[blml] L9A vs L73B1

[Herman De Wael]

Konrad Ciborowski wrote:
>> East (dealer) opens 1C, not alerted. This may be a doubleton in a
>> 5crd-major system and is alertable in the NL. Against this opening, NS
>> play an artificial defence, based on transfers.
>>
>> South, who knows about the possible doubleton C, holds:
>>
>> K9
>> 62
>> QJ8
>> AKQ942
>>
>> He would like to bid 1S (=transfer to clubs OR showing diamonds and
>> hearts). 
>> Over a 'natural' 1C (min. 3crd)  he would have bid 1NT.
>>
>> South does not know what will happen: 
>> a) If he bids 1S, partner may not alert and jump to 3S. 
>> b) If he bids 1NT, partner may alert, explain spades and diamonds OR
>> hearts and clubs, and jump to 3H.
>>
>> Is south allowed to ask the meaning, or draw attention to the
>> alertability of 1C?
> 
> NO!!! Emphatically NO!!! That would be like telling partner
> "watch out: my next bid is going to be artificial!".
> That would be blatant transmission of the UI to partner.
> 

See how different the replies could be?
In reaction to Conrad I would offer the following:
Don't you believe that they know that they are playing different 
systems over different 1Cl? Then how can asking about a bid be any 
communication as to what the next bid shall mean?

> If South _knows_ the meaning of the 1C opening he simply has to
> assume that partner knows it, too (in the same fashion
> you do when playing with screens). So he should overcall
> 1S. If partner doesn't alert then South should treat a raise
> to 3S as natural from partner's own suit (partner's 
> failure to alert 1S is UI to South), raise it to 4S,
> go down a million and seek redress from the TD which
> he will certainly get. 

Unless the TD rules that partner should have asked, because your the 
meaning of your bid depends on it.

> South knows that his LHO committed an irregularity by
> failing to alert 1C but L9A1 says South may draw attention
> to it "Unless prohibited by Law". L73B1 prohibits
> drawing attention to the failure alert when doing so would
> transmit UI to partner.
> 

Not if you don't rule that to ask for a meaning of an important bid 
would not create UI.

> Only TD is allowed to give redress for infractions, players
> are not allowed to take justice in their own hands
> ("he committed an infraction so I gotta do the same to save my ass").
> We were in this point when we discussed whether players
> are allowed to ask additional questions about bids to make
> sure partner gets all the inferences. Say your RHO
> opens 1C (Polish Club), a system that you are very familiar
> with but partner is not. The explanation is "natural or balanced, 
> could be strong".  This is a woefully inadequate explanation and you 
> know it but you are not allowed to continue investigation along
> the lines "So it means he can have a void in clubs, doesn't it?"
> or "does this mean that he can have a doubleton in clubs when
> weak?" to make sure that partner realizes that 1C is not
> natural. You have to assume partner understands all the inferences.
> Only when the hand is over are you allowed to call the TD and
> ask for redress if you were damaged by the inaccurate explanation.
> 

I don't believe this is the same thing.

> Even if you are not damaged you may call the TD so that he 
> instructs your opponents to alert and/or explain properly.
> But you cannot attempt to neutralize their infraction of misexplaining
> and misalerting by sending UI yourself. This is a no-no.
> 
> 
> 

I see where Conrad is coming from. I prefer to correct my opponents' 
small mistakes rather than rely on the TD to correct my own misfortunes.

-- 
Herman DE WAEL
Antwerpen Belgium
http://www.hdw.be