BBO Discussion Forums: Disputed alert - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Disputed alert

#1 User is offline   mich-b 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 584
  • Joined: 2008-November-27

Posted 2009-August-09, 07:33

Scoring: IMP

P-1-P-1*
X-3*-3-X
P-P-4-X
ALL PASS
down 4 , NS -800.


Teams,KO, 3rd 16 board segment out of 6 , played with screens (North and East on the same side).
Serious tournament , all players very experienced with international experience.

Before start of play E/W pre-alerted that they play transfer responses to 1.
Also a similar sequence with a transfer response to 1 had occured few boards earlier in the same segment and was alerted.
East says he alerted the 1 bid (shows 4+ s).
He did this by pointing to the bid on the tray , which is not strictly correct procedure (Correct procedure is using the Alert card). Both East and North agree that is the way both of them have been alerting their bids throughout the match.
North did not ask about the alert, which seemed normal to East because of the pre-alert, and because of a similar sequence taking place few boards earlier.
East also alerted the 3 bid (because it denied 3).
North says he did not notice the alert of 1, so interpreted South's double (which really showed s) as t/o and bid a natural 3. He also did not ask about the alert of 3 , probably assuming it denied 3s. After East started thinking (and before East bid anything), North asked East "Wait, what was 1?". When he heard it shows s he went to talk to the director away from the table. The director did not allow him to change his 3 bid, and after talking to East and North ruled that she believes the 1 bid was indeed properly alerted, because East said he is sure he did alert, and because he has been alerting this for several years without any incidents, and also considering the pre-alert , and the transfer responses used earlier.
After conclusion of play the director was called again , and ruled that the table result NS -800 stands. Other table were NS +200, so EW team gained 14 IMPs.

Side issue : While director was sorting things out , South told North "tell the director that you were watching East all the time, and you are sure he did not alert". North refused to confirm that.

N/S appealed the ruling. The AC decided to award them 3 IMPs back. I am not sure what was the exact reasoning - I think it was something along the lines of :
If North would get the correct explanation he would bid 3 (Since then his partner's double would show s), which could be either doubled or not , resulting with either -150 NS or -500 NS, which combined with the other room result produces 11 IMPs.

The match ended by EW team winning by a large margin, so this board did not decide the result.

I would welcome any comments about :
1. Relevant laws.
2. Director's actions and ruling.
3. South's comment to his partner.
4. AC decision.
0

#2 User is offline   JoAnneM 

  • LOR
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 852
  • Joined: 2003-December-04
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

Posted 2009-August-09, 09:20

My only comment is that even though e/w won by a large margin an incident like this might throw off playing tempo/kharma, whatever and who knows how the rest of the match might have proceeded. Maybe this is not as much a factor at that level of play but it has to play some role.
Regards, Jo Anne
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
0

#3 User is offline   jeremy69 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 412
  • Joined: 2009-June-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 2009-August-09, 09:38

In English/EBL/WBF events the onus is on the alerter to make sure that the alert has been seen. Those who do it by pointing are taking a risk. If North did not see it then he has a case in the above jurisdictions in my opinion. I don't know what difference pre-alerts makes to this and whether US regulations are the same but I would be inclined to consider an adjustment unless there was clear evidence that North was lying about all this (very hard to prove). I think the TD got it wrong unless the regulations about alerting are different. I would like to have seen the appeal committees reasons in full but on the surface their adjustment seems ok.
0

#4 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2009-August-09, 11:34

Quote

The director did not allow him to change his 3♠ bid, and after talking to East and North ruled that she believes the 1♥ bid was indeed properly alerted


This order seems wrong. The TD must decide if 1H was properly alerted or not first. If it wasn't, then North is allowed to change his call. If it was, then North isn't, and there's no point calling the TD back at the end of the hand because the relevant decision has already been made.

Other than that, what Jeremy said.
0

#5 User is offline   MFA 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,625
  • Joined: 2006-October-04
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 2009-August-09, 13:52

I find it problematic that we have a formal alert procedure (with screens) which oneone at all uses. In fact I have never even seen someone alert correctly behind screens!

One is supposed to place the alert card on the opponent's bidding tray and let him hand it back to you. Obviously that is a very annoying procedure, so I understand why it's unpopular.

In practice everybody either points at the bid or waves the alert card - I prefer the latter (unless the card is missing, which is too often the case).

