[mgoetze]

barmar, on 2016-March-20, 02:03, said:

A natural spade overcall isn't alertable, and alerting a non-alertable bid is technically misinformation.

As has already been pointed out, this is untrue in several jurisdictions. Consider that the player in question might have remembered that he ought to alert this natural 1♠ bid without remembering exactly why. I would advise an alert if, say, 1♠ included a weak jump overcall because 2♠ had been assigned an artificial meaning.

Regardless, I never have sympathy for assuming a bid is not natural just because it has been alerted. Say it goes 1NT-2♣-2♥-3NT, with 2♥ alerted because it shows 5 hearts. Opening leader, instead of asking, leads a heart, giving away the contract. Are you going to give him an adjustment? Of course not!

[barmar]

mgoetze, on 2016-March-22, 04:24, said:

As has already been pointed out, this is untrue in several jurisdictions.

So? We were told this is ACBL jurisdiction, that's the context my comment was intended for.

Quote

Regardless, I never have sympathy for assuming a bid is not natural just because it has been alerted. Say it goes 1NT-2♣-2♥-3NT, with 2♥ alerted because it shows 5 hearts. Opening leader, instead of asking, leads a heart, giving away the contract. Are you going to give him an adjustment? Of course not!

Of course, the alertable meaning could be something like "hearts and a minor". So being artificial doesn't deny that the player holds that suit.

[mgoetze]

barmar, on 2016-March-22, 09:40, said:

We were told this is ACBL jurisdiction,

Yes, and noone knows the rules there, so comparing to jurisdictions that spell it out is useful.

[blackshoe]

mgoetze, on 2016-March-22, 04:24, said:

As has already been pointed out, this is untrue in several jurisdictions.

This is not a matter of regulation, it is a matter of law. Read Law 20F5{a}.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-22, 15:25, said:

This is not a matter of regulation, it is a matter of law. Read Law 20F5{a}.

We are not discussing whether MI should be corrected during the hand but rather whether a call of uncertain meaning is alertable. The ACBL does not appear to address this issue. Other jurisdictions do and generally where that is the case such calls should be alerted when one possible meaning is alertable - see for example the EBU White Book 1.3.1.

[helene_t]

Can we give a weighted score? There is a certain probability that NS would have reached 3NT given the correct explanation. Assuming that the correct explanation is "natural", which I think is most likely.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-23, 04:02, said:

We are not discussing whether MI should be corrected during the hand but rather whether a call of uncertain meaning is alertable. The ACBL does not appear to address this issue. Other jurisdictions do and generally where that is the case such calls should be alerted when one possible meaning is alertable - see for example the EBU White Book 1.3.1.

Well, I was discussing whether a failure to alert is MI. It is. The reason I posted on it is that mgoetze said that barry's "A natural spade overcall isn't alertable, and alerting a non-alertable bid is technically misinformation" is "untrue in several jurisdictions". It may be that barry should have said "A natural spade overcall isn't alertable in the ACBL", but if mgoetze did not intend to claim that "alerting a non-alertable bid is technically misinformation" then he shouldn't have included that clause in his quote of what barry said.

[blackshoe]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-21, 19:09, said:

"Alert" means "There's something about partner's bid you might want to know". So you say "Okay, what do I need to know?" and he says "I don't know." If that's not MI, I don't know what is.

akwoo, on 2016-March-21, 23:23, said:

I strongly disagree.

If, as far as you know, partner's bid has several possible meanings, and any one of them is alertable, you are supposed to alert.

Of course, what N/S should have done is call the director when East said "I don't know". Of course, it's also true that East should suggest calling the director when he or she says "I don't know". The director can pull East away from the table and have West explain.

Failure to fully disclose the meaning of a call in the manner prescribed by the RA is misinformation. "I don't know" in response to "please explain your alert" is not acceptable disclosure in any jurisdiction of which I'm aware.

I would suggest that East call the director himself when he alerts a bid the meaning of which he does not know.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 09:17, said:

Well, I was discussing whether a failure to alert is MI. It is. The reason I posted on it is that mgoetze said that barry's "A natural spade overcall isn't alertable, and alerting a non-alertable bid is technically misinformation" is "untrue in several jurisdictions". It may be that barry should have said "A natural spade overcall isn't alertable in the ACBL", but if mgoetze did not intend to claim that "alerting a non-alertable bid is technically misinformation" then he shouldn't have included that clause in his quote of what barry said.

I am fairly sure that Michael's "untrue in several jurisdictions" was a reference to the natural spade overcall in the OP case, where it turns out that the overcall was meant as natural but partner was not sure if it was really natural or not. The question there is whether the natural spade overcall is alertable when the meaning might be non-natural but partner does not know for sure. This gives a situation where it can be correct to alert a call that is bid with the intention of having a non-alertable meaning and not be in a MI situation.

To know whether the OP is such a case we would have to find out what the actual agreement is and why partner thought an alertable meaning might have been intended. Of course if we decide there was no damage anyway then the question of MI or not becomes somewhat moot.

[blackshoe]

I agree with your last sentence, Zel. The rest of your post makes my head hurt.

[barmar]

I think both ACBL and EBU say that if you're not sure specifically what a bid means, but you think it's one of the alertable meanings, you should alert. And they say "When in doubt, alert". So it may be correct to alert and explain "I don't know".

But if the actual agreement is that it's natural, and that's not alertable, the opponents have still been misinformed.