[blackshoe]

What 1NT should mean in any particular auction, according to any particular person's ideas, is not relevant. What's relevant is whether the pair in question had an agreement as to the meaning, and whether that meaning was not properly disclosed according to the laws and regulations in force at the time. In order to discover the answer to the first question, the TD when called to adjudicate must investigate. From the evidence in the OP, the agreement was that 1NT showed the minors. This bid requires an alert in England. The alert was not given. So the NOS were misinformed. I don't understand why people are spending so much effort trying to find reasons to let the OS off the hook.

If South's failure to note that West was a passed hand was a serious error in the eyes of the law — a point with which I'm not sure I concur — then the NOS do not get redress for such part of the damage as was caused by the error, but the OS should still have their score adjusted to whatever the TD decides might have happened (probably a weighting of various possibilities) absent the MI, assuming that result is less lucrative for them than the table result. "No adjustment" is not right in such a case, unless the MI caused no damage. I do not think an argument that there was no damage because all the damage was caused by South's serious error (even if it is agreed to be a serious error) should let the OS off the hook. They committed an infraction, they should pay whatever rectification the law imposes.

[aguahombre]

Interesting. 40 replies. In ACBL, zero replies would be been needed. Conclusion: alert regulations suck, and it is clearly advantageous to not inquire about questionable sequences, so you can become the NOS.

[Trinidad]

I know at least one pair who plays a passed hand 1NT overcall as natural. They used it against us. Though this was a husband-wife pair, this wasn't the typical one. They were the reigning Swedish mixed pair champions.

Not only was the 1NT overcall by PH natural, it also was 8-10, since they would open any 11 point hand.

And yes, of course, I asked when the 1NT overcall was not alerted.

Rik

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on May 19 2010, 06:27 AM, said:

If South's failure to note that West was a passed hand was a serious error in the eyes of the law

This is the crux of the matter. And I think that it is easy to forget who is a passed hand -- is there anyone here who has never done the wrong thing because he has forgotten that partner is a passed hand? With the lack of the alert, there is no reason for the NOS to take additional notice of the early auction. If the NOS don't get ruled in their favour on this board, then I am not sure what purpose alerts are meant to serve.

[Lanor Fow]

Quote

and it is clearly advantageous to not inquire about questionable sequences, so you can become the NOS

They are the non offending side regardless of whether they ask or not. If the call requires an alert, not alerting is an infraction and the pair who didn't alert are the OS. Obvoiusly if the NOS ask, its unlikley to cause damage (i'm not going to comment on whether they should have asked, this has been covered by other posters), but ask or not OS and NOS don't change.

[aguahombre]

thank you. I will put smiley faces where appropriate, for your benefit in the future.

[bluejak]

I, for one, would appreciate it. In about three different threads I have recently read comments by you which seem designed to inflame. If they are meant humorously, please make it clear. My apologies if I have misunderstood your intentions in such posts.

[karen4]

Lanor Fow, on May 19 2010, 06:57 AM, said:

Quote

and it is clearly advantageous to not inquire about questionable sequences, so you can become the NOS

South probably would have questioned it if he had considered it a questionable sequence. However, an unalerted 1NT overcall by a hand he did not realise had passed would not look strange.

[billw55]

It is hard to tell, since no hands are given. But, if NS are cold for 4♥, then it seems possible that north also has made a significant error by his final pass (he knows EW are both passed hands). How many errors are north-south allowed, before they are considered responsible for their own result?

Quote

Having read some but not all the posts in this thread I am amazed that none of them seem to consider the level of players. If a very poor player relies on an alert he should get redress when there is none, passed hand or no. If an international tried that argument we would all laugh at him.

I agree. I haven't read all the posts either, but from the below it would seem that NS have a detailed agreement about this uncommon auction:

Quote

N/S had the agreement that pass was forcing if the 1NT was natural, and that a forcing pass then pulling the double showed a good hand with shape, whereas an immediate bid over 2C showed a weak hand with shape. It was actually on their card so whether you think it is a sensible was of playing, I'm sure that it is actually what they do.

.. which to me suggests an experienced pair. To be honest I'm shocked they had the nerve to complain.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on May 20 2010, 10:40 AM, said:

How many errors are north-south allowed, before they are considered responsible for their own result?

Wrong question.

The right question is "how serious does an error have to be before it's considered "serious" in the legal sense?"

If there was a "serious" error by the NOS, then they don't get redress for such part of the damage as is attributed to the error. That may or may not be all the damage.

