[xx1943]

Scoring: MP

---

I was called to this table. After EAST opened 1♦ WEST responded with this hand 2!C.

Opponents complained that there was no alert.

Responder said he had learned in BBO-Sayc his 2♣ bid to be normal.

There was no damage at all, nothing to adjust.

QUESTION for my interest only:

Is this a "normal" SAYC-bid or has it to be alerted?

Looking forward your opinions.

Al

[aisha759]

This is NOT a normal SAYC bid

1NT would be a normal SAYC bid in this hand (remember, I am not an expert)

Thats all you wanted to know right? Because if it's more complicated, like a director ruling or something of the sort, then I can't answer you
Aisha

[helene_t]

If the rules of the tournament says that everything that departs from SAYC has to be alerted, then this must be alerted of course.

However, if OW announce to be playing SAYC, this mistake is just as surprising for partner as for the opponents. And if they announce to be playing Acol, it is a normal bid in their system.

[bearmum]

xx1943, on Jul 8 2004, 06:52 PM, said:

Dealer: EAST Vul: EW Scoring: MP

♠ J93 ♥ Q93 ♦ T2 ♣ KQ963

I was called to this table. After EAST opened 1♦ WEST responded with this hand 2!C.

Opponents complained that there was no alert.

Responder said he had learned in BBO-Sayc his 2♣ bid to be normal.

There was no damage at all, nothing to adjust.

QUESTION for my interest only:

Is this a "normal" SAYC-bid or has it to be alerted?

Looking forward your opinions.

Al

because the responder HAS club suit IMHO is does NOT have to be alerted

BUT is also not a "normal" SAYC response -- and I guess the rest of the auction would have been instructive ( for example should opener have gone looking for game if he expected P to have 11+ (or thereabouts) for his bid

I don't think that folks should be penalised for making what THEY thought was an OK bid

[McBruce]

What are the opponents complaining about here? This is the relevant question, and you haven't provided us with enough of the details for us to answer properly.

If the opponents are claiming damage because they expect 10 points for this bid, I am giving them a serious warning unless this damage is crystal clear, which seems very unlikely at favourable vulnerability. West is only three pips short of a ten count (J♦ instead of the ten, J♣ instead of the nine) and has a six card suit. This Director call is probably meant to intimidate. People who call the Director on nitpickery such as this need object lessons in the form of procedural or disciplinary penalties.

However, if the opponents are claiming that E-W have an agreement that 2♣ can be lighter than 10 HCP, they may have a case. If East has about 15-16 HCP and stopped short of game, I'd be wondering why. This would be a case for the Rule of Coincidence, and N-S might be due an adjusted score if they misdefended based on misreading the strength of the declarer's hand.

[xx1943]

Hi Mc Bruce

Thanks for your reply.

Quote

What are the opponents complaining about here?  This is the relevant question, and you haven't provided us with enough of the details for us to answer properly.

Sry my question was only if my opinion the 2!C in SAYC had to be alerted was right. I announced in my rules to alert all non SAYC and 2/1-bids. If I were unsure how to decide the adjust I had not asked. My problem is that I'm not 100% familiar with SAYC.

Quote

If the opponents are claiming damage because they expect 10 points for this bid, I am giving them a serious warning unless this damage is crystal clear, which seems very unlikely at favourable vulnerability.  West is only three pips short of a ten count (J♦ instead of the ten, J♣ instead of the nine) and has a six card suit.  This Director call is probably meant to intimidate.  People who call the Director on nitpickery such as this need object lessons in the form of procedural or disciplinary penalties.

100% agree. Along these rules I decided no damage, no adjust, no reason for complaining at all. I gave NS a warning not to waste my time.


Sincerly

Al

[hrothgar]

xx1943, on Jul 8 2004, 08:52 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

I was called to this table. After EAST opened 1♦ WEST responded with this hand 2!C.

Opponents complained that there was no alert.

Responder said he had learned in BBO-Sayc his 2♣ bid to be normal.

There was no damage at all, nothing to adjust.

QUESTION for my interest only:

Is this a "normal" SAYC-bid or has it to be alerted?

Looking forward your opinions.

