[olegru]

1st round of online tournament.
Player in the first sit opens 3NT gambling with no alert. No questions.
All passed. Result down one after very reasonable but unliky lead.

There is no way to determinate what would be result if 3NT would alerted - no opponents have a clear bid after 3NT. (One of them have 3 aces and jack in 2344 distribution, second 6-4 in majors but only 7 points).

Player in fault claim what they are just picked up partnership with no discussions and no agreements, but, of cause there is no proof of his claim.

What would you decide as a director?

[Cascade]

[jillybean]

..delete

[blackshoe]

olegru, on Aug 29 2010, 09:04 PM, said:

Player in fault claim what they are just picked up partnership with no discussions and no agreements, but, of cause there is no proof of his claim.

There's no proof otherwise either.

Based on what I read here, result stands.

[bluejak]

When an opponent opens 3NT against me, I ask. Since I will get the answer "no agreement" I am no better off. Result stands.

[olegru]

Thanks for answers bluejak and blackshoe, and special thanks for Cascade.

[Cascade]

What did you have on your convention card?

[olegru]

Standard SAYC I guess. If I am not mistaken it is what get set by default on acbl games.
Note: it was the first bid in the first board for first time partnership in speedball. We simply did not have time to agree anything or change convention card.

I completely agree that I supposed to alert 3NT bid and put explanation “no agreements” no matter how stupid it looks.
As I said before I do not care a bit about my result there. Procedure penalty for absence of alert could be appropriate, not sure if software allows it.

My main concern is the bridge game. Adjustments like that one spoils players. They learn that it is better do not defend themselves by asking for a meaning (just click on the bid, not too much work, isn’t it?) but keep silence and then call director asking for adjustment.
Once again if used convention could be somehow unexpected for that particular opposition, adjustment could make sense. But do you really believe players with J and 10 in BBO profiles with cards they hold could expect 3NT bid be anything other than Gambling? For last 5 years (maybe more) nobody opened natural 3NT against me.

[barmar]

I play natural 3NT with several of my partners. I think I get this hand 2 or 3 times a year, I can't recall the last time I had a gambling 3NT hand (some people shade the requirements so they can use the bid).

Pick-up partnerships with little or no discussion frequently create disclosure problems. Although it's legitimate, the opponents tend to feel wronged when they get lots of "undiscussed" explanations.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 if you play bridge on BBO, one self alerts ones owns bid, if you play live,
p alerts your bids, and the alert occurs the moment the bid hits the table,
so if 3NT is alertable, the alert should be on the screen, period.
And if you dont do it, you may (or may not) get procedural penalty.

#2 A missing alert does not automatically lead to a correction, so most likely
results stands.

Simply speaking, and since you claim, that you are worried about the bridge game,
easy adjustment spoil the players / opponents to take care for themself, but being
lax wthout consequence in following, what one is supposed to do is also spoiling
the players.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: This is just generic, I have no clue, if 3NT is alertable on BBO, or if it is
alertable in the US, I would simply do it, and if I forgot it, because "everyone
does it", and someones complains, I would say sorry and accept a penalty
without complaing.

[olegru]

2P_Marlowe: Didn't I say exactly the same Probabaly it is just my language problem. Anyway just to confirm I am 100% agree with what you said, and there would not be a slightest complain about procedure penalty if director feel that this kind of "bridge sin" deserve it. Splited resultes could make sence too...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do agree that TD could be in a difficult possition if software does not allow him to do any of this things (I simply don't know). In this case we probably should ask developers if they can give these options to directors.

But even if it is true and director had no other choices, give players "something for nothing" for my opinion is a much worse, then let person stay unpenalised for not alerting this kind of bids.