[vang]

Scoring: IMP

---

West open 1NT, North overcalled 2D, East bid 4H. At this moment, South said, "ups, I must alert 2D". East asked and was informed that 2D means an overcall with one unknown major (multi-landy). He said he mantain his 4H and he didn't called TD. The bidding continued with p-p-p.

The explanation was correct and confirmed by CC. It is in fact more frequent that 2D means "multi" rather than natural (with diamonds) for players in this particular context (country, skill, experience etc).

The play started with spade lead and declarer went one down (losing 2 spades and 2 clubs).

After the play, declarer called TD and said that lack of alert (or the late alert) prejudiced him. "I can make 3NT. if i knew what 2D is, i'll pass and then after the presumed 2H in South and 2S by North, revealing the major, I can continue with 3S to ask partner for stopper and we'll play 3NT".

TD adjusted the table score from 4H-1 to "50% 3NT= and 50% 4H-1".

All the players are experienced, S with ~ 15 years, E with ~ 30 years of competitive bridge.

NS appealed considering that
1. E may have called TD when was informed about what 2D is and changed hid call
2. the explanation about how to reach 3NT are not very believable (never showing the heart suit etc).

What would be your decision in this appeal?

[Free]

The TD is wrong imo: there was NO damage by the lack of alert, and East clearly stated that he'd keep his bid. This means he accepts the 2♦ bid with the alert without consequences. Explain to East that this behaviour is ridiculous!

[FrancesHinden]

The table result stands.

South gave a late alert, but not so late that East could not have changed his call - with no penalty - at the time.

[Rossoneri]

I agree. Result should stand. E chose to kept his call.

[hrothgar]

Table Result Stands

I really question the TD's decision. Did this take place in a jurisdiction where the TDs have been instructed to always rule in favor of the non-offending side?

[Codo]

Of course the table result stands.
If TD had ruled this and E/W had complaint, I hadn´t give them money back, so clear is this.

East had a legal advantage from the late alert: He could bid different trying to find out whether or not 3 NT is the better place. He could simply choose the line he named or even easier, he could switch his bid to 3 Spade, asking for a stopper. West may bid 3 NT or 4 HEart with no problem at all.

But instead Easte just blasted to 4 Heart and wrongsided the contract in the meantime. (This is no big deal here, he is always meant to be down).

And after the hand is over, he construct a silly auction where he suppressed his hearts and plays 3 NT oppsite a weak positional stopper and not in the 6-3 major fit? Sorrry this is not ridicolous any more, this is criminal.

If there had been no alert till the end of the bidding I had some symphaty for the case. But not now.

[MFA]

As the case is presented, it's clear-cut (like the other posters say).

Quote

He said he mantain his 4H...

This is quite important, though. Had East not known that he would be offered to alter his bid, we do have a problem. It's NS's responsibility as well that a TD is summoned in these situations. But since East knew the rules here, he was not damaged from the absence of a TD.

[mycroft]

Director ruling, in toto:

"I gave you the chance, why didn't you, then?"

After all, I gave him the chance to change his call over 2D without penalty, unauthorized only to N/S - what more could he want?

Actually, I know what he wants - "the opponents did something wrong, I deserve a good score!" Well, sometimes, no. And I know what East was thinking - of course my 8+card heart fit will play better than notrump. Oh, this time it didn't! Let's see if I can get 3NT then.

Well, he was half right. As N/S I would have talked to the CTD.

Michael.

[Trinidad]

Codo, on Nov 26 2007, 10:17 AM, said:

Of course the table result stands.
If TD had ruled this and E/W had complaint, I hadn´t give them money back, so clear is this.

East had a legal advantage from the late alert: He could bid different trying to find out whether or not 3 NT is the better place. He could simply choose the line he named or even easier,  he could switch his bid to 3 Spade, asking for a stopper. West may bid 3 NT or 4 HEart with no problem at all.

This is misguided.

East was not allowed to change his bid. Read Law 21B1. East is only allowed to change his bid if it is likely that he made his original bid based on the misinformation. This condition is not met here. In fact, East couldn't care less what 2♦ meant. He would bid 4♥, no matter what.

This is one of the reasons why, technically, North has to call the TD when giving the late alert (see Law 75D1). I wrote 'technically' because in practice I don't know anybody who would call the TD in this case.

Other than these two remarks I obviously agree with all previous posters. This TD decision was very wrong. It is very clear that the table result should stand.

Rik

[Codo]

Trinidad, on Nov 27 2007, 02:12 AM, said:

Codo, on Nov 26 2007, 10:17 AM, said:

Of course the table result stands.
If TD had ruled this and E/W had complaint, I hadn´t give them money back, so clear is this.

East had a legal advantage from the late alert: He could bid different trying to find out whether or not 3 NT is the better place. He could simply choose the line he named or even easier,  he could switch his bid to 3 Spade, asking for a stopper. West may bid 3 NT or 4 HEart with no problem at all.

This is misguided.