Al

Hi All

From my perspective, there are two different issues that need to be addressed here:

By far the most significant relates to novice players participating in tournaments. It seems very clear that West is a novice player. I'm not all that worried that West failed to alert this particular bid. What does concern me very much is how this director call unfolded:

Scenario A: In an ideal world, the director and the N/S pair would be able to use this opportunity to educate the East player regarding the standard meaning of a both 1NT and 2C responses to a 1D opening. While I understand that the opponents should give lessons at the table, I do consider it reasonable in situations like this where misbids are affecting play. The novice player is encouraged by the friendly playing environment and goes off and takes some lessons.

Scenario B; North/South feel cheated by the 2C bid and lash out at both the hap-less 2C bidder and the director and insist on an adjusted score. The novice is tramutized by the rude playing environment and is never heard from again.

Personally, I prefer scenario A. My main concern is that something close to scenario A occured. If it didn't, I'd be rather hard on N/S.

The second issue is what is the correct ruling: From my perspective, this is a misbid rather than a concealed partnership agreement. No adjustment.

[luis]

If this has to be alerted then all my bids need an alert.
I can imagine my poor pd writing after each bid "he may have less than expected for his bid" , "may be lighter", "can be weaker than the panel", "may be a little lighter", "he has done that before with 0" etc etc etc

[Trpltrbl]

1 NT is normal SAYC bid.
But they people in question are obviously fairly new to the game.

Mike

[jdulmage]

1NT is the "normal" bid in this case, however 2 Clubs does NOT have to be alerted. He has clubs, it is not weak (8 HCP), now if it was below 8 HCP, I would say alert is needed to say "could be weak"

[epeeist]

xx1943, on Jul 8 2004, 12:52 AM, said:

Dealer: EAST Vul: EW Scoring: MP

♠ J93 ♥ Q93 ♦ T2 ♣ KQ963

I was called to this table. After EAST opened 1♦ WEST responded with this hand 2!C.

Opponents complained that there was no alert.

Responder said he had learned in BBO-Sayc his 2♣ bid to be normal.

There was no damage at all, nothing to adjust.

QUESTION for my interest only:

Is this a "normal" SAYC-bid or has it to be alerted?

Looking forward your opinions.

Al

Though I'm certainly not a TD nor even a particularly skilled player, I'm giving my opinion anyway... Well, at least I'm particularly concerned with ethics (concerned with, not necessarily knowledgeable about...).

Even though 2♣ was not (as others have pointed out) the correct sayc bid, why should it be alerted? I thought alerts were intended to warn opponents of _systemic_ bids (especially artificial, non-natural bids), to avoid one's partner having unfair information which was denied to the opponents.

As McBruce pointed out, unless there is reason to believe East "fielded" (as his Alphabet Tournaments call it) the bid (i.e. behaved as if it were other than an sayc 2♣ bid), that is so long as East was "fooled" by West's bid, what's the problem? Even in a tournament that prohibits psyches (you haven't said whether it was such a tournament), I can't see this bid as a "psyche" given how close it is to a legitimate 2♣ call (again, as pointed out by McBruce).

Also, what if West was an advanced player (or thought himself to be an advanced player... ), who given that the scoring was matchpoints, and assuming that most EW pairs would be in a NT partscore, decided that if a NT contract was makeable, it would only be an average score for EW; but if it wasn't makeable, given e.g. NS ♠ holdings, that a better MP result would be obtained in a ♣ or ♦ partscore, and bid accordingly, knowing full well it wasn't the "proper" sayc bid? So long as East believes West had a "real" 2♣ response, I can't see how it's alertable -- an alert would give the opponents information to which they are not entitled.

For what it's worth, an analogous situation (making the "wrong" bid) came up in an ACBL tournament where I misclicked (2♥ instead of 1♥). I did not alert, I said nothing in chat to either the table as a whole nor to my opponents in particular. After the hand was over, and only then, did I explain that I had misclicked. I sent a message to the Director asking if I'd behaved properly; the Director confirmed that saying nothing, but explaining after the hand that it was a misclick, was appropriate. The effect on the opponents and my partner from the misclick was exactly the same as if I'd psyched a 2♥ opening, or as if I'd intended to bid 2♥ because I misunderstood sayc and thought that was the proper action with a strong hand.

