[jillybean]

ACBL Auction starts..

1N (X) 2♥ !

1N announced as 15-17, X is not alerted, 2♥ annaouced as a transfer.

Now 4th seat is woken up after reading their own CC (true!) and says I should have alerted X as showing 4cM and 5cm.
If the 2♥ bidder retracts his bid and chooses to pass, is the 2♥ bid AI for his partner?

[pran]

jillybean, on 2012-May-30, 16:26, said:

ACBL Auction starts..

1N (X) 2♥ !

1N announced as 15-17, X is not alerted, 2♥ annaouced as a transfer.

Now 4th seat is woken up after reading their own CC (true!) and says I should have alerted X as showing 4cM and 5cM.
If the 2♥ bidder retracts his bid and chooses to pass, is the 2♥ bid AI for his partner?

Yes, of course, see Law 16D1.
(And it is UI for opponents, see Law 16D2)

[barmar]

Why does he seat say that you should have alerted the double, shouldn't HE have alerted it?

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2012-May-30, 19:53, said:

Why does he seat say that you should have alerted the double, shouldn't HE have alerted it?

Oops
Now 4th seat is woken up after reading their own CC (true!) and says, "I should have alerted X as showing 4cM and 5cm."

[iviehoff]

jillybean, on 2012-May-30, 20:06, said:

Now 4th seat is woken up after reading their own CC (true!) and says, "I should have alerted X as showing 4cM and 5cM."

The other important factor here is that looking at your own CC is UI. You are allowed to use UI for the purpose of alerting, but not for the purpose of selecting your own bid. So, strictly speaking, 4th seat must now continue to bid under whatever misapprehension they were previously under. Also, all this business is UI to 2nd seat too, so second seat must pretend that 4th seat is going about their normal business.

[barmar]

iviehoff, on 2012-May-31, 03:58, said:

The other important factor here is that looking at your own CC is UI.

I think the "(true!)" remark indicates that Jilly knows that looking at his own CC was improper.

[Vampyr]

jillybean, on 2012-May-30, 20:06, said:

Oops
Now 4th seat is woken up after reading their own CC (true!) and says, "I should have alerted X as showing 4cM and 5cm."

Whatever else I would rule, I would give a PP for reading one's own convention card.

[jillybean]

This was a hypothetical probem. My partner did not retract his bid partly because he did not know if it would be UI for me and didn't want to complicate matters. We did call the director, we didn't mention that our opponent had read their CC before making the delayed announcement, "it's only a club game", so there was no ruling needed at the time.

My partner did ask the director afterwards if the retracted bid would be AI or UI for me and was told it was UI for everyone.

[Fluffy]

I have problems believing that

1NT-X-ps-2♣
2♠

Is legal, but rules seem to say so.

BTW after retracting 2♥ there are 2 sets of info:

a) That retracter of 2♥ has spades
b) That retracter of 2♥ wants to pass rather than show spades when double is not penalty (probably meaning he is weak)

I think both are AI for NOS and UI to OS, but not sure. Specially not sure about the UI nature of b)

[jillybean]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-01, 07:11, said:

I have problems believing that

1NT-X-ps-2♣
2♠

Is legal, but rules seem to say so.

The OS failed to alert in a timely manner. It seems reasonable that any advanatge is given to the NOS rather than having the OS actions bar the opener.

[barmar]

This seems like the opposite of the legal principle "fruit of the poisonous tree". In that principle, if the police/prosecution makes a procedural error (e.g. a warrantless search), all the information derived from it must be ignored (I know this is a gross simplification, this is not the place to discuss non-bridge legal minutiae).

In this case, the NOS gets some extra information, and can make as much use of it and everything derived from it as they wish. So responder has effectively shown spades, even though there's no corresponding bid in the corrected auction. And opener can bid on this knowledge, and responder can bid knowing that opener knows that they retracted their original bid, and so on.

Meanwhile the OS is not privy to any of this information. It seems like this mean that when they hear opener bid 2♠, they must react as if he has a real spade suit. I'm not sure what difference it would make to their bidding. But it seems like it could have implications on their defense if opener becomes declarer -- when they see dummy's 5 spades, they must defend as if the opponents are in a 10-card fit, which would screw up their expectations about suit distributions.

[bluejak]

Fluffy, on 2012-June-01, 07:11, said:

I have problems believing that

1NT-X-ps-2♣
2♠

Is legal, but rules seem to say so.

I seem to have lost the plot.

How on earth can this bidding sequence be illegal? You want a Law that says dealer may make any call on the second round except 2♠?

I just do not understand.

[barmar]

Obviously it's legal if opener actually has a real spade suit. I think he's surprised that it's OK when opener only has 3 ♠, because the auction before correction indicates that responder has 5+ ♠.

[BunnyGo]

iviehoff, on 2012-May-31, 03:58, said:

The other important factor here is that looking at your own CC is UI. You are allowed to use UI for the purpose of alerting, but not for the purpose of selecting your own bid. So, strictly speaking, 4th seat must now continue to bid under whatever misapprehension they were previously under. Also, all this business is UI to 2nd seat too, so second seat must pretend that 4th seat is going about their normal business.

Does this mean that if I know what the bid means, but cannot remember if I'm supposed to alert it, then I'm allowed to look at my CC to see if the line is red?

Sorry to steal your thread Jilly (even temporarily), seems like you got your answers though.

[barmar]

BunnyGo, on 2012-June-07, 09:17, said:

Does this mean that if I know what the bid means, but cannot remember if I'm supposed to alert it, then I'm allowed to look at my CC to see if the line is red?

You could look at the opponent's CC for that.

But I think what most people do is err on the side of alerting if they're not sure. It's practically unheard of for someone to be penalized for an extraneous alert like this.