[jillybean]

♦♦

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 1♣    Pass  1♦    Pass
 1♥    Pass  1♠    Pass
 Pass  Pass  


1♣ alerted and explained as 12+pc,4=h
1♦ alerted and explained as negat 0-6 (late)

South called director after first trick and said he would have doubled 1♦ if it had been alerted at the time.
I do not know when the alert was made.

I warned EW but let result stand - on the grounds that South did not take reasonable steps to protect himself. ie ask for more information.

your opinions please
jb

[epeeist]

jillybean2, on Sep 14 2005, 10:09 AM, said:

....

1♣ alerted and explained as 12+pc,4=h
1♦ alerted and explained as negat 0-6 (late)

South called director after first trick and said he would have doubled 1♦ if it had been alerted at the time.
I do not know when the alert was made.

I warned EW but let result stand - on the grounds that South did not take reasonable steps to protect himself. ie ask for more information.

your opinions please
jb

(1) Did east have an obligation to alert?

I think yes. If you think no, then stop.

(2) Was there damage b/c of late alert (if late)?

Yes, south could have doubled an artificial diamond bid to show interest in the suit.

What did east say about when alert made? Did east say it was timely?


There are additional complexities. Given artificial meaning of 1 club opening by west, I agree south should have been on guard for 1 diamond having an artificial meaning. But it gets a bit tiring to me (this isn't directed at you!) how every discussion about any bid seems to involve some opinions about how the non-offending side "should" have protected itself by asking what every bid meant.

There's also the factor, that if east had had diamonds (e.g. kjt4) and received a request for an explanation (wouldn't know whether N or S assuming done by clicking on the bid), that would "alert" east to the fact that either N or S had an interest (presumably length) in the diamond suit. That is, it would have given extra undeserved information.

So from south's view, clicking on the bid to request an explanation could actually give extra information to east about outstanding diamonds (that either N or S had length)!

Similarly, if I have an ace, I will sometimes refuse to ask for explanation of whether opponents are using normal or rkc blackwood (especially in an individual where they may be unsure). Because if I click on the bid for an explanation, that's as good as telling the opponent that there's an outstanding ace. And therefore I alert my own blackwood bids, else I'd be a hypocrite...

[david_c]

Interesting. So E-W are playing a system where the 1♣ opening shows hearts?

I think you're right that it depends on whether South is expected to protect himself. Clearly E-W are playing a very unusual system, but I don't think it would be obvious to everyone that 1♦ might not be natural. If I knew that South was a beginner I would definitely adjust. But if South is more experienced then it could go either way. I'm inclined to adjust anyway - certainly East doesn't deserve much sympathy, the only question is whether South does - but I think the table ruling is reasonable too.

[pigpenz]

if there was an obligation to alert and it was done too late then there is damage.
I would tend to give EW avg-/NS avg+.

and make sure that EW have 1♣/1♦ 0-6hcp marked on their card. Sometimes the easiest way to learn to not make that mistake in bridge again is by way of the penalty

[david_c]

pigpenz, on Sep 14 2005, 05:41 PM, said:

if there was an obligation to alert and it was done too late then there is damage.
I would tend to  give EW avg-/NS avg+.

If you're going to adjust, why not adjust to 4♦N= (or whatever result you feel is appropriate)? I can't see any reason to give an artificial A+/A- here.

[jillybean]

pigpenz, on Sep 14 2005, 09:41 AM, said:

if there was an obligation to alert and it was done too late then there is damage.
I would tend to  give EW avg-/NS avg+.

and make sure that EW have 1♣/1♦ 0-6hcp marked on their card. Sometimes the easiest way to learn to not make that mistake in bridge again is by way of the penalty

Are you saying... in every case when there has been a failure to alert, there is damage and a penalty should be given to teach them to alert in future?

[candybar]

pigpenz, on Sep 14 2005, 11:41 AM, said:

if there was an obligation to alert and it was done too late then there is damage.

Definitely not. A failure to alert does NOT demonstate damage, and an adjustment based on damage is NEVER automatic for an alert failure.

david_c, on Sep 14 2005, 01:08 PM, said:

If you're going to adjust, why not adjust to 4♦N= (or whatever result you feel is appropriate)? I can't see any reason to give an artificial A+/A- here.

Unless the entire field is in 4DN=, it is not right for the director to assume that is what NS might have done had they had the chance. And in this case in particular, I find it hard to accept that NS would find such a contract with 11 opposite 9 points and the opponents bidding. IF you are going to adjust, A+/A- is very appropriate.

Jillybean, I think your solution was exactly right. The opponents were expected to ask about the bidding if it was alerted, or if there was any reason to suspect it was not natural. If you believe the questionable timing of the diamond alert led to an unfair result, then it might be fair to adjust, but I think the fact that South had another chance to get into the auction and took no action suggests that he is just hoping for something he didn't deserve.

A warning to EW and let the result stand is a good decision, and makes all the important points to both sides, in my opinion.

