering balancing."

After North's final pass?  Panel, and several reviewers said this was
NS's last chance to earn an adjustment.  Stevenson doubts that this
ruling is really legal.

When dummy is spread?  Endicott said, "The time to call the Director
was when dummy hit the deck."

After the hand is completed?  Maybe N-S cannot tell for sure they were
damaged until after the hand is finished.  Are you supposed to call
every time there is MI, or only when you have reason to believe you
might have been damaged?

Anyway, can one find any clear ACBL pronouncement of when to call the
director when you suspect MI?  Does you hand matter for taking action
when you suspect MI---i.e., do you use your hand to help determine the
probability of MI, but maybe not call if your hand makes MI totally
clear?  And when do you call when MI is clear but damage is not clear?

Where in the book does it say when to call the director as MI
gradually becomes more and more likely.