[eigen137]

I was hoping to solicit experienced players / directors' vantage point on a situation.

I as declarer opened 1d, lho overcalled 1nt and partner bid 2d.
Rho bid x

I asked for an explanation and neither opp would explain (both denoted as adv players).
I requested a director, and ACBL_63 came to the table.
I explained that I was requesting an explanation of the double, and his response was "just play."
I did make the mistake to ask a second question by saying, "I am just curious if stolen bid, neg or penalty" and without further response from ACBL_63, I was removed from the tournament.

My question is, if opponents refuse to alert a bid (it was ultimately a stolen bid x as a transfer to hearts), am I entitled to ask for an explanation or should I have not asked again and just played and sought damages after? Is it normal to be removed like that?

Thank you for your feedback.

[barmar]

You're always entitled to ask a question about a bid, whether it's alerted or not. But you're also supposed to follow the directions of the TD. If they said to play on without the explanation, that's what you must do. If it was a speedball, keeping the game moving often takes precedence, which may be why they removed you from the game.

They might not have been a regular partnership, and even regular partnerships may not have concrete understandings after NT overcalls (versus opening 1NT). Did they have a convention card you could have checked? But even if it says "systems on" for NT overcalls, the interference by your partner may confuse things (I'm pretty sure I'm not on firm ground with my partners here).

[mycroft]

I disagree with "no response", but something's tickling my ear saying it was instead "no special agreement" or whatever BBO text shows up when an opponent just clicks-to-close the question.

If it was in fact Hearts, and it was in fact an ACBL-club game, it should have been Announced with no need to ask. But, you know, it's only been 4 years, people haven't got used to the new Alert Procedure yet.

Having said all of that, what would you do if the response was "no agreement, partner's a sub"?
How about "we play systems on, but haven't discussed a raise"?
Remember, despite self-alerts, you are *not entitled to the contents of the bidder's hand*, just their agreement about what the call means.

Barmar's comment about "if the TD says 'play on', that's what you must do", however, absolutely applies (Law 90B8). In a speedball, it might actually be the right thing to do (and discuss "had I been informed it was hearts, I do X instead" after, and have them score it). I don't TD speedballs, I don't know.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2024-October-14, 10:55, said:

I disagree with "no response", but something's tickling my ear saying it was instead "no special agreement" or whatever BBO text shows up when an opponent just clicks-to-close the question.

I think it is "No explanation available" (or at least that is the system generated text that frequently appears during the hopeless task of soliciting an explanation).

mycroft, on 2024-October-14, 10:55, said:

If it was in fact Hearts, and it was in fact an ACBL-club game, it should have been Announced with no need to ask. But, you know, it's only been 4 years, people haven't got used to the new Alert Procedure yet.

This being an ACBL sanctioned game on BBO, isn't there some regulation that explains what should happen when it would be an Announcement f2f?
When we play under FIGB regulations on BBO, it is clear that anything that would be Announced by partner f2f is self-alerted and the announcement is provided as explanation.

[jillybean]

barmar, on 2024-October-14, 10:26, said:

You're always entitled to ask a question about a bid, whether it's alerted or not. But you're also supposed to follow the directions of the TD. If they said to play on without the explanation, that's what you must do. If it was a speedball, keeping the game moving often takes precedence, which may be why they removed you from the game.

Unfortunately, I think this is true. The aim in a speedball is to keep the game moving, the Directors could be too busy subbing players to make any rulings. There is no time to resolve problems like this.

[mycroft]

I believe in ACBL-sanctioned games with self-Alerting, Announcements are self-explained without a question. Probably should be Alerted and self-explained, but since putting the explanation into the textbox sets the Alert ring, it's just easier to do that.

Now, for reasons - which I'm sure everyone is tired of me stating by now - I do that for *all* my Alertable calls (and some that aren't FtF, but might as well be online), I don't *know this* for a fact (what I do is sufficient, so...?)

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2024-October-15, 08:51, said:

Now, for reasons - which I'm sure everyone is tired of me stating by now - I do that for *all* my Alertable calls (and some that aren't FtF, but might as well be online), I don't *know this* for a fact (what I do is sufficient, so...?)

I also alert and explain some things online that aren't supposed to be alerted ftf. E.g. support doubles are no longer alertable in ACBL, but I still do them online.

In ftf bridge, the alert procedure has to balance information to opponents with UI to partner. With self-alerting that isn't visible to partner, the latter is not a problem, so over-alerting is a "no harm, no foul" situation. The only possible downside is the extra time it takes to type the explanation while bidding.