In my experience an opponent overlooks my alert on very rare occasions from time to time. The funny thing is that it seems almost unrelated to the effort of the alert, unless I go really out of my way to get eye contact and all. A couple of times I have really thought "WTF?" when someone claims he didn't see an alert. I guess some players are just completely "absent" once in a while when not active in the bidding. Ok, but if one can't tell from their appearance then it's kind of hard. :)

I would love to see an improvement in the alert procedure with screens. Meanwhile I don't think that ruling automatically in the favour of the opponent who didn't see an alert is fair. I have great respect for a TD who dares to rule with the (disputed) alerter.
Michael Askgaard
0

#6 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

  Posted 2009-August-09, 14:35

I am interested in Jeremy's comments about US regulations: what is the point of this? Are you assuming this ruling comes from the US?

Please please please can the opening poster tell us what the country is in which the event was played. :) When you start a new topic it says 'Description (Optional)': please put the jurisdiction [or 'Online'] in there if you do not mention it in the text. We have continually asked for this: people so often do not and then one of thwo things happens:

1 Half the posters assume everything happens in the ACBL, which is pretty insulting to other jurisdictions and is either very helpful or very unhelpful dependent on whether it did happen in the ACBL or not.

2 Half the posters assume it makes no difference and answer as though it does not. Fine, in a lot of cases, but so many cases involve regulations or local interpretatins or RA or TO options, and responses that assume there is no difference merely confuse.

In this case there seems some doubt as to what ruling was given, which does not suggest competent tournament direction, unless it is poor reporting of course. :) But the way the ruling is described makes it sound like a Law 12C1C ruling, and if so then this was not the ACBL, so US regulations are irrelevant.

Please tell us where this was.
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#7 User is offline   mich-b 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 584
  • Joined: 2008-November-27

Posted 2009-August-10, 01:19

bluejak, on Aug 9 2009, 03:35 PM, said:

Please tell us where this was.

Israel.

I did not mention the place in my description, because I wanted to know how this would have been handled elsewhere.
0

#8 User is offline   mich-b 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 584
  • Joined: 2008-November-27

Posted 2009-August-10, 01:32

bluejak, on Aug 9 2009, 03:35 PM, said:

In this case there seems some doubt as to what ruling was given, which does not suggest competent tournament direction, unless it is  poor reporting of course.  :blink:  But the way the ruling is described makes it sound like a Law 12C1C ruling, and if so then this was not the ACBL, so US regulations are irrelevant.

As far as I undestand , the director did not allow North to change his bid, because it was clear that it was not a mechanical error, and he wanted to bid 3 at the time he bid it.
After deciding that she allowed the auction and play to continue, and later ruled that she believed East that he did alert.

Quote

Meanwhile I don't think that ruling automatically in the favour of the opponent who didn't see an alert is fair. I have great respect for a TD who dares to rule with the (disputed) alerter.


Are there any special sircumstances in the case as described (pre-alert, previous occurance of the sequence, basicness of the bidding sequence, North's refusal to confirm South's speculation, North waking-up and remembering) that might lead you to shift the responsibility to North (the Alert reciever)?
0

#9 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

  Posted 2009-August-10, 09:07

Quote

I did not mention the place in my description, because I wanted to know how this would have been handled elsewhere.

Perhaps the best solution is to say where you are as requested, and then mentrion you would also like to know how it woudl be handled elsewhere.

In general, whether covered by regulation or not, I believe it is generally accepted that people who alert are required to make the alert understood. That would especially be the case if the player who alerted did so in a way that was not the way suggested by regulation.

Of course, custom & practice means that TDs are not going to generally worry about failure to follow regulatins when 'everyone' does it until something goes wrong.

Quote

Are there any special sircumstances in the case as described (pre-alert, previous occurance of the sequence, basicness of the bidding sequence, North's refusal to confirm South's speculation, North waking-up and remembering) that might lead you to shift the responsibility to North (the Alert reciever)?

Certainly, otherwise what is the point of finding out the facts? For an adjustment because of a failure to alert, not only must there be a failure to alert correctly - and if an opponent has seen the alert that is good enough even if the laid-down method was not followed - but there must also be damage therefrom. To take a simple case, if 1NT is bid to your left, 2 is bid to your right, and assuming Stayman requires an alert in the jurisdiction, it would be very unlikely that you would get an adjustment because Stayman was not alerted. You are expected to use some commonsense.

One point that affects others is that e sequence had come up before. I always think this is a poor argument. You are not required to remember things which need an alert. It is different where you are expecting an alert [eg Stayman as above, or a bid of the opponent's suit not being natural in England, which still requires an alert] but where you are not expecting one then I see no reason why you should be expected to remember.

Decisions over what happened should normally be left to the TD at the time. By the time you get to an AC, players' minds have crystallized, and [human nature being what it is] with a bias towards what supports their side. So, if the TD ruled there was no alert, or an inadequate alert, or an unseen alert, then there was MI and I woudl adjust. As a AC I would take the TD's word.

Quote

South told North "tell the director that you were watching East all the time, and you are sure he did not alert".

