[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     Pass
 Pass  1♠    Pass  2NT
 Pass  3♣    Pass  3NT
 Pass  4♣    Dbl   4♥
 Dbl   4NT   Dbl   5♣
 Dbl   6♠    Dbl   Pass
 Pass  Pass  




E/W called me after the board was completed, complaining that no bids were alerted.
My initial reaction was this was an expert pair calling because of sour grapes.
Assuming the EW knew 3♣ was shortage and 4♣ was cue bid, I dont see that there was any damage. EW said they would not have doubled a singleton ♣ but then signed off before I could ask any more questions. An alert would not reveal the singleton ♣. ?

I could remove the double simply because NS failed to alert - but was there any damage?

tyia
jb

[pclayton]

Looks like a double-shot to me. Hard to see a nexus between the failure to alert and the silly double.

[awm]

I'd adjust the result to remove the double. Without alerts, the auction looks like a misfit of sorts. Opener seems to have a lot of ♠ and ♣, trying to scramble out of notrumps. No suit is breaking well, so there's a reasonable chance to think EW may set. East expects that north has clubs, so his clubs may score. He expects south not to have all that many spades, so there's a good chance his ♠J will score and that his clubs won't be ruffed away. And it's not clear where any losers are going since he has the minors locked up and opponents "obviously" don't have a heart fit (south has at most four, north has at least 5-5 in the blacks) and the heart suit is not breaking.

Now one could argue that EW should somehow "know" that 2NT is Jacoby because it's a common convention, but I think alertable bids are alertable bids. Both 2NT and 3♣ should be alerted, and if neither was then NS is definitely at fault and EW should deserve some protection.

[shoeless]

Hard to see a nexus between the word assume and word director. Or in fact the word director and 'my first reaction ... sour grapes'. Hmmm little vendetta thing here? Silly to double a freely bid slam here? - maybe - but if you don't start taking care of this failure to alert stuff these incidents are going to persist.

Think AWM is all over this one.

[hrothgar]

If I could, I would prefer:

1. No Damage to the non-offending side
2. Proceedureal penalty for the failure to alert 2NT and 3♣

The non-offending side started doubling at 4♣. North / South made 4 bids after the double of 4♣s. The bidding level increased from 4♣ doubled to 6 Spades. I've seen buggy computer programs run from 4♣X to 6♠, however, its been a long time since I've seen a human partnership quite that inept. Any halfway decent player should know enough to ask for an explanation prior to the final double.

Failure to alert by the opponents does not give you the license to shut off your brain.
If you do something really stupid, you don't get to claim damage.

For what its worth, I storngly believe that TDs should be able to assessproceedural penalties againsts pairs who seem to be trying to take obvious double shots.

[McBruce]

They called at the end of the hand, huh? Not during, or when dummy first appeared--at the end of the hand, after the result was clear.

The E-W pair made an opening lead, saw a dummy that had never bid spades but had 4 to the A-K, and this was not a surprise.

This is what I call evidence. In the absence of being allowed to give PP and DP, I would have to content myself with telling E-W that they have a better chance of having their score adjusted to 6♠ REdoubled than anything they are hoping for.

N-S should of course get the standard warning that unalerted artificial bids are going to cost them some matchpoints someday. Currently that is all that can be done.

Would players improve their alerting if they got a PP whenever they failed to alert? I think they would.

[david_c]

McBruce, on Sep 17 2005, 08:41 PM, said:

Would players improve their alerting if they got a PP whenever they failed to alert? I think they would.

I doubt it. But they might stop playing in your tournaments, and/or complain about how bad a director you are. And you can be sure that the next day, two dozen new players will turn up who don't alert properly either.

[McBruce]

I'm a bad director because I penalize people when they don't follow the rules? Don't forget a PP is most often simply a warning. It is the lack of any such warnings or adjustments when appropriate from most TDs that encourages the practice of not alerting.

[david_c]

OK, I thought that a PP always meant some sort of score penalty. There's nothing wrong with a warning or reminder. What's bad is when directors give out A+/A- for any sort of alerting violation. Then the players feel unfairly treated, even if it's applied consistently.

[candybar]

McBruce, on Sep 17 2005, 03:04 PM, said:

I'm a bad director because I penalize people when they don't follow the rules?  Don't forget a PP is most often simply a warning.  It is the lack of any such warnings or adjustments when appropriate from most TDs that encourages the practice of not alerting.

As long as your "PP" is a warning, fine, but no score adjustment is appropriate. It might help if, for the purposes of these discussions, you would distinguish between "warning" and a score "procedural penalty".

I think undoubling the result is a very fair choice if opponents are not likely to have suspected the J2N bidding, and no adjustment if they are J2N players who should have realized what it was.

[pigpenz]

so I am to assume that N/S were playing Jacoby 2NT and 3♣ was shortness
OK yes there was a failure to alert, now what in the &*#$ were the doubles by EW?
I cannot see where EW were damaged by the failure to alert.

I would let the result stand
give NS a stern warning to alert all of their bids
and also give EW a warning that they should call the director immediatley if they feel there was a failure to alert.

[pigpenz]

david_c, on Sep 17 2005, 03:11 PM, said:

OK, I thought that a PP always meant some sort of score penalty. There's nothing wrong with a warning or reminder. What's bad is when directors give out A+/A- for any sort of alerting violation. Then the players feel unfairly treated, even if it's applied consistently.

generally a procedural penalty is more than a score adjustment.
say in the above case the TD
could let the results stand and
1.still assign a procedural penalty to NS
or
2.even assign a procedural penalty to NS for failure to alert
and to EW for a frivolous appeal.

Now If I remember right procedural penalties fall under the scope of the TD and are not under the actual laws of bridge or under review by a committee. So if the TD feels that both sides have gotten out of hand and need to learn things the hard way then the TD can assess them.

