[blml] Protecting yourself after failure to alert

[David Grabiner]

Jerry Fusselman wrote:


> 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.


The Casebook editor quotes what is probably an older version of the same 
statement:
"Adjustments for violations are not automatic. . . an opponent who actually 
knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may 
not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without 
clarifying the situation."

In this case, the auction was (1C)-P-(1S)-X-(XX)-2S-AP.  The NOS claimed 
that the partner of the 2S bidder took 2S as natural, and the Committee also 
ruled that an experienced player should not take 2S as natural regardless of 
the meaning of the double, so it's not clear whether failure to protect was 
the actual reason for the failure to adjust.  (The OS was awarded 
average-minus, which was a mistake; it should have been a PP.)

> 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.

Denying the adjustment here is clear.  South said that 1D "could be as short 
as two", and since E-W played different methods over a Precision 1D and over 
a natural 1D that could be a doubleton, it is the E-W responsibility to get 
their understandings straight.

Under today's rules, there would not even be a N-S infraction; Sould would 
announce "Could be short", and if it matters to E-W, they would have to ask.

> 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.

There are times that an explanation is clearly incorrect.  I have heard a 
call explained as "weak jump shift" when it was not a jump, and I would 
expect to lose any adjustment if I didn't follow up on that problem.    But 
there are enough unusual agreements out there, and different variants of the 
same convention, that players can't be expected to treat every surprising 
explanation as impossible.

> 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.

This was one of the points I made.  After (2S)-P-(3H), not alerted, South 
creates UI if he asks, is told 3H is not alertable, and then passes.  South 
has no reason to suspect anything wrong and has no obligation to protect 
himself at this point.

> 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."

The call is not mandatory here.  N/S can suspect MI, but West could have 
taken a view and passed a forcing bid, or forgotten the agreement himself. 
North had nothing to say and no need to ask.  South could have called the 
director at this point, but it's not his turn, and he doesn't need to think 
about the MI immediately.

> 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.

E/W should have corrected the MI themselves, with or without North's 
question, and (in theory) called the TD, which would have solved the 
problems.  Typically, what I do in this situation is to say, "There was a 
failure to alert; 3H was non-forcing.  Please call the TD if you might have 
bid differently."  (95% of the time that partner forgets to alert one of my 
calls, there is no possible damage.)

But the panel is correct that this is the right time to call, and a Flight A 
pair (this was Flight B) might lose any redress if South knows he has been 
misinformed, leads, and then claims damage from MI later.

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

This makes no sense.  If dummy's call had been misexplained, then the TD 
should be called when dummy is visible.  However, it is declarer's call that 
was misexplained, and South already knows about MI.

The actual director call, after trick two, should have had the same rights 
as a call when dummy went down.  It might have taken South some time to 
realize the damage; if he was allowed to call during trick one, he shouldn't 
lose any further rights by calling one trick later.

> 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?

If the NOS doesn't correct the MI until the end of the hand (either because 
they are following the Law as defenders, or because they neglected to 
correct the MI when they should), a call at the end of the hand is always 
timely.

But if the NOS know, or should know, that they have been misinformed, they 
may lose their rights because of the possibility of two-way shots.  It 
doesn't apply in this case, but I will present a hypothetical example in 
which the adjustment should be denied because the TD call was too late.

South opens 1NT, explained by North as 12-14 but the correct agreement is 
15-17, all pass.  South corrects the MI at the end of the auction.  East is 
5=2=4=2, and the E-W agreement is to bid 2D with diamonds and a major over a 
strong NT (DONT) but 2S with spades and a minor over a weak NT 
(Cappelletti).  East claims that he would not bid 2S and take the risk of 
getting to 3D over a weak NT but would bid 2D over a strong NT.  If the TD 
is called at the end of the auction, East gets to bid his 2D, and he may get 
+110 or -200 depending on partner's hand, just as if he had been properly 
informed.  If the TD is called at the end of the hand, after 1NT makes one 
for -90, East should not now get +110 or -90.

> 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?

The ACBL policy is clear on when you should call the director for UI: when 
you have reason to believe that an action may be based on UI.  If a slow 
double is pulled, you would probably call as soon as it is pulled.  In less 
clear situations, you might wait until the offender's hand is exposed (as 
dummy, or at the end of the play), to confirm that there is no LA.

There is no explicit rule for MI, but it would be logical to use the same 
rule: when you have reason to believe that an action (of your side, in this 
case) may be based on MI.  If you know about MI, that is the right time to 
call the TD.  If you only suspect MI, you can wait.