That is a disciplinary matter. If the TD is sure it happened then he should pass the matter on to whoever deals with conduct and ethics: if he is not sure a severe warning is a good idea, and a mention of this possibility to his colleagues to watch out for this player.

The AC ruling sounds like a Law 12C1C ruling, and should be clarified to the players concerned. In jurisdictions where Law 12C1C is enabled - most places apart from North America - weighted scores are now the norm - or, to be truthful, should be. :lol:
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#10 User is offline   greenender 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 2009-July-16

Posted 2009-August-11, 06:13

mich-b, on Aug 10 2009, 02:32 AM, said:

As far as I undestand , the director did not allow North to change his bid, because it was clear that it was not a mechanical error, and he wanted to bid 3 at the time he bid it.

This is a clear error by the TD.

She appears to have ruled under Law 25. Of course 3 was not "unintended" because at the time N bid it he thought that E had s and therefore S had support. On that basis he fully intended to bid 3.

N's argument was that he would not have bid 3 if he had seen the alert and known that E had s rather than s. This is a straight MI ruling under Law 21, and as the auction had not got past his partner, N should have been given the right to change his call if the TD believed that there was MI (i.e. that 1 had not been properly alerted).

So it is crucial that the TD decides about the alert before anything else.

So the matter should have been resolved by the AC deciding whether there was an alert, and if they decided there wasn't, then the ruling should have been on the basis that the TD had offered N his bid back, thereafter treating both sides as non-offending.
0

#11 User is offline   greenender 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 84
  • Joined: 2009-July-16

Posted 2009-August-11, 06:24

bluejak, on Aug 10 2009, 10:07 AM, said:

One point that affects others is that e sequence had come up before. I always think this is a poor argument. You are not required to remember things which need an alert. It is different where you are expecting an alert [eg Stayman as above, or a bid of the opponent's suit not being natural in England, which still requires an alert] but where you are not expecting one then I see no reason why you should be expected to remember.

I think that this is a matter of degree. I know that bluejak almost has it as an article of faith that he doesn't expect to remember what the opponents are playing, but I think he may underestimate the degree to which the rest of us do retain some inkling of what is going on from previous instances.

I feel that if the hand had come up very soon after the pre-alert, or if the sequence had come up a couple of times already in the set, then N really should be expected to remember. Conversely, if it didn't, then I would be perfectly comfortable with leaving the onus on the alerter to make sure the alert is noticed. IIRC, EBU advice used to be along these lines.

So I think the TD should make up his or her mind on the balance of probabilities, giving the benefit of the doubt to the side that claims not to have been alerted properly. Of course, the TD must take care to ensure that any previous instances are comparable. I would regard a previous instance of a transfer into the other major as being comparable, but in more complex auctions things that look similar to previous instances may well not be, so again I would give the benefit of the doubt to the putative NOS.
0

#12 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

  Posted 2009-August-11, 06:31

You seem to be arguing in two different directions at once.

Put simply, you have a sequence not usually alertable which is not alerted and there is clear damage.

Do you rule MI because there is no alert?

Or do you rule that the opponent should have remembered so allow the non-alerter to gain from his infraction?

I still find the second solution incredible. Why should people gain from not following the rules?
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

#13 User is offline   JoAnneM 

  • LOR
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 852
  • Joined: 2003-December-04
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:California

Posted 2009-August-11, 10:03

Would someone please post an actual example of this, please. I don't mean the situation, I mean how it would look on a traveler.

© In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities
of a number of potential results.*

Thanks, Jo Anne
Regards, Jo Anne
Practice Goodwill and Active Ethics
Director "Please"!
0

#14 User is offline   Blue Uriah 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 2009-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Girls, surfing, hot rods

Posted 2009-August-11, 10:17

bluejak, on Aug 11 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

Put simply, you have a sequence not usually alertable which is not alerted and there is clear damage.

Is it so simple? From the way I read the OP, the bid was alerted (unless you want to accuse East of lying) but North didn't notice. In normal circumstances that would be inadequate - East has to make sure the message is understood - but given the prealert and the fact that this sequence had happened "a few boards earlier" surely some leeway is warranted? Perhaps you feel that you'd still adjust - fair enough - but what if there had been three transfer responses in the match so far? Or ten? Surely at some point you draw the line and tell North he should have known better, just like in your Stayman example.
0

#15 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
    [Walking - not so much]

Posted 2009-August-11, 10:56

JoAnneM, on Aug 11 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

Would someone please post an actual example of this, please.  I don't mean the situation, I mean how it would look on a traveler.

There isn't usually room on the traveller (either a hand-written piece of paper or a computer report) so it just appears as "adjusted score". A TD or the software may detail the adjustment of the bottom of the traveller:
60% 3SX= NS+570, 40% 3SX-1 NS-100.

