[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     1♣    Pass
 3♣    Pass  Pass  Pass
 

3♣ (weak) was not alerted. Do N/S have grounds for complaint or should they have found their ♠ fit regardless?

[blackshoe]

They have grounds, if 3♣ is alertable (it is under ACBL rules, but that doesn't mean it's alertable in all jurisdictions).

I would adjust to 3♠+1 for both sides under ACBL rules (which do not allow weighted scores). If weighted score are available to the TD, I'd have to think about whether and how to weight, and it's late.

[hotShot]

Actually it depends on the agreement E/W have, but since East did not make a move over 3♣, 3♣ won't be a forcing raise.
If E/W don't have a posted CC, to prove that the bid was wrong or a psych, i would assume that they play some sort of inverted minors.
In that case N/S were damaged by the missinformation (missing alert is an MI) and the score should be corrected.
Bidding 3♠ seams reasonable whatever that makes.

[fred]

Not being a TD or an expert on the Laws, perhaps I have no idea what I am talking about, but I have to admit that I am not impressed by the 2 responses so far (which I believe came from 2 experienced TDs).

Wouldn't it be a good idea to explain why you think there was damage and why you think adjusting to 3S is correct? The players at the table would certainly want (and deserve I think) an explanation of the TD's reasoning. I expect Jillybean was looking for the same thing - the potential for damage is obvious, but unless you can explain why damage actually occurred and why you adjusted the result to whatever, you are not doing a very good job as a TD (IMO).

For example, you could say "South has an automatic reopening DBL if he knows 3C is weak, but his failure to DBL when he thought 3C was limit is reasonable. Therefore there was damage". You could go on to say "If South DBLs then North will bid 3S and that will become the final contract and 10 tricks will be the normal result. Therefore I will adjust the result to 3S+1".

Similarly if the TD thinks "It is reasonable for North to bid 4S after a reopening DBL" the score should be adjusted to 4S making.

Perhaps the TD thinks "North's Pass over 3C was reasonable, but he would have bid 3S if he knew 3C was weak". Then he should adjust the result to 4S making - South has an obvious raise to 4S.

Finally if the TD thinks "EW clearly misexplained 3C, but neither North nor South would have acted any differently with the correct infromation" then the ruling should be "the result stands".

It is not reasonable for the TD to base his decision on "NS have 21 combined HCP and 9 spades and 3S is a reasonable contract that happens to make 4 so I will adjust the result to 3S+1". Instead you need to present a rational sequence for how NS can arrive at 3S if they are given proper information.

To summarize, IMO it is not an example of good TDing to just say "there was damage so I will adjust the result to X". You need to explain why NS were damaged by the misexplanation and why X as opposed to Y or Z or...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

I agree with Fred so far. It does not follow that if 3♠ makes and there was no alert when there should be one, then there should be an adjustment. Sometimes you just cannot find a bid.

Looking at the hand, the only reasoning for an adjustment would be that if 3♣ is weak, South could have Doubled for TO, made less attractive if 3♣ was invitational.

On the other hand, if 3♣ is weak then East may well be strong, and Doubling as South is perhaps not so obvious.

Regardless if you think that it is "good bridge" or not, I think no one would bid 3♠ over 3♣, but some would double with South. Since it is an alternative to not pass out 3♣, I will adjust to 3♠ (4♠ is a bit agressive, given that South didn't Double earlier).

It depends a bit on the alertability of 3♣. Different countries have different rules. I for one do not like rules that force players to alert natural bids, but I stick to the rules that are given.

[Echognome]

Actually, I think the TD should ask NS how they were damaged. North or South should say how they would have bid differently given the correct explanation.

The TD should use this and make a judgment about this. If the TD concludes there was damage (and it would help in making this judgment to hear what N and S have to say), then it depends on what jurisdiction you are in for adjustment.

[jillybean]

Thanks Fred, this is what I was hoping for.
If you can help me understand your thinking and reasoning I’m better equipped to come up with the answer myself next time.

[awm]

I think it's fairly clear to double a weak 3♣ bid with the south hand. In fact I would've doubled 1♣, but having not done that I must double 3♣.