[McBruce]

My opinion is that there has to be some point where PP-warning becomes PP-loss of matchpoints or IMPs. If the N-S pair in question here went to the next table and began 1♥ pass 2NT no alert, I'm gonna dock them a quarter board, because obviously they don't listen to warnings. BBO does not allow this, and that is both a shame and quite against the Laws.

In a FTF team game I was called to the table because a player as dummy would not sort his cards on the table, placing them deliberately as 4Q825 6T2 7A3 2K or something like that. I instructed the player to please sort them as a courtesy to the others and he refused and went into the parking lot. I had a kibitzer sort the cards and arranged that the kibitzer do so every time the player became dummy.

Now, if that is all you would do as TD, I don't think it is enough. I informed both tables in the match that when they did their IMP comparisons, the score would begin 3-nil for the side that contained Mr. I Won't Sort. A later query to David Stevenson elicited the opinion that I was lenient by about 9 IMPs.

However, in more than a year of offline directing that is the only time I have ever given a PP or DP that amounted to actual matchpoints or IMPs. The real problem is that when a warning and/or education is called for, most online TDs shrug it off and move on. Even when there is no damage this time, the offending side needs to be made aware that in other circumstances their infraction may cost them.

[LH2650]

I believe that, under ACBL regulations, there were 5 failures to Alert in this auction, and that is simply intolerable, so you must penalize the offending side in a way that negatively affects their score. Also, I think that the threshold for adjusting the offending side's score is low enough that they should not get the benefit of the double.

If constrained by the BBO software, I would use whatever capabilities I had to set the score of offending side as close to what I think it should be as possible, and accept with whatever limitations there are on my ability to adjust the non-offending side's result. If that is A+/A-, so be it.

[pigpenz]

LH2650, on Sep 17 2005, 08:24 PM, said:

I believe that, under ACBL regulations, there were 5 failures to Alert in this auction, and that is simply intolerable,

yes there was a failure to alert
but where was the damage done?

I agree with McBruce, until you can start handing out procedural penalties then people will keep on doing it.

Who knows maybe the tournaments will will evolve to the point that you have to have a full disclosure file loaed up to play and if one then it will default to a sayc full disclosure file. Granted this would be a pain in the a## but if that is what is needed then so be it.

I tend to play mostly in ACBL events and there are habitual offenders on the failure to alert.

[bendare]

McBruce, on Sep 17 2005, 07:21 PM, said:

My opinion is that there has to be some point where PP-warning becomes PP-loss of matchpoints or IMPs.  If the N-S pair in question here went to the next table and began 1♥ pass 2NT no alert, I'm gonna dock them a quarter board, because obviously they don't listen to warnings.  BBO does not allow this, and that is both a shame and quite against the Laws.

I agree--entirely.

I invite you all to either play in or kibitz the ACBL games here on BBO, where I play and kibitz frequently. If I called the TD every time there was a failure to alert I alone would keep the TD busy the entire tournament.

"Warnings" by a TD seem to be totally ineffective. Many of the players in these ACBL tourneys (where one would most expect compliance with the "rules" by players and enforcement by TDS) are regular partners who play frequently in these games. I cannot say how many of the offenses of failures to alert or provide full disclosure are truly in ignorance or in defiance or just an innocent momentary lapse of memory. However, I would guess that far more than half of alertable bids are NOT alerted.

In TDs defense, both as player and kibitzer I have rarely, rarely seen a TD called for failure to alert in the BBO ACBL games. Personally, I just inquire of any bid I think MIGHT have been a failure to alert. (I admit I resent having to do that and I resent moreso when there is reluctance or refusal to provide full disclosure.) Unless the TD is called, offenders do not even get a warning. But IF TD is called and TD can simply give a "warning", these players are not fazed. "Big deal--call the TD--so what--no skin off my teeth!"

They go to the next table and the next and do the same. Then when players get the drift it is a waste of their time to call the TD, they stop bothering to do so and the offenders do not even get "warnings" (or very few).

If rules, laws and regulations can only be enforced with "warnings", they might as well not exist.

[Elianna]

bendare, on Sep 17 2005, 07:03 PM, said:

"Warnings" by a TD seem to be totally ineffective. Many of the players in these ACBL tourneys (where one would most expect compliance with the "rules" by players and enforcement by TDS) are regular partners who play frequently in these games. I cannot say how many of the offenses of failures to alert or provide full disclosure are truly in ignorance or in defiance or just an innocent momentary lapse of memory. However, I would guess that far more than half of alertable bids are NOT alerted.

In TDs defense, both as player and kibitzer I have rarely, rarely seen a TD called for failure to alert in the BBO ACBL games. ... But IF TD is called and TD can simply give a "warning", these players are not fazed. "Big deal--call the TD--so what--no skin off my teeth!"

They go to the next table and the next and do the same. Then when players get the drift it is a waste of their time to call the TD, they stop bothering to do so and the offenders do not even get "warnings" (or very few).

If rules, laws and regulations can only be enforced with "warnings", they might as well not exist.

TDs need to learn to enforce the rules. If you want another example, see my blog about an incident with rudeness that happened at my local, ACBL club (where basically the director had a problem enforcing rules because he was too nice).

As a teacher, I've learned that statements like "be quite" or "no talking" have no effect. "Student A, -2 points on your next exam" (and my students seeing me write that down) are MUCH more effective. (Calls home to parents, since this is a private school, are most effective.)

Like my 16 year olds, bridge players also need to have some more tangible consequences for misbehaving. Losing imps or mps because of failure to follow rules would be a very useful tool for keeping people in line, if it were used (especially if it can be done non-reciprocally).