BBO Discussion Forums: Failure to alert and follwup alert correct - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Failure to alert and follwup alert correct 2/1 ACBL

#1 User is offline   dickiegera 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 568
  • Joined: 2009-July-12
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 2015-March-09, 07:46

NO ALERTS


West held the K1098 of Hearts and didn't believe it was ethical to ask about the heart bid meaning.


I East would have lead a heart however it appears that South with a heart suit and N/S with many points
would leave partner with nothing.

South also didn't advises us to the fact that 2 was a negative before opening lead was made.

I lead a and after seeing dummy asked about 2 bid ,called the director.
Director said play it out and she would look at it later.
We were playing last round.

North make 5. A heart led holds it to 3.
Played 5 times, scores were 3@-660,1@-600 and 1@-210.
Director would not change our score altho she consider giving us average

What is correct?

South hand
Thank you


0

#2 User is offline   campboy 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,347
  • Joined: 2009-July-21

Posted 2015-March-09, 08:04

There was misinformation. Without the MI, East might well lead a heart. The MI made the heart lead less attractive. A heart lead would have been more successful. So there was damage and it seems routine to adjust to 3NT making exactly, for both sides (in the ACBL at least, in other jurisdictions one might consider giving a weighted score). Giving an average would be blatantly illegal.
5

#3 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2015-March-09, 08:29

View Postdickiegera, on 2015-March-09, 07:46, said:

NO ALERTS

West held the K1098 of Hearts and didn't believe it was ethical to ask about the heart bid meaning.



It is perfectly ethical to ask about any bid (at the risk of creating UI for partner). West would do better to ask for a full explanation of the auction, which might help avoid the UI issues. (Presumably the TD would allow East to change the face-down card?)

Obviously either North or South should have called the TD and, once present, advise EW that the 2 Heart bid should have been alerted. The TD would ask EW to call him back if they felt they had suffered a loss as a result.

(What would happen, for instance if NS had said they would redouble hoping to make 2H on cards - and could show that that option was available to them?)
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#4 User is offline   pran 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,344
  • Joined: 2009-September-14
  • Location:Ski, Norway

Posted 2015-March-09, 08:46

West has in my opinion no particular reason for asking, and certainly cannot be accused of failing to protect him/her self because of not asking.

There is a clear misinformation case, both by North's failure to alert and also by South's failure to notify about the missing alert before the opening lead.

I would have adjusted the result to 3NT just made, no split or weighted score. (Awarding an artificial score, like Average is illegal here)
0

#5 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-March-09, 08:54

I agree with the other responses. In addition, if either North or South is an experienced player, a PP would be appropriate for failing to call the TD and correct the MI at the end of the auction, as they should know better.

I wonder if they were confused by ACBL's change last year to alerting over 2. They removed the alert for artificial meanings of 2, but didn't change anything about artificial 2. Maybe NS thought the change also applied there as well.

#6 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-March-09, 09:23

Doesn't matter what they thought, only that they failed to alert, and failed to call the director and correct the MI at the proper time. I'd give a PP for that — it's a "must" law.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#7 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-March-09, 09:53

If a player honestly believed the call was non-alertable, I would be less inclined to give a PP for failing to alert. They didn't knowingly violate the alert requirement.

#8 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-March-09, 10:02

View Postbarmar, on 2015-March-09, 09:53, said:

If a player honestly believed the call was non-alertable, I would be less inclined to give a PP for failing to alert. They didn't knowingly violate the alert requirement.

If I find that to be the case, the PP would be in the form of a warning — and if next time it happens he claims to believe the call doesn't require an alert, I won't believe him. He gets only one warning. Also, I'm not going to go looking for excuses for them - if they don't assert that they believed no alert was required, I'm not going to do it for them.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#9 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,398
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-March-09, 10:18

View Postblackshoe, on 2015-March-09, 10:02, said:

If I find that to be the case, the PP would be in the form of a warning — and if next time it happens he claims to believe the call doesn't require an alert, I won't believe him. He gets only one warning. Also, I'm not going to go looking for excuses for them - if they don't assert that they believed no alert was required, I'm not going to do it for them.

I'm not suggesting that, either. Although during the first month or so after a change to the alert rules, I'd give pretty much everyone a pass on calls that were affected by the change. It takes a while for changes to sink in. I vaguely recall something like this even being officially sanctioned.

#10 User is offline   Trinidad 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,531
  • Joined: 2005-October-09
  • Location:Netherlands

Posted 2015-March-09, 11:13

This simply demonstrates that many TDs simply get simple rulings wrong.

Rik
I want my opponents to leave my table with a smile on their face and without matchpoints on their score card - in that order.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
1

#11 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,417
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-March-09, 17:23

View PostTrinidad, on 2015-March-09, 11:13, said:

This simply demonstrates that many TDs simply get simple rulings wrong.

I would have said that this simply demonstrates that a simple TD can get a simple ruling wrong.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#12 User is offline   Mbodell 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,871
  • Joined: 2007-April-22
  • Location:Santa Clara, CA

Posted 2015-March-09, 21:06

View Postcampboy, on 2015-March-09, 08:04, said:

There was misinformation. Without the MI, East might well lead a heart. The MI made the heart lead less attractive. A heart lead would have been more successful. So there was damage and it seems routine to adjust to 3NT making exactly, for both sides (in the ACBL at least, in other jurisdictions one might consider giving a weighted score). Giving an average would be blatantly illegal.


I am not a director nor do I play one on TV but technically we do need to establish that they have the agreement that 2 is weak. It is possible (though unlikely) that South made a mistaken bid (thinking 2 negative was what they played), was woken up to that not being what they play by North not alerting (and can't use the UI to change their call, but can use the UI to make sure they alert/explain the auction and agreements), and North bid 3nt to play opposite a presumed positive. But if they have the agreement that 2 is artificial and weak (or if they aren't clear on what their agreement is but South thought it was that), then there is the MI and the above is correct.
0

#13 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,417
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2015-March-10, 04:58

View PostMbodell, on 2015-March-09, 21:06, said:

I am not a director nor do I play one on TV but technically we do need to establish that they have the agreement that 2 is weak. It is possible (though unlikely) that South made a mistaken bid (thinking 2 negative was what they played), was woken up to that not being what they play by North not alerting (and can't use the UI to change their call, but can use the UI to make sure they alert/explain the auction and agreements), and North bid 3nt to play opposite a presumed positive. But if they have the agreement that 2 is artificial and weak (or if they aren't clear on what their agreement is but South thought it was that), then there is the MI and the above is correct.

If the CC had 2C: 2D = neg; 2M = natural positive, or something like that, then the ruling might be different, but we would have been told this in the OP. Otherwise, we go on 21B1b: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. And the failure to alert is deemed misinformation, assuming that 2H is alertable in the ACBL as it would be in the UK.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#14 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2015-March-10, 10:49

View Postlamford, on 2015-March-10, 04:58, said:

…assuming that 2H is alertable in the ACBL as it would be in the UK.

It is.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users