[pescetom]

Promised to report this one earlier in the week as an interesting twist on WBF Alert policy, but it was busy.
FTF without screens, MP.

National Alert regulations are closely WBF inspired: alert calls which are not natural, except those above 3NT beyond the first round of bidding.
Nevertheless, higher level players are expected to defend themselves in a wide range of cases.

West is not such, but a smart beginner.

---

North flinches but does not proffer the Alert card.
West calls the Director and asks to speak away from the table.
"Can I ask one or both opponents for a written explanation of 4NT?"
Your reply and how it should go?

[jillybean]

I've asked this question before in an ACBL Sectional event. The opponents did not have a convention card and I did not want to give them the opportunity to get on the same wavelength.

The answer was no, and when I objected, "you will be protected"

I still don't know which Law applies, will be interested to hear from the professionals.
The Law regarding CC's didn't apply.

[blackshoe]

Which law about convention cards is that?

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2025-March-22, 18:12, said:

Which law about convention cards is that?

I made that bit up.
It's in the ACBL CoC, there is an entire section on Conventions and Convention Cards

5) Each member of a partnership must have a completed convention card available.
a. Both cards of a partnership must be identical.
b. If a TD determines that neither player has a substantially completed card, the partnership may only play the ACBL Standard American Yellow Card (SAYC), if available, or other basic methods approved by the TD, and may only use standard carding. This restriction may only be lifted at the beginning of a subsequent round after convention cards have been properly prepared and approved by the TD. Further, the partnership will receive a 1/6 board matchpoint penalty for each board played, commencing with the next round and continuing until the restriction is lifted. In IMP-scored team games, penalties shall be at the discretion of the TD.
c. If the TD determines the partnership has at least one substantially completed Convention Card but has not fully complied with ACBL regulations, then the TD may give warnings or, if the deficiency is not corrected in a timely manner given the circumstances, assign such penalties as he deems appropriate.

But I don't want to derail this thread

[mycroft]

"No, but you are entitled to have me at the table when you ask, and you will be protected."

Expect to hear "it's either [this] or [that]. I don't remember discussing it."

Expect to hear from the director "Remember, they are entitled to your agreements, not your guesses - but they are entitled to all the information that will influence your guess."

There have been a number of times (although I wouldn't know what to think about this one)(*) where I have actually asked the question the opponent wanted to have asked, because I could understand the frustration and the confusion. And then, "So, do you have the information you need to continue the auction/play now?" And then, almost always, I get to walk away.

(*) So, I am to guess that 4NT if it asks for Aces or Keycards, or shows two suits somehow, would be Alertable? And if it were a natural Quantitative Slam try in NT with a heart stopper, it wouldn't? Which is a joy for "unexpected", isn't it? Is there anything in the FIGB regulations like the ACBL "if a call isn't Alerted, you can assume it has a non-Alertable meaning"?

[jillybean]

North flinches but does not proffer the Alert card.

How experienced are North and South?

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2025-March-22, 18:54, said:

(*) So, I am to guess that 4NT if it asks for Aces or Keycards, or shows two suits somehow, would be Alertable? And if it were a natural Quantitative Slam try in NT with a heart stopper, it wouldn't? Which is a joy for "unexpected", isn't it? Is there anything in the FIGB regulations like the ACBL "if a call isn't Alerted, you can assume it has a non-Alertable meaning"?

If a call (other than double) is not alerted, you can assume it has the only non-alertable meaning, which is natural. So here, West could legitimately assume quantitative slam try, in which case he wants to pass and then lead hearts against NT. But there are several flies in that ointment.

The first is that he knows South has no hearts stopper and can hardly have the points either, unless someone has psyched (of course that doesn't mean North will not misunderstand). The second is that it's more likely to be some kind of Ace asking anyway (and North probably thinks so). Third is that NS have never read the Alert regulations and are probably both firmly convinced (like almost all players) that one should not alert Blackwood or RKCB, whereas West did read them and knows that one should, but only on the first round of bidding (so almost never, but yes here).
Of course if he asks, then North is going to wake South up to the meaning of his reply, one way or another. He doesn't want that and doesn't really need to know (at least yet) whether it is Aces or diamonds Keycards: but if it is either, he does want to bid 5♥ now.

