[barmar]

nige1, on 2019-June-26, 12:11, said:

If you ask about an opponent's bid that should have been alerted, Directors rarely give you any redress,

Is that really what you meant to say? A number of RAs say that you should protect yourself, but you're saying that directors will punish you for trying?

[nige1]

pescetom, on 2019-June-04, 08:50, said:

... The ... experienced player who failed to alert will usually get by without a penalty .

nige1, on 2019-June-26, 12:11, said:

If you ask about an opponent's call that should have been alerted, directors rarely give you any redress...

barmar, on 2019-June-26, 12:28, said:

Is that really what you meant to say? A number of RAs say that you should protect yourself, but you're saying that directors will punish you for trying?

Not exactly
I was agreeing with PesceTom that if you ask about a call that should have been alerted, then the opponent who broke the law, usually escapes unsanctioned
Although this draws attention to an infraction, few players even bother to call the director

[barmar]

It's true, players rarely call the TD about failures to alert. Usually their partner just informs the opponents of it (at the appropriate time depending on whether they were defending or declaring), and the TD only gets called if the NOS feels they were damaged.

[VixTD]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-26, 04:38, said:

The problem is with this hand that everybody doubles in the post mortem, almost nobody doubles in real life. Same way everybody leads the K from KJxxx when dummy has a singleton Q.
Unless your bidder is known for this sort of thing, I'm not ruling with him, particularly as he should know nobody ever plays this with an unalertable meaning.

You will note that I said (and Gordon did as well) that I was only ruling in his favour because he had indicated at the end of the auction that he would have doubled. He didn't wait to see how well his lunatic double worked out before complaining.

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2019-June-26, 12:11, said:

If you ask about an opponent's call that should have been alerted, directors rarely give you any redress.
When you "protect yourself" by asking about an unalerted call...

• You sometimes awaken opponents to a forgotten understanding.
• You often provide useful AI to opponents
• You usually handicap partner with UI..

Another case of the tendency of Bridge-Rules to protect and reward law-breakers

I don't agree with your assessment, Nigel, but I'm aware that directors do not (and should not) give automatic redress for minor procedural omissions such as failure to alert or failure to explain adequately. I posted this to find out where people tend to draw the line, and I was pleasantly surprised to find most of you agreeing with my decision.

If the auction starts (1♣) - 2♣ (no alerts) I think it's fair to expect the next player to assume that the overcall shows genuine clubs and act on that basis (although checking by asking is not likely to give away much unauthorized information). The wording of BB4A6 (for those in the EBU) is quite clear. However, if the auction starts (1♠) - 2♠ (no alerts), do you really think it's fair to give the opening side redress if they act as if the overcall is natural, as a player tried to do in a recent tournament where I was directing?

Where the failure to alert has caused the opponents genuine difficulty they should be protected, but we need to make allowances for some lapses that don't cause damage. Most of us find the 90% of the alerting regulations fairly straightforward, and only struggle with the difficult cases, but that's not true of everyone. Some people can't tell left from right under pressure, a source of intense irritation to my father. ("How difficult is that to learn, for heaven's sake, there are only two of them!")

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2019-June-27, 10:06, said:

However, if the auction starts (1♠) - 2♠ (no alerts), do you really think it's fair to give the opening side redress if they act as if the overcall is natural, as a player tried to do in a recent tournament where I was directing?

Under current EBU rules, when an opponent cue-bids (unalerted) partner's major opener, I accept that I'm expected to protect myself. It's not the director's fault. Daft rules are again to blame. As I keep repeating, I think the relevant rule is unnecessry. It provides helpful AI to opponents (offenders) and gives UI to partner (i.e. handicaps victims). It adds zero value, Such rules should be scrapped.

[barmar]

What we need to address that is an exception to UI for information passed as a result of an infraction by opponents. If the opponents fail to alert, I shouldn't have to worry about UI from trying to get the explanation.

But could there be a Catch-22 in there? Suppose I ask, and it turned out that the non-alert was correct. Now there's no infraction, so I have no indemnity.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-June-28, 08:50, said:

But could there be a Catch-22 in there? Suppose I ask, and it turned out that the non-alert was correct. Now there's no infraction, so I have no indemnity.

I think you answered your own question. It shouldn't be up to the opponents to to verify if an infraction has occurred, at their own risk or otherwise. If there is no alert and the agreement was alertable then the offending pair should be penalised for the infraction and the non-offending pair should be protected as if they had received a wrong explanation.