East was not allowed to change his bid. Read Law 21B1. East is only allowed to change his bid if it is likely that he made his original bid based on the misinformation. This condition is not met here. In fact, East couldn't care less what 2♦ meant. He would bid 4♥, no matter what.

This is one of the reasons why, technically, North has to call the TD when giving the late alert (see Law 75D1). I wrote 'technically' because in practice I don't know anybody who would call the TD in this case.

Other than these two remarks I obviously agree with all previous posters. This TD decision was very wrong. It is very clear that the table result should stand.

Rik

My apologisze if I wrote it in the wrong words, but east claimed, that he had changed his bid if he had known in time that 2 Diamonds showd a major. So for this case, I took it as a fact.

However, there is no reason to discuss this point in detail, as it does not change the ruling in this case.
But if the case had been: Late alert and East now changes his bid to pass and later bids 3 Spade (like he explained it later), this had been perfect legal. You may believe that he had not done that, but as the non offending side, you must give him the benefit of the doubt.

[jikl]

Hrm, can I say doubleshot?

Sean

[mycroft]

Roland, I *did* give him his chance. When they called the TD after the late alert.

Oh wait, they didn't call the TD? They decided to rule on their own? East said "Thanks for the information, I'm still bidding 4H?" And now he wants it rolled back?

"You had your chance. You decided not to take it, and you decided not to call the TD to find out your options. Heh, even if you did call the TD, you wouldn't have got the 'keep it if it's right, or get a ruling if it's wrong' option - you get to change it or hold your peace. You took the 'hold your peace' option. Next hand, please."

(please note, on my first response, I missed that East said he would still bid 4H and didn't want the TD - I read it as when the TD was called East said he would still bid 4H. But, eventually, making your own rulings is going to bite you, and losing 8 IMPs (well, failing to win 8 IMPs - this hand is going to be a push) is, in fact, salutary to education.)

Michael.

[mycroft]

I guess what I'm saying in short is that I am sure as little green apples not going to give east an advantage he would not have got had he followed the Laws.

Next!

[jtfanclub]

No damage, although I might be convinced to give NS a procedural penalty if THEY knew that they should call the director and EW were rookies who weren't aware they should call the director....

Nah, I don't think I could be convinced to give a PP- nobody calls the director for these, especially if the 4♥ hit the table 1 microsecond after the 2♦ came down. However, if a director nailed NS for not calling the director, I wouldn't scream.

[Halo]

I sympathise with East.

Next time he should call the TD immediately and give himself time to think.

Maybe then the TD could also suggest NS (edit) learn their system.

[Free]

Halo, on Nov 27 2007, 11:05 PM, said:

I sympathise with East.

Next time he should call the TD immediately and give himself time to think.

Maybe then the TD could also suggest NS (edit) learn their system.

How can you sympathise with someone taking a double shot? If he makes his contract, everything is fine, but if he goes down, he'll claim he'd bid differently... You get 1 shot, not 2

[scoob]

Free, on Nov 28 2007, 01:35 AM, said:

Halo, on Nov 27 2007, 11:05 PM, said:

I sympathise with East.

Next time he should call the TD immediately and give himself time to think.

Maybe then the TD could also suggest NS (edit) learn their system.

How can you sympathise with someone taking a double shot? If he makes his contract, everything is fine, but if he goes down, he'll claim he'd bid differently... You get 1 shot, not 2

i read halo's post as sarcasm.

had i been NS i would have just called the TD myself. i've been bitten by this too many times, and i've found that being the player to call the TD for my own infractions usually makes the mood of the table far more enjoyable - some opps just don't want to cause a hassle and won't call at all when they should.

[nige1]

vang, on Nov 26 2007, 05:25 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

West open 1NT, North overcalled 2D, East bid 4H. At this moment, South said, "ups, I must alert 2D". East asked and was informed that 2D means an overcall with one unknown major (multi-landy). He said he mantain his 4H and he didn't called TD. The bidding continued with p-p-p.

The explanation was correct and confirmed by CC. It is in fact more frequent that 2D means "multi" rather than natural (with diamonds) for players in this particular context (country, skill, experience etc).

The play started with spade lead and declarer went one down (losing 2 spades and 2 clubs).

After the play, declarer called TD and said that lack of alert (or the late alert) prejudiced him. "I can make 3NT. if i knew what 2D is, i'll pass and then after the presumed 2H in South and 2S by North, revealing the major, I can continue with 3S to ask partner for stopper and we'll play 3NT".

TD adjusted the table score from 4H-1 to "50% 3NT= and 50% 4H-1".

All the players are experienced, S with ~ 15 years, E with ~ 30 years of competitive bridge.

NS appealed considering that
1. E may have called TD when was informed about what 2D is and changed hid call
2. the explanation about how to reach 3NT are not very believable (never showing the heart suit etc).

What would be your decision in this appeal?

Both sides are at fault for failing to call the director immediately after the infraction but if all relevant facts were as stated, the director's ruling should have been "result stands".

A problem is that the laws are so complex and sophisticated that few players or directors understand them. Some directors assign weighted scores, whether fair or not, because they are in fashion, and such rulings deter appeals (in less extreme cases of injustice).