The opponents seem to have a good fit, south has "perfect" double shape, and it is not unlikely that N/S have a majority of the high card points. We can easily have a game on this hand. The opening bidder will usually have a weak notrump on this auction, which does not leave him well-placed to double us opposite a weak partner even if we overreach. If opener holds 18-19 balanced, most people will bid over 3♣ from partner with that. If opener has some other hand then the opponents probably have a 10-card club fit, making a balancing action pretty safe here (not to mention he might've bid over 3♣).

Note that if 3♣ were invitational, the opponents certainly have the majority of the strength. The odds of our having game go way down, and the chances that opener finds a double with a balanced 13-count or the like go way up (he knows partner will deliver some help on defense). I think a balancing double over an invitational 3♣ at IMPs is really terrible.

So I'd adjust on the basis that south should double if he knows the bid is invitational -- assuming that a weak 3♣ is in fact an alert under the regulations in force.

[TimG]

awm, on Jul 15 2008, 12:45 PM, said:

I think it's fairly clear to double a weak 3♣ bid with the south hand. In fact I would've doubled 1♣, but having not done that I must double 3♣.

Note that if 3♣ were invitational, the opponents certainly have the majority of the strength. The odds of our having game go way down, and the chances that opener finds a double with a balanced 13-count or the like go way up (he knows partner will deliver some help on defense). I think a balancing double over an invitational 3♣ at IMPs is really terrible.

So I'd adjust on the basis that south should double if he knows the bid is invitational -- assuming that a weak 3♣ is in fact an alert under the regulations in force.

Doesn't the player in balancing seat have some responsibility to protect himself and ask about the un-alerted and un-explained jump raise? As you point out, in some jurisdictions a weak jump raise is not alertable. And, an online inquiry can be made privately so that partner does not know you are asking, so there is no danger of passing UI to partner through your question.

I think that a player who decides that double is right when the raise is weak and pass is right when the raise is invitation is sort of slimy if he does not ask for clarification and then claims damage when his pass does not work out. Isn't this a rather classic double shot? Pass works, keep quiet; double would have worked, ask for an adjustment.

[jillybean]

I will be interested to hear what others have to say regarding South protecting himself. I have heard others say the player is entitled to a double shot after the opps have failed to alert.

(This game was run under ACBL alerting rules, EW failed to alert.)

Second question; How would you respond if after dummy came down, North called and said, given the correct information he would have bid 3♠ over 3♣?

[jtfanclub]

I think a double by South is fine over 3♣.

If I'm called to the table in a FTF game, I would ask what N/S would do with the correct information and adjust accoringly (or not at all). It's not up to the director to decide what the bids would be, just whether the new bids are reasonable.

I think the first two directors assumed the additional information and adjusted accordingly (and I agree with their conclusion). Since this is a forum, they didn't want to spend half a dozen posts going back and forth.

There may also be lead issues.

I see no reason why South would protect himself, unless South had some reason to think West was playing inverted minors.

[awm]

TimG, on Jul 15 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

I think that a player who decides that double is right when the raise is weak and pass is right when the raise is invitation is sort of slimy if he does not ask for clarification and then claims damage when his pass does not work out. Isn't this a rather classic double shot? Pass works, keep quiet; double would have worked, ask for an adjustment.

But at the same time, I have seen a lot of ACBL directors go too far in the other direction. You can basically say that any time opponents bid anything, you could/should ask what their call means, so there is never any adjustment for any failure to alert because the non-offending side should protect themselves.

One of the most extreme examples of this I've seen came a few years ago, when I was playing in a regional open pairs with a partner who was playing his first open regional event.

We had the following auction:

1NT (15-17) - 2♦ (not alerted) - 4♥ (transfer) - Pass - 4♠ - All Pass

Partner was declarer in 4♠. After pulling trump, in order to score an overtrick he needed to play ♥AKx in hand opposite ♥QTxx in dummy for four tricks. He played the AK and (both following) continued to the queen. Hearts broke 4-2, with overcaller holding four. The opponents agreement about 2♦ was that they play DONT -- it showed diamonds and a major. Overcaller having already shown up with fewer than four spades, this meant that his holding four hearts was guaranteed. Opponents did not alert during the auction and did not say anything about this after the play. However, their card was clearly marked. I had looked at it while he was declaring, partner hadn't. I called a director, director ruled "conventional defenses to 1NT openings are a common agreement, thus it is partner's responsibility to protect himself, no adjustment."

