[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     1♣
 Pass  1♦    Dbl   1♥
 2♠    Pass  3♠    4♦
 Pass  Pass  Dbl   Pass
 Pass  Pass  

Comments on the auction please; no alerts were given.

The aftermath;
TD was called after the opening lead re failure to alert.
Without comment, board was adjusted 4♦X+1, TD#1 leaves.
TD#2 called who adjusted A== the rationale being A= is a bad result as 4♦X+1 makes.

[han]

North-South failed to alert and should be awarded an average minus and given a stern lecture.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

South should self alert 1C, what ever it showed.

The problem is, did the failure to alert 1C, had
an impact?
Or did E/W have an misunderstanding about the
meaning of 2S?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

Oh also, west grosly overbid with 2S, unless west knew that the opponents were playing precision.

[ASkolnick]

I actually go with a split ruling.

NS should get a procedural penalty for failure to disclose information.
EW should have their score stand.

West overbid slightly. Probably trying to preempt with a big fit.
East has nothing to duble with. No spades are cashing, maybe 1H and where are the rest of his values. Let's assume west held more points, most would be in spades and would be a singleton.

[jtfanclub]

han, on Aug 15 2008, 01:05 PM, said:

Oh also, west grosly overbid with 2S, unless west knew that the opponents were playing precision.

I suspect West knew they were playing Precision and East didn't. Probably have an agreement that a jump in this auction shows a weak hand vs. Precision but not vs. Standard. If so, the auction fits: West thought he was showing a pre-emptive hand (vs. Precision) and East thought West was showing an invitational strength hand with 4 spades (vs. SAYC or 2/1).

If that's true, I'd remove the X. 4♦+1.

[Echognome]

jtfanclub, on Aug 15 2008, 10:45 AM, said:

han, on Aug 15 2008, 01:05 PM, said:

Oh also, west grosly overbid with 2S, unless west knew that the opponents were playing precision.

I suspect West knew they were playing Precision and East didn't. Probably have an agreement that a jump in this auction shows a weak hand vs. Precision but not vs. Standard. If so, the auction fits: West thought he was showing a pre-emptive hand (vs. Precision) and East thought West was showing an invitational strength hand with 4 spades (vs. SAYC or 2/1).

If that's true, I'd remove the X. 4♦+1.

I agree.

[blackshoe]

An awful lot of assumptions in this thread.

Some questions: what regulations are in force? What was NS's actual agreement? Who called the TD, and why?

That'll do for starters.

Under the 1997 laws, an artificial adjusted score is illegal when a result was obtained at the table. Under the 2007 laws, still illegal, except when there are too many possiblities or the correct adjustment is "not obvious". So we may also need to know which laws are in effect.

[LH2650]

jtfanclub, on Aug 15 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

I suspect West knew they were playing Precision and East didn't.  Probably have an agreement that a jump in this auction shows a weak hand vs. Precision but not vs. Standard.  If so, the auction fits:  West thought he was showing a pre-emptive hand (vs. Precision) and East thought West was showing an invitational strength hand with 4 spades (vs.  SAYC or 2/1).

West is going to have to make that argument - I'm not going to coach him, and if East thought that West's bid was invitational, why didn't he bid game?

The NS cards could be rearranged so that the auction makes sense in SAYC, and that leaves East with 1 sure trick, so I think his very bad double is the root cause of the disaster. No adjustment, but a PP for NS failures to alert.

[Echognome]

LH2650, on Aug 15 2008, 11:22 AM, said:

West is going to have to make that argument - I'm not going to coach him, and if East thought that West's bid was invitational, why didn't he bid game?

The NS cards could be rearranged so that the auction makes sense in SAYC, and that leaves East with 1 sure trick, so I think his very bad double is the root cause of the disaster. No adjustment, but a PP for NS failures to alert.

EW are non-offenders. So unless you think his double is wild or gambling (or irrational in certain jurisdictions), why would you not adjust? Even if you deem East's action to be wild or gambling, then you should still adjust the NS score if you deem there was damage. You should use the MI laws on the basis of your ruling.

Blackshoe - although I understand there are a lot of open-ended questions that would need to be resolved, I think it's reasonable enough to speculate as to how you would rule (putting in whatever caveats or contingencies that you deem necessary). I understand on the IBLF we would expect more detail, but on BBF, the usual instance is a free online tournament without hard and fast specified rules. As JB is posting it, my guess is that WBF rules were in effect (but of course await her correction).

[jtfanclub]

Quote

West is going to have to make that argument - I'm not going to coach him, and if East thought that West's bid was invitational, why didn't he bid game?

West can't have 5 spades...if he had an invitational hand with 5 spades, then he'd have bid over 1♣. While West has 9-10 hcp which should be sufficient for game, East's points look very poorly positioned- both the heart and club finesses should be off, and any diamonds West has may be under North's only honors. I don't fault 3♠ here.

Quote

The NS cards could be rearranged so that the auction makes sense in SAYC

Not to hard to figure out the shapes here. South has 1-4-4-4 distribution. North only has one bid, so it seems likely that his distribution is 4-x-5-x.

Yes, I know, I'm making a hand again.

---

This is from East's persective. West is minimum for an invite, and 4♦ still goes down. Every bid is what I would expect except the 4♦ call, which is bad but not impossible. Meanwhile, 4♠ goes down at least 2: move stuff around a little, and it only goes down 1, but 4♠ is still hopeless: the auction has told you that everything is going to fail.

[blackshoe]

If there are no specified rules, then there was no infraction. No infraction, no adjustment.

There's too many holes in this one for me. You guys have fun.

[jillybean]

Oh the rules, err only general rules were specified. 'You must state every round your system and carding, if you play Polish♣ you must explain your bids fully in English or you will be penalized - I dont know if this rule extends to other systems

I realise its an impossible question to answer under these conditions as the TD is going to do what they think is best for their tournament. But for the sake of anyone wanting to know how it would be dealt with under WBF or ACBL rules can we just adopt one of these for your answer.

Agreements; NS I dont know; EW 2/1
West called the director to look at the failure to alert 1♣ and to be excused from
the tournament as his partner was an overbidding lunatic.

[blackshoe]

It looks like the TD adjusted the score before the board was played. Why did he do that?

TD error. 4♦ by S making six for NS, making 5 for EW (considering both sides as non offending).

[Cascade]

Clearly there are missing alerts (or some very strange psyches).

However I doubt there is damage.

I seldom have sympathy for someone who doubles with very few defensive tricks.

[mike777]

What are the facts? What questions were asked? If none fire the Td's

[jillybean]

Those are the facts, no questions asked

[blackshoe]

Like I said, TD error.

[Echognome]

Cascade, on Aug 15 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

Clearly there are missing alerts (or some very strange psyches).

However I doubt there is damage.

I seldom have sympathy for someone who doubles with very few defensive tricks.

So do you believe if East was given the correct information he would double? If so, then there is damage. Regardless of whether you believe that East's double is wild or gambling, shouldn't NS's score be adjusted?

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on Aug 15 2008, 02:58 PM, said:

Like I said, TD error.

I think I can quote you as saying #1 Dont argue with the TD #2. If the TD is wrong, see rule #1