BBO Discussion Forums: Alert not seen - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

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

Alert not seen

#1 User is offline   DaveB 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 2010-October-22

Posted 2017-July-26, 03:19

From a Local Club event - so bidding boxes but not screens. EBU regulations.

The bidding started as follows

W N E S
1C P 1D 2D

1C was announced as could be 2 Clubs
P North was heavily engaged in conversation with his opponents and not paying much attention
1D was alerted by West and explained as 4 or more Hearts
2D was alerted by North and explained as at least 5-5 in Hearts and Spades

It was obvious to the other 3 players that North was unaware of the alert and explanation of the 1D bid.

As director what do you do in the following scenarios

(A) No one says anything and N-S go on to a disastrous result
(B) South asks North if he is aware of the alert of 1D
© South calls the Director.

South will confirm that the alert and explanation were done in a normal manner.
0

#2 User is offline   Lanor Fow 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 2007-May-19

Posted 2017-July-26, 05:24

This sounds like the sort of call where everyone at the table should owe the director a drink, except East who I don't think has done anything wrong.

As this is in the EBU, the blue book applies. It states (4A4):
"The alerting player must make all reasonable efforts to ensure that both opponents are aware
of the alert."

If I were called to the table, I would need to determine if all reasonable efforts were made by west to ensure north was aware. Two things initially spring to mind: firstly if it were obvious that north wasn't paying attention, it would seem reasonable to try and make the alert more obvious, or attract north's attention in some way. Secondly, this regulation doesn't attach a specific time frame to the reasonable actions, so (and I would want to consult other directors on this, though in judgement rulings I would of course be consulting anyway) my reading would suggest that if it does become obvious later in the auction to west that north missed the alert, they should make them aware of it.

Also worth noting is law 74B1
"As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:
1. paying insufficient attention to the game."

So for the three cases:
a) If I determine there is MI based on the above, I'll award an adjusted (most likely weighted) score. If I don't think there was MI then score stands. I would consider a warning or PP to north for paying attention under 74B1.

b) If there is MI then I would make sure North was aware of the alert and explanation and request the board be completed. I would consider a warning or PP for south under 16B1A and 73B1 (UI from partner). If there was not MI then this is now a unauthorised information case. South's question is UI to north. I would make this known, ask for the board to be played and if called back, consider whether it should be adjusted. I'm probably likely to rule that actions where North is unaware of the alert are LAs. In both cases I would consider a warning or PP to north for paying attention under 74B1.

c)I would generally proceed as per b). If I worked out the situation in time I would try and speak to west and south away from the table to avoid the UI component, but I can't see that really happening as I imagine that the alert will be mentioned before I have a good idea what the situation is. I think this is interesting with law 16A3 which does say that "arising from the legal procedures
authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following);" are not UI, but given the reference to 16B1 I would still consider this a UI situation.
0

#3 User is offline   lamford 

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

Posted 2017-July-26, 05:45

View PostDaveB, on 2017-July-26, 03:19, said:

It was obvious to the other 3 players that North was unaware of the alert and explanation of the 1D bid.

That is enough for me. Therefore West did not, as Lanor Fow points out he should, "make all reasonable efforts to ensure that both opponents are aware of the alert". Res ipsa loquitur. I would rule that West should have checked with North that he had seen the alert and then rule based on the most likely outcome if he had done so. And this is the way most players would behave as West when they received an improbable explanation.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
2

#4 User is offline   DaveB 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 2010-October-22

Posted 2017-July-26, 08:49

Thank you very for the responses.
They were more or less in line with my thoughts.

There are 2 areas where I have definitely learned something.

(A) The regulation has changed from when I last looked at it.
(B) Do not trust the EBU web site as they are still showing the old regulation!!!!

A couple of more details that I did not include in the original posting:-

I was sitting South as a playing director so I was trying desperately to work out what my rights as a player
and obligations as a TD were. I wanted to ensure that the board could be played if that was ethically/legally possible.

Fortunately the opposition came to my rescue and asked North if he has missed the alert (phew!!).
Just as well since the only players remotely competent to consult with were my partner and current opponents.

Not sure about this regulation though.
There were several pairs in the room for whom it would be distinctly unreasonable to determine that North's
alert/explanation would imply that the alert of 1D had been missed.
Would/should the ruling be different for those pairs?
Has the South player any rights to intervene if the opposition do nothing? - Call a Director?
As a playing Director should I intervene to save the board?

Any way - thanks again.
0

#5 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-July-26, 09:08

View PostDaveB, on 2017-July-26, 08:49, said:


(B) Do not trust the EBU web site as they are still showing the old regulation!!!!

If you tell us where this is, we can put it right.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#6 User is offline   DaveB 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 40
  • Joined: 2010-October-22

Posted 2017-July-26, 10:18

View Postgordontd, on 2017-July-26, 09:08, said:

If you tell us where this is, we can put it right.



Here you go

http://www.ebu.co.uk...idding-box-regs
0

#7 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-July-27, 04:31

View PostDaveB, on 2017-July-26, 10:18, said:


Thanks. It's been updated now.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#8 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 2017-July-27, 05:24

View Postgordontd, on 2017-July-27, 04:31, said:

Thanks. It's been updated now.

Although of course the last line will have to be changed on Tuesday. (Presumably this is because in many occasions the player would say "Oops, I did not mean that" - and discussion would arise to see if that meant "attempts to change it" , "without pause for thought")
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

#9 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-July-27, 06:40

View Postweejonnie, on 2017-July-27, 05:24, said:

Although of course the last line will have to be changed on Tuesday. (Presumably this is because in many occasions the player would say "Oops, I did not mean that" - and discussion would arise to see if that meant "attempts to change it" , "without pause for thought")

I've already requested that. Probably later today.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
0

#10 User is offline   gordontd 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,485
  • Joined: 2009-July-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-July-27, 06:52

View Postgordontd, on 2017-July-27, 06:40, said:

I've already requested that. Probably later today.

Done now.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
1

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