[WGF_Flame]

Hello, we have a debate about disclosure and will be happy to hear you're view.

North deals and the bidding goes as follows with silence opponents and no alerts
1C-2C
2S-3C
3NT
The hand:

---

responder bid a normal 2C while opener thought it meant to be inverted minors. (he confirmed it after the board was played.)
The defense was damage because they expected more from opener hand.
The CC explain that they don't play inverted minor.
This mean the explanations were according to the agrement and no problem.
Yet I think this is wrong, true the law say we should explain our agrements, but what this actually mean in real life is that we should explain what we think is our agreement. of cource its not enough and if a player explain his agreement wrong, be punished by the game law, yet a player first duty is to explain what he think the agreement is. The opener in this example failed to do that, he thought he is playing inverted but failed to tell this to his opponents, and if this caused them to misdefense , they deserve a compensation.

Am I totally wrong ?

edited: where we play its obvious that non alert 2c is normal raise and inverted minor has to be alerted.

[campboy]

If opener thought they were playing inverted minors, and they are alertable in your jurisdiction, why did he not alert? As it happens he has not committed an infraction, but he could not have known that!

Anyway, the law does require you to describe your agreements; if you say what you believe your agreement is, but you get it wrong, you have in fact broken the law. If he had alerted 2♣ and described it as inverted, that would have been misinformation, and you would have been entitled to redress if it damaged you. Here you were correctly informed about their methods; you are not entitled to know that opener has misbid.

[WGF_Flame]

Hello CampBuy, He didn't alert 2C because he forgot to alert.
I am not saying you should tell what you got, or that its enough to say that you think is your system.
What I am saying is that the correct precedure is to alert and tell the opponents our agrement as it is stored in my brain, if this is not exactly the agrement its not enough, but still this is a must. So in fact playing by the correct precedure we give 2 peaces of information (which sometime are the same) first we say what we think is our agrement, and then if this is not true dummy (before lead) can correct it, and if this isn't enough then the law will adjust the score. So basically playing by correct procedure give more then not giving alert as the guy did here, and this cannot be right.

[blackshoe]

Okay, if he thought 2♣ required an alert, he should have alerted it. However, if he was wrong about the agreement, then he was also wrong about the requirement to alert, and failure to alert when it's not required is not an infraction. So the opponents are not entitled to redress on the basis of MI.

If the opponents ask questions about the auction, then opener is required to explain that, in his opinion, they are playing inverted minors. But not if they don't ask. Basically, you're suggesting that opener is required to tell the opponents what he has in his hand. He's not.

[WGF_Flame]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-03, 23:50, said:

Okay, if he thought 2♣ required an alert, he should have alerted it. However, if he was wrong about the agreement, then he was also wrong about the requirement to alert, and failure to alert when it's not required is not an infraction. So the opponents are not entitled to redress on the basis of MI.

If the opponents ask questions about the auction, then opener is required to explain that, in his opinion, they are playing inverted minors. But not if they don't ask. Basically, you're suggesting that opener is required to tell the opponents what he has in his hand. He's not.

blackshoe - I don't think it makes any different whether they asked or not, not giving alert practicably equal to explaining its a normal simple raise. I don't want a player to give his hand. I want a player to explain the system as he know it, and alert it and explain when they asked as he know it. (which again is a must but not enough)

[campboy]

I think you want him to be wrong whatever he does, which isn't reasonable. You seem to be saying: if he alerts this is wrong because he has a duty to give the correct explanation; if he does not alert this is wrong because he has a duty to give the explanation he thinks is correct. You can't have it both ways.

[hotShot]

When did EW ask for an explanation?

North did not alert 2♣, by that he "disclosed it" as a normal raise.

That North obviously acted thinking they are playing inverted minor is irrelevant. The CC and partner suggest that this is not the agreement, so there is no MI or UI involved.
I find it hard to detect some sort of clever strategic advantage to bid 3NT on 18 combined HCP, so I think it's plausible that North just made a serious error here.

EW misdefended because North did not have the promised strength, but there is no basis for a score correction.