In the EBU we have a form (available on-line Weighted scores adjustments, normally coloured green) for the TD to inform the scorer of the adjusted score, and to perform the calculations if necessary.

Robin
Robin

"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
0

#16 User is offline   PeterE 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 136
  • Joined: 2006-March-16
  • Location:Warendorf, Germany

Posted 2009-August-11, 13:16

Sorry, Robin, I don't want to blame the EBU, but I believe the EBU provisions are not correct. OK, it's a matter of regulation, but consider the following:

The EBU enters an AVERAGE score for the weighted score and adjusts via correction points. Mmmh, though this approach might work for the two pairs that got the weighted score, it is very unfair (and IMHO illegal) for all the other pairs.
Remember, the decision (in the given example in the EBU form) was, that EW was considered 3/10 down 1 in 3 NT and 7/10 plus 1 in 3 NT. These scores are "real" scores and all the other competitors should be compared with these scores. But as the example on the EBU form shows, all other competitors are simply factored via Neuberg (because there is now an AVG score on the sheet).

I believe the scores should be calculated as followed:

1. Without the crucial (weighted) score the frequency table is:
+100....4 times
-600...14 times
-630.....5 times

2. With the weighted score the frequency table should be:
+100....4,3 times
-600...14 times
-630.....5,7 times

3. Scoring this frequency table results in ("European" MP for NS)
-100....41,7 MP
-600....23,4 MP
-630......4,7 MP

4. The crucial score results in
30% of 41,7 MP + 70% of 5,7 MP makes 15,8 MP

The crucial score is (rounded) the same as in the EBU example but all the other scores are not.
0

#17 User is offline   cherdanno 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,640
  • Joined: 2009-February-16

Posted 2009-August-11, 13:21

Blue Uriah, on Aug 11 2009, 11:17 AM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 11 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

Put simply, you have a sequence not usually alertable which is not alerted and there is clear damage.

Is it so simple? From the way I read the OP, the bid was alerted (unless you want to accuse East of lying) but North didn't notice. In normal circumstances that would be inadequate - East has to make sure the message is understood - but given the prealert and the fact that this sequence had happened "a few boards earlier" surely some leeway is warranted? Perhaps you feel that you'd still adjust - fair enough - but what if there had been three transfer responses in the match so far? Or ten? Surely at some point you draw the line and tell North he should have known better, just like in your Stayman example.

Others have given more competent answers regarding the correct ruling. Let me add that I strongly feel when you play transfer responses, it is YOUR responsibility to remind opponents about them every time they come up. People forget their own agreements, it happens, even in the first round of the auction - why do you expect them to remember their opponents' agreements as well?
"Are you saying that LTC merits a more respectful dismissal?"
0

#18 User is offline   RMB1 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,841
  • Joined: 2007-January-18
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Exeter, UK
  • Interests:EBU/EBL TD
    Bridge, Cinema, Theatre, Food,
    [Walking - not so much]

Posted 2009-August-11, 13:38

PeterE, on Aug 11 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

Sorry, Robin, I don't want to blame the EBU, but I believe the EBU provisions are not correct. OK, it's a matter of regulation, but ...

Sorry Peter, you are right; I should have looked more closely at the form before posting the link. What is accurate is that we use the forms to record 12C1c adjustments.

These days, the scoring software has moved on and we can enter the adjustment in the computer and it does the scoring. The scoring software does the calculation more accurately, along the lines you descrbe. The provision for the TD to do the calculation and report the matchpoint adjustment is only a fallback.

Robin
Robin

"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
0

#19 User is offline   bluejak 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,686
  • Joined: 2007-August-23
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, Cats, Railways, Transport timetables

  Posted 2009-August-11, 17:12

Blue Uriah, on Aug 11 2009, 05:17 PM, said:

bluejak, on Aug 11 2009, 07:31 AM, said:

Put simply, you have a sequence not usually alertable which is not alerted and there is clear damage.

Is it so simple? From the way I read the OP, the bid was alerted (unless you want to accuse East of lying) but North didn't notice. In normal circumstances that would be inadequate - East has to make sure the message is understood - but given the prealert and the fact that this sequence had happened "a few boards earlier" surely some leeway is warranted? Perhaps you feel that you'd still adjust - fair enough - but what if there had been three transfer responses in the match so far? Or ten? Surely at some point you draw the line and tell North he should have known better, just like in your Stayman example.

According to general interpretation and many specific regulations, a call is alerted if and when the recipient knows it has been alerted. It is not a question of lying: if you do something to alert your opponet and he does not notice, then he has not been alerted.

I still see no reason to give leeway to people who do not follow the rules. Why should they get a good result from not following the rules?
David Stevenson

Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users