Question (from Carbondale IL):
In our local club,
most of the players are non-Life Masters but are eager to learn new systems and
try new partnerships. Under these circumstances, what happens if a partner is
not sure about the meaning of a particular bid, especially if the auction is
complicated? Should he still alert and say that he is not sure, and that there
may be several different explanations?
As
such a situation has happened a number of times (the club does encourage and
invite new players), I would appreciate a general answer as well as an answer
to the specific case described below.
South West North East Pass Pass 1D DBL3C 3H All pass
3H went down 2
(-200) for a bad score for East-West. There was no alert and no questions
during the auction. South meant 3C as a limit raise in diamonds (9 points,
KJ1098 of diamonds, shortness in spades). North-South has an agreement that
1D-Pass-3C would be a limit raise, but they did not discuss the sequence above
with the intervening double. North was not sure whether 3C was a limit raise or
a weak jump shift or an invitational bid in clubs. Consequently, he did not
alert and he passed (holding five diamonds).
East-West claimed
they were damaged by the lack of alert. What should be the director ruling?
Stevenson:
First, the general
answer. If a call is known to be ambiguous and possibly alertable, the
player will do best to alert it. Opponents have the right to know your
agreements, and without the alert, they will just assume the call is
natural.
In fact, the case
you quote is an excellent example of what should be done. North should alert
the 3C. If asked, his correct answer is, "We agreed that 1D-Pass-3C is a
limit raise, but we did not discuss whether it applies when 1D is
doubled". The advantage of this is that the opponents now know
exactly what North-South have agreed, so they cannot claim any damage from
misinformation.
On the actual hand
you quote, it is not obvious how East-West claimed to have been damaged. What
difference would it have made if they had been correctly informed? So my first
instinct is there was misinformation, but no damage, so no adjustment.
Perhaps I would change my mind if I saw the full hand.
There is a disadvantage in the correct approach:
unauthorized information. If North had alerted and been asked, South would have
heard the answer, and now would have had to do his best not to gain in any way
from knowledge of this answer. The Director would just have to deal with
that if it had happened.
Do you have
questions about bridge laws, a ruling you received (or made) at a tournament or
club game, how to handle an ethical dilemma? David, who is very knowledgeable
on North American bridge, will explain laws and proprieties, share opinions on
specific cases and offer advice on any aspect of game direction. You can submit
questions on his web form or by email to laws2@blakjak.com
. In your message, include a note that you're an Advocate reader from the U.S.
David maintains an archive of articles on
laws and proprieties on his web site: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm