[blackshoe]

Directors should make the correct ruling, not just the easy one.

When there are multiple infractions, you take them in chronological order. In this case, the first infraction was the 3♥ bid putatively based on UI from the alert of 2♥. Did the UI suggest bidding 3♥? Surely. Was there a logical alternative? I don't know; I'd have to see the hand. If there was, and if bidding 3♥ can be demonstrated to have been suggested over the LA (likely, IMO) then I would adjust the score on the assumption that the LA was called, rather than 3♥. Let's say that LA is pass, leaving the pair in 2♠. Now there's no need to consider the second infraction, because in this scenario it will never have happened. TD might still issue a PP for either infraction, though. Generally speaking, in a club game, I wouldn't issue PPs, except perhaps in the form of a warning. But if I warn players, I'm saying "do it again, and I'll issue a PP", and I'm going to carry through with that.

It would be interesting if the 3♥ bidder claimed that his hesitation was due to trying to figure out what his responsibilities were in the presence of the UI from the alert.

Addendum 1: Law 12C1(d) allows the TD to award an artificial adjusted score, but only when "the possibilities are numerous or not obvious". It is rare that this should be the case. This law should not be used by the TD as an excuse to be lazy.

Addendum 2: in North America, Law 12C1(e) applies, and the NOS get "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred", while the OS get "the most unfavorable result that was at all possible". In most of the rest of the world, Law 12C1© applies, and the players get a weighted score on the basis of the possible results. This does not change the principle stated in addendum 1.

[Codo]

jdonn, on Mar 2 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

Codo, on Mar 2 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

And I still don't buy that his partner with
QJxxx, Kxxx,xx,xx must bid over 1 ♣.

Come on, that's not a game force opposite 15+ to 18. Nor an invitation (remember 1♠ was bid on his left.)

Opposite a partner who bids NT with the given hand, this is a game force.

The 1 NT bidder is quite on a different wavelength then most of us.
He bids 19+ as 15-18, he bids 3 NT despite a 5/3 fit and ruffing values with the short trumps. All his values are just aces and kings, so why should he bid 3 NT?

Maybe his partner knows his attitudes and will bid his hand according to this style?

I still need too many excuses to make a ruling in his favour.

[mycroft]

To riff off Blackshoe, "numerous or not obvious" works well after (1C)-1H (showing spades, unalerted), where there could literally be 15 or so auction paths (although if it's reasonably obvious how to get to the "good" contract for the non-offending side, then do it).

In this case, there's what - 5 potential contracts? and two potential actions at the two points? Hard? Not in the ACBL, where a simple Fact-or-fiction play throws the auctions into "likely" and "not likely" camps, of which it should be pretty easy to find the "best result" out of the likely set; another game puts the potential contracts into "at all possible" and "not at all possible" buckets, of which you pick the "worst result". Sure, in weighted scores land, it's more difficult, but by resolving probabilities in the NOS' favour, even a complicated weighted score should be straightforward.

The reason Blackshoe and I are so much against Artificial Adjusted Scores in this case is that it could be that the NOS are entitled to a top on *any reasonable* L12C1e ruling; why should they be deprived of that 40% (conversely, why should the offenders get a free 40%) because the TD is too lazy to do the work?

[nige1]

rogerclee, on Mar 1 2009, 01:16 AM, said:

IMPs, All White, Fourth Seat
♠Kxx ♥Ax ♦AKJxx ♣Axx
(1♣) - P - (1♠) - 1NT
(2♣) - 2♥* - (P) - 2♠
(P) - 3♥ - (P) - ?
2♥ was by agreement, a transfer. What would you bid?
The story: 2♥ was alerted as a transfer by agreement, and 3♥ was very slow (indicating that the hand had hearts, not spades). This hand decided to bid 3NT, and a director was called. At the table, this player argued that because of the diamond trick source and sharp values, 3NT was indicated instead of 4♠. The opponents argued that maybe 3NT could be right, but 4♠ is certainly a logical alternative, and so must be bid. The director sided with the 1N overcaller and said result stands. The opponents decided to appeal. Later, the 1NT overcaller says that he had enough information to field that partner could not have 5 spades, since there was no 5-5 or 5-4 majors hand consistent with this auction. However, this was not his argument for 3NT at the table. Is it relevant that the player probably did not think of this until after the hand was played? How would you rule anyway?

Scoring: IMP

(1♣) _P (1♠) 1NT
(2♣) 2♥ (_P) 2♠
(_P) 3♥ (_P) ??
2♥ was by agreement, a transfer. What would you bid?
IMO 4♣=10, 4♦=9 4♠=8, 3N=2
I agree with most of what Cardsharp wrote. I agree with Blackshoe's ruling and his opinion that patner's 3♥ bid is suspect. Admittedly, it is hard to construct a hand consistent with partner holding long ♠ but that was just as true over his original transfer as over his slow 3♥ rebid, Perhaps, the deal on the left is plausible. If that construction is deemed unlikely, then perhaps somebody made a mistake (but here, the unauthorised information makes it likely that the error was partner's). The bottom line is that 4♠ was a logical alternative to the 3N suggested by partner's hesitation.

---

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on Mar 2 2009, 03:02 PM, said:

Directors should make the correct ruling, not just the easy one.

When there are multiple infractions, you take them in chronological order.
.....{blackshoe considers first infraction}...
Now there's no need to consider the second infraction, because in this scenario it will never have happened. TD might still issue a PP for either infraction, though.

The English approach is slightly different when there have been multiple infractions by one side. We look at all of them, and 'stop the clock' at the point when the offending side are worst off.

Take this (hypothetical) example:

(1S) 3C* (3S) 4H
(P) 5C (x) all pass

*bid with long clubs, alerted and described as Ghestem, showing the red suits
Suppose there were sufficient questions, comments, expressions etc at the table that it's established that the 3C bidder had UI, and the 4H bidder had UI (after his 4H bid) that partner really had clubs.

We establish that the 5C was against L16, as the 3C bidder had a logical alternative of passing 4H. Also, passing the double of 5C was illegal, as the 4H bidder had the LA that 5C was a slam try.

Suppose 5Cx only went one off, and they ask for a ruling.

The first infraction was the 5C bid, so one possible ruling is 4H (possibly doubled, depending on the opposition hands) making some number of tricks, a lot fewer than were made in 5C. From your description, you would stop there and that would be your ruling.

However, I would say that passing 5Cx was also an infraction, and that the other hand had a 5H or 6H bid (depending on his hand), possibly doubled. That's worse for the offending side than playing in 4H, so it's what I would rule.

[blackshoe]

Hm. You make a good point Frances. B}

It seems that while Nigel said he agreed with my ruling, he's actually more in line with Frances' approach, and feels that the OS is in a worse position after the second offense. After all, if 2♠ is going down, 4♠ has to be going down more. So perhaps we do have to consider both offenses. It is nonetheless true that in considering the first offense, the later second offense has no impact on the rectification we determine. It may (and it seems it should in this case) affect the final rectification.

[jtfanclub]

I don't like the argument that because I didn't mention it to the director immediately, it shouldn't be a factor in the final decision.

First off, the director may have asked several dozen questions of the offended people and then asked for a quick reason for the offenders to explain themselves. The player in question might have several arguments available (all of which would be true) and just chose the one most likely to sway the director. Giving a bunch of reasons all at once sounds like excuse manufacturing.

Secondly, the person may have just realized it subconsciously. If there had been no delay and no UI, I would have realized something was wrong, but it's very likely that I would not have realized it was that my partner passed the 1 club until I analyzed it later. I'd just know that something going on was impossible.

Thirdly, saying "My partner is such an idiot that I'm lucky if he remembers Stayman. Of course if I'm given a choice between partner forgot and some almost-impossible combination of hands I'm going to choose the moron option" might not be the most politically correct thing to say, considering that you still have to finish the game with the person in question. This would especially be true if the guy who forgot the transfer was a client and the guy who was trying to ensure that he'd play the hand was getting paid for the privilege.

[nige1]

Codo, on Mar 2 2009, 03:24 AM, said:

And I still don't buy that his partner with
QJxxx, Kxxx,xx,xx must bid over 1 ♣.

jdonn, on Mar 2 2009, 03:45 AM, said:

Come on, that's not a game force opposite 15+ to 18. Nor an invitation (remember 1♠ was bid on his left.)

Special pleading: IMO the right action may depend on your methods. Many people define a transfer followed by a change of suit as a game force. But some of us treat the 3♥ rebid, initially, as a natural trial-bid, instead. Whatever your agreement in other contexts, that is a sensible understanding in a competitive auction like this; and if partner habitually overcalls 1N on 19+HCP, then a game try is more reasonable.