[McBruce]

Dealing as I do in only SAYC tournaments, I may be out of my league here, but I find "12+pc,4=h" to be woefully inadequate in describing a system where 1♣ shows a heart suit. I don't think the people given the explanation should be expected to find their way through a minefield of abbreviations which may be different for every country and every city and every club and every player. Based on that, I would probably give A+/A-. I don't think it's fair to expect South to protect himself when the first explanation is about equivalent to a verbal explanation while munching on a large chuck of peanut butter sandwich. A player truely interested in fairly disclosing his agreements would type "artificial; 4+hearts" -- not some near-random group of symbols. And if 1♠ is non forcing I would think that would be an alert, because nobody expects this auction to end there.

[pigpenz]

the reason i would go avg-/avg+ is that there are two ways the fieldcould go on the hand. ♠'s EW and ♦'s NS.

Now true not every failure to alert casues damage, but in this case 1♦ showing 0-6hcp is def damage to the opps.

In most cases the auction wouldthen go:
1♣ pass pass 1♦

As opposed to:
1♣ pass 1♠ pass
1NT pass 2♠

or even
1♣ pass 1♠ double

[awm]

I'd let the table result stand. The timing of the director call is somewhat at issue here. Since the bid of 1♦ was alerted (presumably after south passed), the proper time to call the director is when the alert occurred. If the bidding was still live at this time, it may be possible for the director to back the auction up to the 1♦ call and allow south to make his double.

Calling the director after dummy comes down tends to be self-serving (i.e. now that I see what opener has, I wish I had doubled) and should be considered too late unless the alert of 1♦ occurred after the auction was over.

In general, I'm all for handing out penalties to people who break the rules. When you play a system as unusual as this (i.e. 1♣ shows hearts, 1♦ negative to a non-strong bid) you have obligations to alert opponents and I think severe penalties are in order for failures to alert (even if there's no obvious damage). But this seems like a case where the alert came in just a little slow, and south waited to call director until after the dummy came down.

[pigpenz]

in general the offending side still has an obligation to alert the opps to the failure of the alert at the end of the auction...from reading the original post this was not cleart other than the TD was called after the first trick. If this wasnt done until then then they did it twice. Once the auction is done its hard to go back and give redress, calling the TD needs to be done before the dummy hits the table or as soon as the you become aware of knowing that there was a failure to alert.

[david_c]

candybar, on Sep 14 2005, 08:50 PM, said:

david_c, on Sep 14 2005, 01:08 PM, said:

If you're going to adjust, why not adjust to 4♦N= (or whatever result you feel is appropriate)? I can't see any reason to give an artificial A+/A- here.

Unless the entire field is in 4DN=, it is not right for the director to assume that is what NS might have done had they had the chance. And in this case in particular, I find it hard to accept that NS would find such a contract with 11 opposite 9 points and the opponents bidding. IF you are going to adjust, A+/A- is very appropriate.

I strongly disagree. The Laws say to give the non-offending side the most favourable result that was likely given the correct information. My view of the hand is that this is a diamond partial making 10 tricks. But if you think that this is not a likely result, then fine, you can say that E-W will always end up playing in spades, but in that case the correct ruling is that there is misinformation but no damage, i.e. the table result stands.

Now I have to admit I would like to be able to give weighted scores (like we can in the EBU), something like 60% of a spade contract by E-W and 40% of a diamond contract by N-S. If the reason you want to give A+/A- is that the software doesn't allow weighted scores, then I have some sympathy. But personally I think that giving A+/A- it's a horrible way of doing things - far too arbitrary - and I would find it impossible to justify to the players. What's wrong with following what the Laws say?

[hrothgar]

[quote name='McBruce' date='Sep 14 2005, 11:16 PM'] Dealing as I do in only SAYC tournaments, I may be out of my league here, but I find "12+pc,4=h" to be woefully inadequate in describing a system where 1♣ shows a heart suit.

Your tournaments must have a lot more English speakers than mine...

[jikl]

Whilst NS have been damaged, the timing of it is all wrong. South has screwed up big time. After the late alert of 1♦ South has a clear obligation to be wary of future bids. With a ♠ void South has a clear cut takeout double. It really looks like a double-shot here, "If I can't get a good score from the hand, then the director will give it to me".

Sean

[pigpenz]

jikl, on Sep 14 2005, 06:52 PM, said:

Whilst NS have been damaged, the timing of it is all wrong. South has screwed up big time. After the late alert of 1♦ South has a clear obligation to be wary of future bids. With a ♠ void South has a clear cut takeout double. It really looks like a double-shot here, "If I can't get a good score from the hand, then the director will give it to me".

Sean

trouble is on this hand no one has really send when south was made aware of the failure to alert the 1♦ call.

It was immediate even though he has passed, he would be allowed to take back his pass and make another call.

If it was at the end of the auction, then the TD need to be called before the opening lead.

Also if EW is playing some sort of system like this there is also some aspects that the rebids of the opener and his passes carry some possiblities of also needing to be alerted.

