Home EBU TDs

4th suit forcing not alerted

At a table today, the opposition bid to 3NT and the hand that was due to go down as dummy had bid a 4th suit forcing 3H during the auction which was not alerted. Assuming this was a natural bid, I did not lead from my 4-card heart suit.

When dummy went down, it had just 3 hearts to the J and it was clearly not a natural suit - their partner forgot to alert.

What should happen in this case.....am I permitted to change my lead or should it carry on and see if we've been damaged at the end of play?

Thanks

Comments

  • edited March 2019

    The general guideline for EBU events is that experienced players are expected to protect themselves. Fourth-Suit forcing is such a common treatment that an experienced player should know that it very likely has occurred and thus should ask questions before making an opening lead. Blue Book

    2 A 2 It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (e.g. by transmitting unauthorised information or alerting the opposition), failure to do so may prejudice their right to redress.

    Your club may have other rules - in these circumstances. For inexperienced players the director will adjust the score at the end of the hand, if he is confident that the opening lead has been affected by the MI and the NOS damaged.
    .
    The laws are quite clear that an opening lead may not be retracted once dummy has been displayed. Law 47E2 -

    1. (a) A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an
      opponent’s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification,
      but only if no card was subsequently played (see Law 16C). An opening lead may not be
      retracted after dummy has faced any card.
      .
      This means amongst other things that if Misinformation comes to light after the opening card is faced, but before dummy displays his hand, that the opening card can be changed BUT you cannot go back and re-open the uauction.
      .
      (This does not absolve the declaring side from being bound to call the director at the end of the auction - 20F5
      .
    2. (a) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error
      during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made.
      ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require
      or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require.
      .
      (b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his
      partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity,
      which is:
      (i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
      (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.
      .
      Which is a 'must' call and thus a procedural penalty should be awarded).
  • Law 17D1 - the auction is over when you faced your opening lead (which your posting implies that you have done) and dummy has been spread. Under Law 41C play has begun "irrevocably" so it is too late to allow a change of lead.

    Law 21B1(a) - failure to alert promptly when required to do so is deemed to be misinformation.

    Law 21B3 - when it is too late to change a call an adjusted score should be awarded if the director judges that the offending side have gained an advantage.

    So you do have to wait and call the director for a judgement ruling if you feel that offenders gained an advantage.

  • I agree with everything which has been said, but would make one further point.

    Where I play it is overwhelmingly more likely that a bid of the fourth suit is "fourth-suit-forcing" rather than natural, and it is also one of the commonest alertable calls to be carelessly not alerted. As a defender I would therefore almost invariably ask about an unalerted bid of the fourth suit before choosing my lead.

    As a director I would take some convincing to adjust the score for misinformation on account of FSF not being alerted. But if "fourth suit natural" is common where you play and/or the players are very inexperienced, then there would be a much better case for an adjustment.

  • @Abbeybear said:
    Where I play it is overwhelmingly more likely that a bid of the fourth suit is "fourth-suit-forcing" rather than natural, and it is also one of the commonest alertable calls to be carelessly not alerted. As a defender I would therefore almost invariably ask about an unalerted bid of the fourth suit before choosing my lead.

    As a director I would take some convincing to adjust the score for misinformation on account of FSF not being alerted. But if "fourth suit natural" is common where you play and/or the players are very inexperienced, then there would be a much better case for an adjustment.

    +1

  • +2

    It's a common treatment in America that "4th suit" bids are natural in an already game forcing auction e.g. (uncontested) 1H - 2C - 2S - 3D would be 4th suit forcing for virtually every English player I know and natural for many Americans.

  • @Abbeybear said:
    I agree with everything which has been said, but would make one further point.

    Where I play it is overwhelmingly more likely that a bid of the fourth suit is "fourth-suit-forcing" rather than natural, and it is also one of the commonest alertable calls to be carelessly not alerted. As a defender I would therefore almost invariably ask about an unalerted bid of the fourth suit before choosing my lead.

    I've been known to accidentally miss the fact that my partner's bid is the fourth suit, before now. Of course, the lack of alert in that situation is both MI and UI. Even so, if I notice subsequently in the auction, I have to correct myself (ideally with a Director present).

    If other people are in a similar situation, the lack of alerts may be caused by players failing to interpret the bid correctly, rather than being negligent in disclosing their system. (The former is harder to fix than the latter.)

Sign In or Register to comment.