A TD could record this as a psyche, he could tell North that inv. minors has to be alerted if it is the agreement. But this does not lead to a corrected score.

[WGF_Flame]

campboy, on 2011-April-04, 03:34, said:

I think you want him to be wrong whatever he does, which isn't reasonable. You seem to be saying: if he alerts this is wrong because he has a duty to give the correct explanation; if he does not alert this is wrong because he has a duty to give the explanation he thinks is correct. You can't have it both ways.

What I want him to do is what I would have done. I would have alerted 2C, then they would ask and I would explain as inverted, then before the lead my partner would have corrected the explanation, then if after all this its possible that the director would have compensate my opponents if they prove that the initial explanation hurt them. This is the regular procedure this is what I would have done and I believe this is what the law tell us to do. We all sometimes forget our system, but this doesn't mean we don't have to alert and explain it according to our knowledge.

Please notice that the way I suggested it which is as I see it the normal way any fair player do, the opponents do in fact get more information that with the player who forgot to alert. Do we want to give him a prize for not alerting ?

[blackshoe]

WGF_Flame, on 2011-April-04, 01:53, said:

blackshoe - I don't think it makes any different whether they asked or not, not giving alert practicably equal to explaining its a normal simple raise. I don't want a player to give his hand. I want a player to explain the system as he know it, and alert it and explain when they asked as he know it. (which again is a must but not enough)

WGF_Flame, on 2011-April-04, 05:23, said:

What I want him to do is what I would have done. I would have alerted 2C, then they would ask and I would explain as inverted, then before the lead my partner would have corrected the explanation, then if after all this its possible that the director would have compensate my opponents if they prove that the initial explanation hurt them. This is the regular procedure this is what I would have done and I believe this is what the law tell us to do. We all sometimes forget our system, but this doesn't mean we don't have to alert and explain it according to our knowledge.

Please notice that the way I suggested it which is as I see it the normal way any fair player do, the opponents do in fact get more information that with the player who forgot to alert. Do we want to give him a prize for not alerting ?

What you would have done, what you want the player in question to have done, is based on a misunderstanding of the law. In your OP, you asked "am I totally wrong?" You've been told that you are, and now your response is "no I'm not." You can keep arguing, if you like, but you're still wrong.

[WGF_Flame]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-04, 06:14, said:

What you would have done, what you want the player in question to have done, is based on a misunderstanding of the law. In your OP, you asked "am I totally wrong?" You've been told that you are, and now your response is "no I'm not." You can keep arguing, if you like, but you're still wrong.

What i want the player in question to do is the obvious thing you and I and every player is doing every time our partner bid something we think that should be alert. We alert it. Don't understand how you can say its not true.

I have lots of bridge experience and I'm a director myself and I understand the law pretty good. So yes I might be wrong, I brought the question to hear other opinions and learn something, but I haven't been convinced yet.

[blackshoe]

People forget things. It happens. When it happens, sometimes there's an infraction of law, sometimes there's not. In this case, there's not.

[WellSpyder]

WGF_Flame, on 2011-April-04, 05:23, said:

What I want him to do is what I would have done. I would have alerted 2C, then they would ask and I would explain as inverted, then before the lead my partner would have corrected the explanation, then if after all this its possible that the director would have compensate my opponents if they prove that the initial explanation hurt them. This is the regular procedure this is what I would have done and I believe this is what the law tell us to do. We all sometimes forget our system, but this doesn't mean we don't have to alert and explain it according to our knowledge.

Please notice that the way I suggested it which is as I see it the normal way any fair player do, the opponents do in fact get more information that with the player who forgot to alert. Do we want to give him a prize for not alerting ?

I think we can all sympathise with this - of course we would have alerted if we had thought 2C was inverted. This player, though, for whatever reason, failed to do so. This would obviously have caused a problem if 2C had indeed been inverted. But it turns out that it wasn't, and the players seem able to show clearly that the actual agreement was not inverted. So it turns out by luck rather than judgment that the player has not misinformed the opponents at all, and that is the end of it. I have known players in these circumstances to give an explanation of what they were thinking at the time to avoid opponents being misled, particularly if partner is asked to explain their bids (and indeed I have done it myself), but there is absolutely no necessity to explain anything other than your agreements.