[mink]

By the fact that one trick was played when the td arrived you cannot know when he/she was called. If I was South and the alert was issued during or after the bidding, I would call the TD and continue bidding/playing as pausing only may lead to an unfinished board but help nobody. Maybe the td is busy somewhere else and we wait a rather long time if we start waiting.

About the decision, I strongly support david_c.

Karl

[coyot]

Being late to the thread gives me a few things to react to:

1) 1♣ explained as 12+, 4 hearts is perfectly adequate. (If opponents want to know what hands does this deny, they can ask

2) Non-alerted 1♦ is perfectly "normal" bid in the sense that any player has the right to assume that it is natural - and does NOT HAVE to protect himself by enquiring.
(Just because the opening bid is strange (and alerted), I don't have to protect myself by ASKING about the meaning of non-alerted bids, the absence of alert indicating they're basically natural)

3) TD does not have to speculate "what might they have done" when awarding adjusted score to the damaged party - he awards one that is the best of the reasonably reachable scores.
(I'm not sure about how this works - i.e. if there is a biddable slam IF you play splinters (but not biddable otherswise), I think that the TD should ask the players what methods they use for slam bidding - and if their methods allow the possibility of slam to be reached, adjust for a slam)).

4) 4♦ is a perfectly reasonable contract. If the NS line gets the information that E has a negative bid, there is enough room to find the suit. Candybar, your "opponents are bidding" is not NATURAL opponents are bidding. Remember that the 1♦ response by east is artifical and WEAK, which basically tells NS that they might have enough values.

5) Again, candybar, I don't like the approach that "opponents were expected to ask about the bidding if it was alerted.", especially since the (totally artifical) bid was NOT alerted. Surely you don't expect players to ask about non-alerted bids that are made in response to any alerted bid.

6) South had another chance to enter the auction? NO WAY.
LHO promised hearts, RHO promised diamonds, LHO then bid weakly and RHO offered another suit. What is your idea about the hands? RHO seems to have 4-2-5-2 or similar, LHO might have 3-4-2-4... so would you expect south to reenter the auction when neither side has a fit??? Accusing South of hoping for something undeserved just because he plays good bridge and knows when not to reopen???

7) If opponents (by their failure to alert or by their failure to provide full disclosure) shut our side out from the bidding, there is no need to adjust A+ and A- if it is reasonable to expect our side to find the right bid. A+ and A- adjusts should be used in cases where the board could not be played at all (delay, mishandled cards etc), not where a foul play (intentional or not) by one side led to a strange result.

8) If the 1♦ was alerted AFTER the bidding, the damage is obvious. If it was alerted BEFORE south passed 1♠, then you could talk about him having a 2nd chance to enter the bidding.

[McBruce]

hrothgar, on Sep 14 2005, 03:22 PM, said:

McBruce: Dealing as I do in only SAYC tournaments, I may be out of my league here, but I find "12+pc,4=h" to be woefully inadequate in describing a system where 1♣ shows a heart suit.

hrothgar: Your tournaments must have a lot more English speakers than mine...

I don't think the language barrier is the problem here. It seems clear to me that the three most important things for the opponents to know about this 1♣ bid are:

--artificial, does NOT promise clubs
--it is unlimited
--it shows four or more hearts.

All three are muddled in the explanation, so much so that I am actually uncertain of the first two: for all I know it may be 12-18 and it may in fact show clubs and hearts, which opener held on this deal. The failure to alert 1♦ in a timely fashion adds fuel to the fire. When you play a convention you have the obligation to ensure that opponents are aware. It's not sufficient to give an minimal explanation that might be misinterpreted.

I guess we need Fred's FD program here, in a multi-lingual version.

[pigpenz]

McBruce, on Sep 15 2005, 02:48 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Sep 14 2005, 03:22 PM, said:

McBruce: Dealing as I do in only SAYC tournaments, I may be out of my league here, but I find "12+pc,4=h" to be woefully inadequate in describing a system where 1♣ shows a heart suit. 

hrothgar: Your tournaments must have a lot more English speakers than mine...

I don't think the language barrier is the problem here. It seems clear to me that the three most important things for the opponents to know about this 1♣ bid are:

--artificial, does NOT promise clubs
--it is unlimited
--it shows four or more hearts.

All three are muddled in the explanation, so much so that I am actually uncertain of the first two: for all I know it may be 12-18 and it may in fact show clubs and hearts, which opener held on this deal. The failure to alert 1♦ in a timely fashion adds fuel to the fire. When you play a convention you have the obligation to ensure that opponents are aware. It's not sufficient to give an minimal explanation that might be misinterpreted.

I guess we need Fred's FD program here, in a multi-lingual version.

now i thought someone insinuated that it showed 4hearts, in the original post that was never said.

[Gerardo]

Assuming this is a Polish Club variant:

4+♥ most probably comes from the 1♥ bid, it was explained after 1♥.

12+ as explanation to 1♣ is not adequate at all, unless you open all 12+ hands 1♣.