I guess my point is, you can always rule that "hey it's your own bad luck for not asking or looking at the card." But at some point you have to at least penalize the offending side; otherwise you create an environment where it is purely to their advantage to refuse to alert.

[ArcLight]

Does not West have a limit Raise, and hence not weak?
For point counters:

They have:
(2) 2 HCP in spades
(3) singleton diamond
(3) 3 HCP in clubs
(2) extra length in clubs

Thats 10 points and qualifies as a limit raise.

Can not a player say "In my judgment this has good playing strength and I felt it warranted a limit raise?"
You might not agree with their judgment, but a player is allowed to not have good judgment.
If you punish west (and west wasn't trying to do anything wrong) then why not punish someone who opens light?
Sometimes I encounter people who open 1NT with 18-19 or even 20.

BTW - why did East oepn 1 Club and not 1 Diamond? WIth 4-4 and better Diamonds?

[matmat]

awm, on Jul 15 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

I called a director, director ruled "conventional defenses to 1NT openings are a common agreement, thus it is partner's responsibility to protect himself, no adjustment."

just seems like a ripe area for exploitation.

personally, I detest this sort of ruling. I think the burden should be squarely on the side playing the alertable call.

[blackshoe]

I wasn't asked to give a complete ruling, I was asked if NS had grounds for requesting one. Besides, it was late, I was tired, and I had to get up early this morning to go play "hurry up and wait" for three hours after a 75 mile drive (and then drive back).

Fred is correct that the proper way to give a ruling is to explain the basis of the ruling, including the pertinent laws (and including, if there is any doubt, reading the law from the book, at least in f2f bridge).

There was some missing evidence in Jilly's orginal post: were ACBL regulations in effect (it seems they were). Was EW's agreement in fact that 3♣ was weak? Let's assume it was, for I'm sure Jilly would not have brought this up if it weren't. .

Okay, there has been a violation of Law 40B (1997 Laws) or Law 40B2(a) (2007 Laws) via the failure to alert as required by the ACBL alert regulation. This will (Law 12A, 1997 or 2007 laws) lead to an adjusted score per Law 12C2 (1997) or 12C1 (2007) if the NOS were damaged.

"Damage" is defined, essentially as "the non-offending side got a worse result than they would have got if there had been no irregularity". Were NS damaged? Certainly. Whatever the table result in 3♣, NS would almost certainly have done better in 3♠. Would they have got to 3♠? The legal guideline for the TD here is to adjust for the NOS to "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" and for the OS "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable". So we have to investigate. Were NS like to get to 3♠ (or some other contract) absent the irregularity? You'd have to ask them. Fred suggests they might have got to 4♠, making 4. Fair enough. That's almost certainly "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable", so let's award that to the OS. Is it "likely"? I suppose that depends on the players involved. Sounds like it would be for Fred, at least, but lesser mortals, maybe not. So how good were these players? Do they argue they might have got to 4♠? Giving them the benefit of the doubt (which, btw, should always go to the NOS) let's say yes. So I'd revise my earlier statement, and rule 4♠ making 4, NS +620, EW -620. If the TD does not think reaching 4♠ is likely, he might award NS +170 for 3♠ making 4, but EW should still get -620 ("at all probable").

Jilly asked "should they have found their ♠ fit regardless?" The 2007 law 12C1{b} says "If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted." The (current) ACBL guideline in these cases is "was there a 'failure to play bridge?'. I would say there was not. As several posters have pointed out, it's a lot harder to compete on these NS hands when you believe the opponents have a significant majority of the points. So there are IMO no grounds for denying the NOS redress here. (Note that even in cases where you do deny redress, the OS should still get the score adjustment they've earned by their infraction). In Adam's story on this point, I think the director was wrong.

Note: in some jurisdictions, the TD is permitted to weight the score adjustment according to the probabilities he assigns to each of several possible outcomes. The ACBL is not one of those jurisdictions, so I'll leave it at that.