[WGF_Flame]

Btw blackshoe and others, I thank you for your responses, true I'm still not 100% convinced but I'm much closer to be.
Thanks

[hrothgar]

I want to make sure that I understand a couple key points:

1. North / South followed the correct alert proceedures

You directly state that in your locale an inverted minor raise requires an alert
You directly state that in your locales a non-inverted minor raise does not require an alert

2. East / West are claiming that they were damaged because North misbid and got lucky

There is absolutely no basis for a score correction.

You state that

Quote

I have lots of bridge experience and I'm a director myself and I understand the law pretty [well].

In this case, you shouldn't have much trouble showing us examples where appeals committees have adjusted scores due to a non-Ghestem misbid...

[WGF_Flame]

Hi Richard,
I will explain my logic:

The law say to give alert when partner's bid is a special agreement but since we cannot use anything other then our memory to remember our agreements then practically this mean when the bid is as far as I know an agreement I have to alert.
If we agree that this is what the law tell me to do (alert when partner make a bid that in my brain database is stored as an agreement). Then we both agree that the player who didn't do that, didn't follow the law. Since not following of the law has caused the opponents to get a bad score, they should get a compensation.

[bluejak]

The 2♣ bid shows a weak raise according to system.

The opponents were informed by a lack of alert that the 2♣ bid shows a weak raise.

Therefore there was no MI, no infraction, next case.

[hrothgar]

WGF_Flame, on 2011-April-04, 09:00, said:

Hi Richard,
I will explain my logic:

The law say to give alert when partner's bid is a special agreement but since we cannot use anything other then our memory to remember our agreements then practically this mean when the bid is as far as I know an agreement I have to alert.
If we agree that this is what the law tell me to do (alert when partner make a bid that in my brain database is stored as an agreement). Then we both agree that the player who didn't do that, didn't follow the law. Since not following of the law has caused the opponents to get a bad score, they should get a compensation.

Here's the rub: The damage was not cause by the lack of an alert...

If there was damage, it is due to the fact that E/W assumed that North held a hand suitable for a game force opposite a non-inverted 2C response, when in fact, North held a hand suitable for a game force opposite an inverted 2C response.

There is no suggestion that North should have alerted any of South's bids.
Rather, you are insisting that North should have announced something like the following:

"The wheels came off in the auction. I thought that South's 2C bid showed an inverted minor raise. We are so *****ed."

First and foremost, this theory runs contrary to the way the regulatory system works.
You are inventing new jurisprudence.

Second: This theory introduces all sorts of new complications:

Assume for the moment that North happened to have extra values and expects 3N to roll home?

Should North still announce that the wheels came off in the auction?
Alternatively, should he only announce this infraction if he thinks that his contract will fail by lots of tricks?

[WGF_Flame]

Hi,
When you know you play inverted minors and partner bid 2C you should alert it. Very simple. If he had done that the result would have been better for E/W. So failure to do the correct thing which the law and regulations asks you had result in damaging your opps score.
Today I found myself on the other side, explaining to people why there shouldn't be a compensation. I told them this story: a guy come to his friend house, after a while he see 100$ on the sofa, he decide to steal it. He put it in his pants. it turned out that the friend had this meeting video, and when he watch it he see the friend action and go to the police with the vid. The police call the stealer and he admit stealing. However the guy was very lucky because when they carefully watch the begging of the vid they see that the 100$ dropped from the stealer paints and he actually took his own money. His friend claimed that he lost 2 days of work, and wanted compensation, but the law is simple, there was no stealing and no compensation. next deal... I don't like it, but I think its ok.

[campboy]

That analogy doesn't match, though, since the failure to alert what he thought was an inverted raise was not deliberate.

[WGF_Flame]

campboy, on 2011-April-05, 05:24, said:

That analogy doesn't match, though, since the failure to alert what he thought was an inverted raise was not deliberate.

Basically you are right,(although we only assume he forgot) but I think the directors here would give the same ruling if it turned out he didn't give alert on purpose.