As Director I think I would offer to discover whether the agreement is alertable or not, which it seems is basically what he is asking for. However carefully I do it that is going to give some information to East and South, but that cat is out of the bag already.

I also would take a look at the diagram to see what is going on, although I recognize this is contentious.

[helene_t]

Normal procedure in the Netherlands is that South walks away while North explains but I can't find any law or local regulation that authorizes this procedure.

We had a similar discussion in 2017 here https://www.bridgeba...it/page__st__20

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2025-March-22, 19:26, said:

North flinches but does not proffer the Alert card.

How experienced are North and South?

North is very experienced, South less so but enough. They play together maybe twice a month, so not a regular partnership but enough to form agreements. They have no CC. South has one with his regular partner, it does nothing to clarify what 4NT means here (nor does any card I ever saw, although it should be in the System Notes). They do both play both simple Blackwood and RKCB in some circumstances.

[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2025-March-23, 09:36, said:

Normal procedure in the Netherlands is that South walks away while North explains but I can't find any law or local regulation that authorizes this procedure.

We had a similar discussion in 2017 here https://www.bridgeba...it/page__st__20

Thanks. In our case I think West only really needs to exclude (or confirm) one possible meaning, which is natural (and for that all he needs is for North to receive a refresh on the Alert policy).
But it's an interesting thread, in particular one assertion made by Blackshoe: the Director can ask South to explain (in absence of partner) the agreement pertinent to his own call.

[mycroft]

Or the director can take South away from the table and ask North what his action meant, and what their agreement was.

Which could lead to an Alert Procedure refresher for the odd corner case (which I usually get with opener's splinters).

Unless the FIGB has provided guidance that this is not recommended practise, of course.

The goal of a director call is to get the game going, as close to "everybody did everything right" as possible. *How* that gets done best (again, within the strictures of the Laws and Regulations, and issued guidance and Best Practise) is really up to the skill or creativity of the Director. After all, how does Best Practise get discovered except by trying stuff and seeing what works?

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-March-23, 10:23, said:

Or the director can take South away from the table and ask North what his action meant, and what their agreement was.

Which could lead to an Alert Procedure refresher for the odd corner case (which I usually get with opener's splinters).

Unless the FIGB has provided guidance that this is not recommended practise, of course.

The goal of a director call is to get the game going, as close to "everybody did everything right" as possible. *How* that gets done best (again, within the strictures of the Laws and Regulations, and issued guidance and Best Practise) is really up to the skill or creativity of the Director. After all, how does Best Practise get discovered except by trying stuff and seeing what works?

Sure.
The FIGB is not as thorough as (say) EBU in providing guidance, which leaves plenty of room for creative Directing.
And although they can be heavy handed in judging appeals and disciplinary procedings they do respect Director's interpretation of Law.

Still wondering if anyone disapproves my proposal to peek at the diagram and see what is going on.

[pescetom]

What actually happened is that Director told West he could assume that 4NT was natural, given the lack of Alert.
West passed, North bid 5♣, explained by South to East as "no Aces".
East passed, South bid 6♣, all passed.
South held ♠J ♥- ♦A54 ♣AKJ985432 and easily made 6♣ to score 60%.

West was unhappy because with the correct explanation (or even just without the incorrect one supplied) he would have bid 5♥, which might have led to a misunderstanding about North's Aces or encouraged East to make the excellent sacrifice in 6♥X-2.

Director pointed out that West had good reason to sacrifice over 6♣ even knowing that North had no Aces and let the score stand.

[helene_t]

That was a poor TD performance IMHO. It would be so easy to solve the issue by allowing a written explanation.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2025-March-22, 18:54, said:

Is there anything in the FIGB regulations like the ACBL "if a call isn't Alerted, you can assume it has a non-Alertable meaning"?

Where does the ACBL say that?

[helene_t]

I don't think it's true, except if "no agreement" and "I forgot the agreement" are non-alertable,

I usually alert when I have no clue but the agreement (or the one partner assumes) may be alertable but that doesn’t seem to be mainstream.

[sanst]

 pescetom, on 2025-March-23, 11:41, said:

Still wondering if anyone disapproves my proposal to peek at the diagram and see what is going on.