Better, Fred?

[awm]

matmat, on Jul 15 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

just seems like a ripe area for exploitation.

personally, I detest this sort of ruling. I think the burden should be squarely on the side playing the alertable call.

There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that rulings (both directors and committees) are sometimes made based upon "who the people are" rather than the technical merits of the case.

Obviously this is something that is very hard to prove or disprove, and it may even be desirable in a few rare instances (i.e. to prevent experienced players from taking advantage of newer players, or to require established pairs using non-standard methods to do a better job of disclosure than first time partnerships without many firm agreements).

But it seems like in general, this sort of thing should have no place in higher-level play (i.e. there are no "beginners" in a national event). And it would be nice if the regulations were written in such a way as to make it difficult to make "people-dependent" rulings, by having unambiguous rules wherever possible and illustrative examples to assist in cases where the rules are necessarily "fuzzy." Unfortunately ACBL has moved in exactly the opposite direction, making alert regulations less specific (i.e. a double is alertable if it carries a "highly unexpected meaning"), consistently making these sorts of "you need to protect yourself" rulings when there is a failure to alert (rather than always considering a failure to alert as a potential infraction, or having examples of which particular methods are sufficiently common that top-level players should be expected to protect themselves in the case of a failure to alert), and ensuring that those "examples" which exist are private to regionally rated directors (I have seen official looking examples from regional directors of what qualifies for a non-psychic strong 2♣ opening, but cannot access these examples myself).

Anyway, to get back on topic there is certainly an issue of whether a preemptive 3♣ is alertable. In principle there could be an issue of what the agreement actually is (responder evaluated his hand in a funny way, or miscounted his points, or intentionally psyched). And of course one can decide that 3♣ is "officially alertable" but "de facto not alertable" (i.e. you are supposed to alert but there will never be any adjustment if you fail to alert because opponents are expected to protect themselves by asking). But I think south's balance over a weak 3♣ is pretty clear (and over a strong 3♣ his non-balance is clear) so assuming that the weak 3♣ call was their agreement, was alertable, and is "de facto alertable" then there should be an adjustment to 3♠ or 4♠. I would suggest 4♠= for the offending side (worst result at all probable) and 3♠+1 for the non-offending side (most likely result).

[TimG]

awm, on Jul 15 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

I guess my point is, you can always rule that "hey it's your own bad luck for not asking or looking at the card." But at some point you have to at least penalize the offending side; otherwise you create an environment where it is purely to their advantage to refuse to alert.

I agree that it can go too far in both directions.

[blackshoe]

I agree with David Stevenson - I do not understand, and cannot abide, the tendency of some people to, in effect, let the OS slide on infractions on the grounds that the NOS "failed to protect themselves". IMO, that's pure unadulterated BS.

[barmar]

I also agree with David. The "protect yourself" rule is intended for cases where the OS is less experienced than the NOS, and is likely to be unaware of the alerting rules for some common conventions. For instance, if an experienced player hears 1NT-2H-2S, with no transfer announcement (assuming this is under ACBL alerting rules), he should probably confirm that 2H was a transfer.

But while conventional defenses to 1NT are common, natural overcalls are not so unusual that one should have to check for themselves. And the players who use conventional overcalls can usually be assumed to be experienced enough to know to alert them.

[hotShot]

While the offending side has to prove their agreement, so that the TD can judge between wrong bid or wrong information, the laws on the NOS are much more relaxed.
The question is: Is it likely that NS will bid over a weak 3♣.
Knowing the average strength of players on BBO, North bidding 3♠ over 3♣ can be considered a common B/I mistake, reopening with the South hand seems not unreasonable. Bidding in BBO tourneys is often (unreasonably) aggressive.
I'm not sure, if it's likely to reach 4♠ with estimated 20 combined HCP.
I would ask about their methods and if they have a plausible approach I might award 4♠.

The wonderful thing on BBO to have so many different cultures, is a curse when it comes to alerting. If all 4 players claim to play SEF or polish club, I will consider, if they should have protected themselves, but in a random BBO tourney you can't expect anything.
And please consider: If North had asked about the strength of the 3♣ bid, the UI created will almost force South to bid.