[jschafer]

Let me start by saying that I know very little about laws and rulings so I am just trying to get an idea of how this would have been handled by a TD. This was a BBO tourney so you have to self-alert and I'm not sure how that compares to rules for regular alerts. So the following happened when RHO deals and opens r/w:

(1♣)-2♥-(Pass)-Pass
(X)*-Pass-(Pass)-3♣
(X)-All Pass

*RHO self-alerts 1♣ as strong after doubling (I do not know if my p asked for the 1♣ to be explained at this point or if he decided to alert it now himself).

At the table my partner and I claimed that if the 1♣ had been alerted initially (when it was bid) I would not have preempted 2♥ (which was already dubious even at favourable). Even if 1♣ had been natural and there had been an alerting 'mistake' by alerting 1♣ as strong instead of double it meant we would not have ended up in 3♣X without the incorrect information provided. There was a break in tempo when RHO suddenly alerted 1♣ as strong and we asked about why now, so he had more than enough time to correct if he had made a mistake. The TD who came just took the easy way out, said had been no false information provided and told us to play the next hand.

At no point did RHO say that they did not play strong ♣ or mention anything about the alerts when we asked (to the table) why 1♣ had only been alerted so late. LHO was quite abusive during this whole deal and also said that they do not play a strong ♣ after the hand! (presumably because he saw his partner had an 18/19 balanced 1♣ opener in a natural system). Both 2♥ and 3♣ would have been bad places to play in for our side and would result in near bottoms (MPs) for our side because they went down 1-2 too many vs their vul game. What do you make of this all and LHO's statement after the hand, how would you rule?

[mrdct]

It looks like an interesting problem, but it's kind of hard to make a ruling if you don't post the hand.

I would say that one would be more inclined to preempt versus a strong club than a natural club as the preempt is generally more successful if made before the opponents have introduced one of their suits. Accordingly, I am unlikely to believe that if the strong club had been alerted in time you wouldn't have bid 2♥.

[pran]

Generally when a call is to be alerted it must be alerted before the next player calls.

If it is alerted later, but before the other opponent subsequently calls then the next player shall be allowed to withdraw his call (subject to Law 21B1a).

After the other opponent has subsequently called the next player is no longer allowed to withdraw his call but the Director must (if requested) judge whether non-offending side has been damaged by the failure to alert in time (like in all situations where players have been misinformed).

As the case is presented I tend to "rule" that the TD was mistaken in stating that no false information has been provided; Law 21B1a specifically defines failure to alert in time as false information.

As it was too late to have the 2♥ bid withdrawn he was correct in ordering the board to be played out, but he should carefully have tried your claim that you would not have bid 2♥ with correct information at that time.

[iviehoff]

I wonder whether RHO was just saying that "double shows that my 1C was stronger than a minimum". That would explain why the alert was of the double, why the TD said there was no problem, why LHO asserted they weren't playing strong club, and why they got annoyed with the persistence of your complaints.

[jschafer]

My hand was:
♠T863
♥QT752
♦A92
♣J

I know many would not bid 2♥ on this regardless of what 1♣ is. Imo it is far more suicidal over a strong ♣ than a regular 1♣ opening but I can see it is just my word claiming that I wouldn't do it over a strong ♣. As far as the 'strong' referring to the double goes, I would probably suspect that is what happened if I had been playing against beginners or intermediates and not pressed the issue. But when your opponents put 'World Class' in their profile I would at least expect them to know the alerting procedures for self-alerting. The TD didn't tell us to finish this board, he just said to keep playing and that he wasn't going to do anything regardless of the result.

[bluejak]

If they were playing strong club and if as you say the alert did not come until the double the the TD's actions were certainly wrong. You have been misinformed by the failure to alert, which is an infraction, and the TD is required if this is the case to look at the hand at the end to see if you were damaged.

However, there are complications with online rulings. It is often far less clear what the opponents are playing unless they post a system card, which not many pairs do. There are also a lot of misunderstandings in explanations, and it is possible that the TD decided they were not actually playing a strong club. If so he was correct that there was no infraction so no reason to change the score but he should have made his ruling clearer.

[barmar]

It's also not clear that their agreement actually is that 1♣ is strong. So while the alert may accurately have described opener's hand, it's technically misinformation, since you're supposed to explain your agreements. Imagine if this were being played f2f, with normal partner-alerts. Then there wouldn't have been any alert; 1♣ would have been a misbid. There could potentially be UI issues, if opener takes action based on his partner failing to alert what he thought was an artificial opening (see the thread "singleton pull" for this type of issue).