[Coelacanth]

---

ACBL, IMP scoring if that is relevant

1♣ is natural, 3+ cards, SAYC style
2♣ is an inverted minor raise, natural and forcing, NOT alerted

West, assuming from the lack of alert and from South's pass that 2♣ was weaker, chose to balance with a weak and shapely hand. North now got back into the auction. NS reached 3NT which is a pushy contract but cold on the lie of the cards.

No director call was made during the hand. West approached me after the round and asked me to review the situation.

I was able to establish with certainty that inverted minors is NS's actual agreement and that South simply forgot this.

How would you rule?

[jeffford76]

It depends on West's hand, and what he might have done had 2C been alerted as inverted and then passed. But the most likely ruling is an adjusted score to NS in 2C making whatever that makes.

You would also need to check if NS may have used the unauthorized information from the lack of an alert, but it's unlikely this will lead to a better result for EW.

[blackshoe]

This is a 21B3 situation: "When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score."

No need to worry about UI.

[jeffford76]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-10, 13:31, said:

No need to worry about UI.

I disagree that there is no need to worry about UI. It's entirely possible that the balancing bid was going to make or go for a lesser minus than 2C, and that the person who bid 2C had pass as a logical alternative over the balancing bid.

[barmar]

The usual "meaning" of passing a forcing bid is that you psyched the opening. I guess that makes Pass an LA for North (maybe even the only LA).

West is in a tough spot, then. If he thinks South psyched, he may want to balance, in case the psych "worked" and the opponents were stealing from them.

But I think that the NOS are entitled to both the information about what the bid means AND that South failed to alert it. So West knows that either South forgot his system or forgot that inverted raises are alertable; given that he passed, the former is far more likely.

When an opponent passes a forcing bid, it's usually best to pass, since their wheels have apparently come off. But this is an interesting case because North is constrained by UI laws. However, South has no UI, so he's not constrained; reopening gives him a chance to remember his agreements even if North passes.

Should we just ask West whether he would have balanced if he knew everything that was going on, and adjust based on that?

[Coelacanth]

Thanks, everyone.

The reason I posted this was that I wondered if this is one of those "experienced players are expected to protect themselves" situations.

NS are typical older ladies you'd find in many clubs. EW are much more experienced. East in particular is a past national champion and also an ACBL tournament director. Neither of them called me to the table when North put down the dummy (North held a full opening bid with 5 decent clubs).

West's LHO opened the bidding and failed to bid on following a simple raise. West's partner failed to act over 2♣; I didn't ask if they were playing OBAR BIDS. West had approximately 5 HCP. Should West have worked this out? Where did she think all the points were?

[aguahombre]

 Coelacanth, on 2012-September-10, 15:21, said:

West's LHO opened the bidding and failed to bid on following a simple raise. West's partner failed to act over 2♣; I didn't ask if they were playing OBAR BIDS. West had approximately 5 HCP. Should West have worked this out? Where did she think all the points were?

I believe you also stated West's balance was shapely. If East probably has 3 clubs because of shortness in West, it is not likely East would have acted over 2C with a flat 13-16. E/W shouldn't lose out because of failure to think or to protect themselves ---whatever the ruling.

[bluejak]

 barmar, on 2012-September-10, 14:37, said:

But I think that the NOS are entitled to both the information about what the bid means AND that South failed to alert it. So West knows that either South forgot his system or forgot that inverted raises are alertable; given that he passed, the former is far more likely.

Adjustments are given on the basis of correct information, but not on the basis of knowing about the infraction.

[gnasher]

 Coelacanth, on 2012-September-10, 15:21, said:

The reason I posted this was that I wondered if this is one of those "experienced players are expected to protect themselves" situations.

That rule is to cover situations where the likely meaning is obvious even without an alert, or where "everybody" plays something the same way.

That doesn't apply here. It wasn't obvious to South that 2♣ was forcing, why should West be expected to guess this?

[ahydra]

I'd say the score should be adjusted. gnasher explained why - and I'm happy to believe West wouldn't bid if she'd known 2C was a strong raise, mainly because when the opps slip up like that, you pass rather than give them a chance to sort out the mess.

So, we find out how many tricks 2C made and adjust the score to 2C making this many.

ahydra

[Coelacanth]

 ahydra, on 2012-September-11, 05:49, said:

So, we find out how many tricks 2C made and adjust the score to 2C making this many.

This is how I ruled. 2♣ makes 10 tricks on most lines of play.

[jillybean]

I think these "experienced players are expected to protect themselves" rulings are made far too often and misused, in effect protecting the OS.

[campboy]

It is hardly unheard of for typical club players to be playing non-inverted minors. After dummy goes down it is still far from clear that there has been an infraction. Even if they were sure there had been an infraction E/W would be under no obligation to call the TD at that point, and there would be no benefit in doing so before the end of play anyway. North, on the other hand, should have drawn attention to the failure to alert (and called the TD) before the opening lead was faced.

[aguahombre]

 jillybean, on 2012-September-11, 08:23, said:

I think these "experienced players are expected to protect themselves" rulings are made far too often and misused, in effect protecting the OS.

If the "protect yourself" concept is over-used, IMO, it mostly occurs when the OS are newbies and the TD being a mother hen. I agree it happens too often.

The OP situation is not one where the TD should do that and, above the club level, he/she should seek consultation from experienced players before applying it to any specific case.

Edit: Do I need to repeat "IMO" for each point, so someone won't ask me to cite my source?

[bluejak]

 jillybean, on 2012-September-11, 08:23, said:

I think these "experienced players are expected to protect themselves" rulings are made far too often and misused, in effect protecting the OS.

I don't think they are in other jurisdictions, but unfortunately there seems to be a growing idea in North America generally to blame the victim.

In my view it would have to be incredibly clear and obvious before it would ever occur to me to use this basis at club level. On the other hand where an international claims it never occurred to him that the fourth suit would be anything but a suit I tend to look askance.

 aguahombre, on 2012-September-11, 08:39, said:

Do I need to repeat "IMO" for each point, so someone won't ask me to cite my source?

I don't get it much here, but fairly often on RGB people seem to think that when I post an opinion I should not do so without quoting the source. Strange.