[InTime]

---

This is a Tx4 match. All the players here are advanced.
The only bid that was alerted during he auction was the 2H (The bidders play 2/1 and the alert for the 2H was alerted as GF)
No questions were asked when the bidding finished and South leads the ♠A, his partner dropping the ♠8.
Again no questions were asked.
South continue a spade and declarer makes his contract of 5♥.
The TD was called and leader explains his problem as follows:
He was under the impression that the 4♠ was bid as support for ♠'s while it was used as Keycard for ♥'s. Therefore he lead the ♠A. If he had known that it was actually Keycard for ♥'s, he would not have lead the ♠A in the first instance. His partner explained that dropping the ♠8 was a suit preference for switching to ♣'s and was not intended for count.
What should the ruling be here?
Should the score be changed to 5♥-1?
Is it necessary for declarer and partner to explain their bidding from the 4-level upwards if no questions are asked by the defenders?
Regards

Note: I corrected the West/North hands West Jxx and North AKxxx
Sry about this, but I think it does not make any difference to the questions.

[BunnyGo]

Where was this played?

If it was the ACBL then the Ace asking bid qualifies as a delayed alert, and should be announced by the declaring side before the opening lead.

Quote

PART X: DELAYED (or POST) ALERTS ALERTABLE CALLS ABOVE THE LEVEL OF 3NT STARTING WITH OPENER'S SECOND TURN TO CALL
Once the auction has progressed to the point that the opening bidder has had the opportunity to make a second call, conventional calls at the four level or higher are not Alerted until the auction is over.
These DELAYED ALERTS are REQUIRED to be made by the DECLARING side before the opening lead. The DEFENDERS are REQUIRED to Alert declarer AFTER the OPENING LEAD but BEFORE declarer makes a play from dummy (Alerting before the lead is turned face-up and the dummy is spread is best).
The declaring side must make their Delayed Alerts before the opening lead. Defenders wait until they have made the opening lead before they explain calls requiring a Delayed Alert. As with normal Alerts, the partner of the person making the Alertable call is the person who makes the Delayed Alert and explains the agreement.
EXAMPLES:
1-P-1-P 4 (splinter)
There is no Alert at the time for the 4 bid.
After the auction, the 1 bidder must Alert and explain as required the meaning of the call.
1-P-1-P- 2-P: 4,4 or 4
If there was a conventional meaning attached to any of these calls—ace-asking, splinter or something else—the Alert takes place after the auction.

[RMB1]

In England, for instance, all the bids above 3NT would not be alertable.

InTime, on 2011-November-21, 09:03, said:

Is it necessary for declarer and partner to explain their bidding from the 4-level upwards if no questions are asked by the defenders?

Again, in England, declarer and partner are not required/supposed to post-alert or volunteer explanations. Defenders are expected to ask.

[nigel_k]

RMB1, on 2011-November-21, 10:55, said:

In England, for instance, all the bids above 3NT would not be alertable.

We have that rule in New Zealand as well. It's extremely counter-intuitive and I am so tempted to start playing NAMYATS even though I never would with normal alerting rules.

[mjj29]

nigel_k, on 2011-November-21, 13:34, said:

We have that rule in New Zealand as well. It's extremely counter-intuitive and I am so tempted to start playing NAMYATS even though I never would with normal alerting rules.

Well, in the UK that excludes opening bids, so NAMYATS is still alertable (also, lead directing passes and doubles which are lead directing for a suit other than the one doubled)

[mrdct]

Similar to the ACBL, in Australia whilst you don't alert above 3NT (unless it's a conventional opening at the 4-level or higher) at the end of the auction you are required to give delayed alerts of any "self-alerting" bids that arose in the auction if you become the declaring side. In practice that rarely happens because unless you are playing against a complete idiot, the guy on lead will always ask for an explanation of the auction before his opening lead. Kind of for that reason, I prefer the EBU approach of not having to make delayed alerts.

Assuming this is in the ACBL, I will caution East-West about the correct procedure for delayed alerts but South's actions here are so beyond SEWoG I'm going to let the table result stand. If there was a disparity in experience level (in this case we are told they are all "advanced") I might be inclined to give North-South some relief, but bad luck Charlie on this one.

It would be a dangerous precedent to adjust on board like this as it would basically be giving a defender a free hit to make a lead on the assumption that all of the non-alertable (a.k.a. self alerting) bids were natural, even where it's quite obviously some were artificial, and then call the cops when that doesn't work to get off to a different lead.

[bluejak]

mrdct, on 2011-November-21, 14:21, said:

It would be a dangerous precedent to adjust on board like this as it would basically be giving a defender a free hit to make a lead on the assumption that all of the non-alertable (a.k.a. self alerting) bids were natural, even where it's quite obviously some were artificial, and then call the cops when that doesn't work to get off to a different lead.

I do not think this approach has anything to recommend it. We do not make rulings based on precedents except in rare situations. What we do is to decide each case on its merits and the judgement of the people deciding [TDs or ACs]. So in this case if we decide that a player has been damaged we adjust without thought of precedents, but if in another case we decide he has tried a fancy line which has little chance we just call it wild and give him no redress.

Another point is that worrying about a precedent would be a terrible reason to give a wrong ruling: so if it is right to adjust, we adjust.

[barmar]

The 2♥ bid hasn't been alertable in ACBL for a long time, and I can't recall anyone mistakenly alerting it in at least 10 years, so I don't think this took place in ACBL territory.

[Free]

Depends on where you play. In Belgium it's not allowed to alert anything above 3NT. So nothing wrong with the auction, no missing alerts, no adjustment.

[mycroft]

I've definitely seen auctions with Alertable calls - even the *first* Alertable call - being an ACBL Delayed Alert (Kickback is an easy example). There are also situations where the fact the call is Alertable isn't clear from the context of the previous auction, even explained. Do they have to know that Kickback exists, or Spiral Scan, say, or just that "I don't understand this auction, but then again I don't understand any auction these guys pull" to get correct information?

Defenders might be an idiot to not ask, but they are allowed to be. Putting the onus on the users of the conventional calls to ensure that the opponents know what's going on seems right. Apart from the fact that people Just Don't Get It, and so it doesn't work in practise most of the time (here, anyway) this is one of the systems that the ACBL does *right*.

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

We do not make rulings based on precedents except in rare situations.

The problem with not using precedent is that rulings are inconsistent and as has been found in more august areas of the law than bridge law precedent has its place.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-November-21, 18:33, said:

Another point is that worrying about a precedent would be a terrible reason to give a wrong ruling:

Worrying about setting a precedent would be a good reason to avoid giving a wrong ruling

[bluejak]

Jeremy69A, on 2011-November-22, 11:43, said:

The problem with not using precedent is that rulings are inconsistent and as has been found in more august areas of the law than bridge law precedent has its place.

True in some cases, but we don't publish a lot of rulings, so no precedent is set. It is a little different with appeals which may be published.

Of course, some rulings get discussed, so principles are often used as precedents, but not individual rulings.

Even so, the idea this came from was that we should not rule in a particular way because of the precedent it sets. I do not believe this is correct, first because in practice precedents are rarely set by rulings whether they should be or not, and second because you should rule right without worrying about the consequences of ruling right.

[Fluffy]

4NT blackwood is a convention that should be alerted? (assuming no juridistiction applies where it is too high)

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-22, 15:56, said:

4NT blackwood is a convention that should be alerted? (assuming no juridistiction applies where it is too high)

In the ACBL, 4♠, 4NT, and 5♥ all require delayed alerts, made before the opening lead is chosen. I'm assuming here that you're talking about the auction in the original post.