To do otherwise, as luis points out, would be to impose an alerting requirement on virtually every bid (e.g. 1NT alert "15-17 HCP, balanced hand; but I'll sometimes bid it with a mildly unbalanced hand to avoid rebid problems; and I'll open a 5-card major instead, unless I don't like the look of the 5-card major given the vulnerability; and if I'm playing in an individual with a less-skilled partner I'll want to bid NT first; and if I have 14 points but good suits and 9s and 10s I may bid 1NT; and if I'm 3rd or 4th hand after two passes I may be light; if I have a "bad" 18 points I may bid 1NT; and let's not forget that if we're playing matchpoints I may shade a point from the requirements to avoid opening in a minor suit; and did I mention that it's possible I miscounted my points or misclicked?...[etc.]").

[Gerardo]

epeeist, on Jul 16 2004, 07:05 AM, said:

After the hand was over, and only then, did I explain that I had misclicked.

It depends, if you became defender, that was the right thing to do, if you became declarer or dummy you were required to do so after bidding was over but before the opening lead.

[PriorKnowledge]

You do not have to inform the defense that you misclicked or misbid or psyched, should your side declare. You only have to correct a wrong explanation, or failure to alert.

Self-alert means you explain your own bids. The opps are only entitled to information that your partner knows. Not anything particular about your current hand, or whether you have the values for your bid or not.

[epeeist]

Gerardo, on Jul 16 2004, 10:30 AM, said:

epeeist, on Jul 16 2004, 07:05 AM, said:

After the hand was over, and only then, did I explain that I had misclicked.

It depends, if you became defender, that was the right thing to do, if you became declarer or dummy you were required to do so after bidding was over but before the opening lead.

Edit: I posted this apparently while PriorKnowledge was answering, so thanks PriorKnowledge, for answering.

Really? I ask not as a challenge, but because I really do want to do the correct thing; I was told explaining after hand over was correct (in fairness, I don't recall the exact chat with the director, it's possible he or she misunderstood me).

If I'd psyched a 2♥ opening I wouldn't have been required to explain this before the opening lead, how is a misclick of 2♥ any different? The effect on all the others at the table is exactly the same, isn't it?

A slightly different question, I assume if someone asks you to explain what a bid meant, it's appropriate to answer what it _should_ mean (e.g. what a psyche or misclick _should_ mean, not that it was a psyche or misclick). If an opponent asks you to define what a bid means (when you know it's a psyche) isn't the correct response to answer what the bidding system you use defines it as, not tell them it's a psyche?

Since one doesn't tell opponents before the opening lead that e.g. "my 4NT bid was a misbid, since Blackwood denies a void and I have one but in an individual it's risky to use splinters or cuebids to find aces" or "my opening bid was a psyche" or "I've been reviewing the sayc requirements, and now realize I was two points short of a 2♣ response, I only have 8 points..." why is there a requirement to alert them of a misbid before their opening lead?

[Cascade]

epeeist, on Jul 16 2004, 12:55 PM, said:

If I'd psyched a 2♥ opening I wouldn't have been required to explain this before the opening lead, how is a misclick of 2♥ any different? The effect on all the others at the table is exactly the same, isn't it?

A slightly different question, I assume if someone asks you to explain what a bid meant, it's appropriate to answer what it _should_ mean (e.g. what a psyche or misclick _should_ mean, not that it was a psyche or misclick). If an opponent asks you to define what a bid means (when you know it's a psyche) isn't the correct response to answer what the bidding system you use defines it as, not tell them it's a psyche?

You are exactly right.

If for example you open 1♥ on ♠ xxx ♥ xx ♦ Kxxx ♣ QJxx

and you are asked about 1♥ then the correct response is that it shows 11-20 hcp and five hearts or whatever your system agreement happens to be.

If you have a history of psyching then you probably should add something about that - maybe not if that history is not with your present partner or not in this situation. It is probably easier for your partner to answer these questions. The laws of bridge state that responses to questions should normally be given by the partner of the bidder. This is lost a little in online bridge.

If you misclick then you have no obligation to tell the opponents.