[billw55]

And to answer the right question:

Quote

Of course it's a serious error to not know who the dealer is when it's printed on the board right in front of you.

... and when three green cards are laying on the table in plain view! No adjustment for NOS.

As for the OS, I am not a director so I don't know the ins and outs of the laws and regulations. Did the regs in use explicitly require an alert of 1NT?

[bluejak]

billw55, on May 20 2010, 04:03 PM, said:

As for the OS, I am not a director so I don't know the ins and outs of the laws and regulations.  Did the regs in use explicitly require an alert of 1NT?

Perhaps. The OP said "UK" which everyone has assumed meant England. 1NT for the minors is definitely alertable in England and Wales. I am less sure about Scotland and Northern Ireland, though I think it is alertable there.



We have a list of abbreviations, which is deliberately not as long as some forums [fora?] because we wanted to encourage people who are not generally involved in Laws=type discussions. It is always accepted to use other abbreviations, but please define them the first time they are used. I was thinking of NOS, OS and PH. Abbreviations in common use generally are also acceptable with no definition, such as EBU, ACBL and [perhaps] NS. I also wonder about L12C1b, which is obvious to experienced posters, but ....

[Vampyr]

billw55, on May 20 2010, 04:03 PM, said:

Quote

Of course it's a serious error to not know who the dealer is when it's printed on the board right in front of you.

... and when three green cards are lying on the table in plain view! No adjustment for NOS.

This is a tricky point, because even if carelessness as to the beginning of the auction qualifies as a serious error (which is probably a matter that should be decided by the WBLFC, who have set the bar pretty high), the criterion is "a serious error unrelated to the infraction". How can so many people think that this error is unrelated to the infraction?

Anyway, I am just waiting for someone to suggest penalising the NOS under L74B1...

[bluejak]

I do not think that we want the WBFLC deciding matters of judgement. Far better to leave that to the people who actually make such decisions, to polls and players' views.

[dburn]

bluejak, on May 20 2010, 06:01 PM, said:

I do not think that we want the WBFLC deciding matters of judgement.  Far better to leave that to the people who actually make such decisions, to polls and players' views.

If the question were "is it a serious error not to have spotted that partner is a passed hand?" I would far rather have a definitive answer (however arbitrary) than to have a situation in which one Committee might say yes, while another might say no. What would be the point of conducting a poll, or listening to players' views, in such a case?

[karen4]

billw55, on May 20 2010, 09:40 AM, said:

It is hard to tell, since no hands are given. But, if NS are cold for 4♥, then it seems possible that north also has made a significant error by his final pass (he knows EW are both passed hands). How many errors are north-south allowed, before they are considered responsible for their own result?

I'm afraid I can't remember the exact hand, this was just a discussion in the pub after, but but South was very strong, North did not have another action opposite a non-forcing pass. There was only 1 error.

[karen4]

billw55, on May 20 2010, 09:40 AM, said:

.. which to me suggests an experienced pair.  To be honest I'm shocked they had the nerve to complain.

They didn't. This discussion took place out of academic interest in the pub afterwards.

[bluejak]

dburn, on May 21 2010, 12:54 AM, said:

bluejak, on May 20 2010, 06:01 PM, said:

I do not think that we want the WBFLC deciding matters of judgement.  Far better to leave that to the people who actually make such decisions, to polls and players' views.

If the question were "is it a serious error not to have spotted that partner is a passed hand?" I would far rather have a definitive answer (however arbitrary) than to have a situation in which one Committee might say yes, while another might say no. What would be the point of conducting a poll, or listening to players' views, in such a case?

What constitutes a "serious error" is a bridge judgement decision. Therefore, asking players for their judgement provides an answer.

[dburn]

bluejak, on May 20 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

What constitutes a "serious error" is a bridge judgement decision. Therefore, asking players for their judgement provides an answer.

Ye Gods and little fishes - what "answer"?

Do you mean to say that: in some case A, a player's failure to notice partner's original pass is a "serious error"; while in some case B, it is not?

If you do mean to say that, perhaps you could provide an example that might enable students of the Law to distinguish among cases A and B.

If you do not mean to say that, what do you mean to say?

[bluejak]

I thought it was quite obvious what I meant to say.

Whether in the current case failure to notice that he had passed is a serious error is a bridge judgement decision: therefore it is reasonable to find out what players' bridge judgement on the matter is.

Do I mean that it is different in a different situation and a different case, and did my failure to say anything about a different case mean I meant something about a different case? No, I did not refer to a different case nor did I mean anything about a different case.