I do disapprove. How on earth can you decide what the agreement is by looking at the diagram? And when you've looked, are you going to tell the table or the opponents what the bid means according to your interpretation?
During my exam for director I got a few cases at a table with EBL and WBF directors and the president of the WBFLC. They told me not to ask for information that wasn't necessary for the decision to prevent unnecessary potential UI.

[sanst]

 sanst, on 2025-March-24, 03:44, said:

Still wondering if anyone disapproves my proposal to peek at the diagram and see what is going on.

I do disapprove. How on earth can you decide what the agreement is by looking at the diagram? And when you've looked, are you going to tell the table or the opponents what the bid means according to your interpretation?
During my exam for director I got a few cases at a table with EBL and WBF directors and the president of the WBFLC. They told me not to ask for information that wasn't necessary for the decision to prevent unnecessary potential UI.
In this case I would let the auction and play continue. By calling the director W has IMO done what's necessary to protect his side. If necessary I will decide about the outcome after the play.
Over here a non-alerted 4NT in the first round should be non forcing and showing the willingness to play that contract.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2025-March-24, 04:03, said:

I do disapprove.
.....
During my exam for director I got a few cases at a table with EBL and WBF directors and the president of the WBFLC. They told me not to ask for information that wasn't necessary for the decision to prevent unnecessary potential UI.

Thanks. Yes I agree that not knowing more than is strictly necessary or available at the table is widely considered to be the way to go, that's what I was taught as a Director too and what I always consider (though sometimes disattend). Although bear in mind that WBF directors are used to dealing with players who know (even) more about the game than they do and sometimes about the Laws too: club level direction is not the same thing. In this case for instance it was obvious that there are at least 50 points at the table if 4NT is natural, but neither West nor the Director were good enough to spot that. A quick look at the hand diagram would have explained the whole situation to Director however.

sanst, on 2025-March-24, 04:03, said:

How on earth can you decide what the agreement is by looking at the diagram? And when you've looked, are you going to tell the table or the opponents what the bid means according to your interpretation?

It really is simple to spot what is going on here by looking at the diagram: North and (more or less) East have their bids, South wants to know if partner has ♠A and ♦K to decide whether to risk 7♣. Of course we are not going to tell anyone anything. But now a quick word to North about what is alertable on first round should have him wave the blue card to put West out of his misery and allow him to bid 5♥ as he said he wished to do, without our having conveyed any useful UI to South.

sanst, on 2025-March-24, 04:03, said:

In this case I would let the auction and play continue. By calling the director W has IMO done what's necessary to protect his side. If necessary I will decide about the outcome after the play.

That's what the Director thought and did too.
But might it not be better to prevent damage rather than merely protect (and in this case decide that 6♣ stands)?
Had 4NT been duly alerted and 5♥ bid, who knows what call North would have made, and how South might have interpreted it, particularly if he chose X to indicate zero Aces (or 1 keycard)?
And if South did then bid 6♣ all the same, would you have passed it out in East knowing partner raised to 5♥?

sanst, on 2025-March-24, 04:03, said:

Over here a non-alerted 4NT in the first round should be non forcing and showing the willingness to play that contract.

Exactly the same here too. But I think that by natural logic it should also show a stop here and also be invitational to slam (otherwise why not 3NT, which contracts for the same score at lower risk).
In any case, we're both talking about the same kind of hand. It's not what South has nor what North expects him to have.

[sanst]

 pescetom, on 2025-March-24, 07:24, said:

But might it not be better to prevent damage rather than merely protect (and in this case decide that 6♣ stands)?

Maybe, but the Laws don't give the TD the authority to wake players up. I've no idea what N thought at the time or didn't know that this 4NT was alertable but any action may wake him or her and south.
I think the best action for W is to put a call, which might also be pass, on the table and call the dirdctor if N bids and it's clear that it's an answer to 4NT.
What would W have done if the 4 NT had hit the table in the second round:
1◇ - (1♡) - 2♧ - (4♡)
p - (p) - 4NT
Is it to play, in which case you pass, or asking for aces in which case you probably bid 5♡? No alert allowed but now you have to ask and are not protected by the non-alert.