Weird question "failure to announce"
#1
Posted 2009-September-18, 00:08
We are playing in ACBL where 1♣ that could be shorter than three requires an announcement. RHO opens 1♣, and I have a hand with a bunch of clubs. I glance at their convention card and notice that their agreement is 1♣ could be as few as two; however there was no announcement. Should I:
(1) Ask opponents about the 1♣ call, even though the answer is on the card, so that when I overcall 2♣ partner will know it is natural.
(2) Call the director immediately because of the failure to announce.
(3) Bid 2♣ intending it as natural, and then call director later if partner takes it as michaels because of the non-announce and we have an accident.
(4) Continue as if 1♣ had been 3+ (i.e. pass here, maybe come in later). Call the director if it seems that I have been damaged by the inability to overcall 2♣ natural in direct seat.
Or something else?
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#2
Posted 2009-September-18, 00:14
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
Posted 2009-September-18, 01:31
#4
Posted 2009-September-18, 02:01
(Actually, with some partners I would have had to ask at the start of the round since we play one defence against siege-style 1♣, which can be a 2-card suit even in a hand with 4 diamonds, and another against the more common style of 2 cards only if 4=4=3=2.)
#5
Posted 2009-September-18, 02:08
#6
Posted 2009-September-18, 02:18
#7
Posted 2009-September-18, 03:57
But after thinking a little bit more about it, I now vote for #5
As we have a special agreement after a 1♣ opening it is normal to assure opponents' methods.
So, if I read on "their" SC - and I'm not totally sure, it's the SC of my current opponents - that 1♣ may be short and they did not announce it that way, I'm going to point to this discrepancy: "Sorry, I just looked on your (?) SC; doesn't short club need an announcement, Sir?". I will try to emphasize this discrepancy rather than showing interest in the ♣ suit - if possible.
#9
Posted 2009-September-18, 06:23
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<[email protected]>
#10
Posted 2009-September-18, 06:25
You are recieving conflicting information about the opponents' system. It's not in the spirit of the game to lean back in that situation and hope to recieve compensation afterwards, when you know right now that there is a problem.
Partner will hear the question but that is just how it works.
#11
Posted 2009-September-18, 06:46
EBU Orange book said:
I think this is more likely to be applied to better players.
But I merely gave my advice as to the best thing to do. It is a reasonable alternative to say nothing, and seek a ruling if it goes wrong. But do not blame me if you get ruled against!
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<[email protected]>
#12
Posted 2009-September-18, 07:14
PeterE, on Sep 18 2009, 04:57 AM, said:
But after thinking a little bit more about it, I now vote for #5 :rolleyes:
As we have a special agreement after a 1♣ opening it is normal to assure opponents' methods.
So, if I read on "their" SC - and I'm not totally sure, it's the SC of my current opponents - that 1♣ may be short and they did not announce it that way, I'm going to point to this discrepancy: "Sorry, I just looked on your (?) SC; doesn't short club need an announcement, Sir?". I will try to emphasize this discrepancy rather than showing interest in the ♣ suit - if possible.
Over the years I have developed the opinion for the case where one's agreement is conditional ['varies' depending upon what agreement the opponents have]:
at the beginning of every round
[a] it is important that the opponents be made aware of every such conditional agreement [should be done with an auxilliary sheet]
[b] for every such conditional agreement it is ascertained what the opponent's agreement is
#13
Posted 2009-September-18, 07:36
axman, on Sep 18 2009, 02:14 PM, said:
at the beginning of every round
[a] it is important that the opponents be made aware of every such conditional agreement [should be done with an auxilliary sheet]
[b] for every such conditional agreement it is ascertained what the opponent's agreement is
It's not clear to me that this approach, however desirable, would leave any time to actually play a hand.
#14
Posted 2009-September-18, 07:52
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#15
Posted 2009-September-18, 09:59
blackshoe, on Sep 18 2009, 08:52 AM, said:
The person sitting over the 1C opener did not cause the problem, he noticed one. Asking about it, whether it alerts partner or not, must be allowed. It would be better, I guess -- and less UI prone, if partner knew I always made myself aware of these things and always asked when they occurred.
My conscience is clear using option #1. 3 or 4 would leave me feeling sleezy.
#16
Posted 2009-September-18, 10:41
What is the problem with asking? Assuming the CC is right, they will say its short, I will bid 2♣, and partner knows it shows clubs. Where is the UI problem?
Ok, if the CC is wrong, I may have given partner UI that I have clubs if I asked in the wrong tone. At least in this case I have created an interesting Ruling problem to post (Is UI still UI when it is due to a question I only asked because of MI on the CC? New thread anyone? )
#17
Posted 2009-September-18, 10:45
bluejak, on Sep 18 2009, 02:46 PM, said:
EBU Orange book said:
I think this is more likely to be applied to better players.
But I merely gave my advice as to the best thing to do. It is a reasonable alternative to say nothing, and seek a ruling if it goes wrong. But do not blame me if you get ruled against!
Yes, there are of course no obligations to seek information about their system. So if one likes, one can go ahead and bid.
To get a compensation afterwards, however, the laws require the player to be innocent (Law 12B1).
If a player realizes he is getting conflicting information and is taking no steps to clarify, then that player is not innocent and thus shouldn't be awarded damages.
He can call the director, no problem. Just to get refused hopefully.
I'll first have a problem with it, if he applies the and doesn't tell honestly about what he was aware of at the time of his decision. Since that could easily provoke a wrong ruling.
#18
Posted 2009-September-18, 10:51
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#19
Posted 2009-September-18, 11:14
MFA, on Sep 18 2009, 12:45 PM, said:
Law 12B1 said:
Law 12C1{b} said:
I think that it is the word "innocent" which directs the law to 12C1{b}, and in particular that in order to be deemed "not innocent" a contestant has to commit a serious error, or take a wild or gambling action. Which of these has our putative player done in not asking for clarification?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#20
Posted 2009-September-18, 11:49
blackshoe, on Sep 18 2009, 11:51 AM, said:
Duh, of course it is. You are a hard person to agree with, even when I quote you and say pretty much the same thing --that partner's benefit is a byproduct and clarification is the real reason for asking. Whether I know that byproduct might occur should not be a consideration.