[Dragan]

Sat Sep 25 04:14 am CDT farecik Pairs IMP Show boards #241 Pairs BBO

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding:
N E S W
Pass Pass Pass 1♣
Pass 1♦ X 3NT
Pass Pass Pass

Result: 3NT+1

Facts:
1) Nothing alerted
2) N/S ask about meaning 1♦ after bidding is finished, opps answer 11+HCP
3) N/S apealed: If 1♦ is alerted in right time, than S will not X and declarer will not get information about missed honour in heart, so 3nt will be very possible down
4) director(farecik) leave reached result

What do you think? Does director had right ?

With regards, Dragan

P.S. all you can see at url:Link to hand

time 10:45

[guggie]

In my view 3NT is made always, 2 clubs if opps lead them. 2 diamonds, 4 spades, 2 hearts . You have a 50% to finesse !HJ the right way fotr the 10th. So I see no reason to adjust whatsoever,
The no-alert is another small question, I would give EW a reminder to alert.

[Dragan]

if you look at statistics you can see that more players go down than make...isn't that guide for decision about making 3nt ?

[inquiry]

Dragan, on Sep 25 2004, 02:54 PM, said:

if you look at statistics you can see that more players go down than make...isn't that guide for decision about making 3nt ?

Second while 3NT can always make, it doesn't in fact always make, as many went down.

Let's examine the situation...

Case one...
1C-P-1D-P-3NT - all pass.,, niow EW ask before leading and find out that 1C was artificial and/or maybe 2 card suit and that 1D showed points.

In this case, I would issue a conduct warnign to EW to remind them to alert their bids. No one was harmed.

Case two
1C-P-1D-X-3NT-all pass... Now the opponents ask and find out that same information. There is no way to repair the auction. West is now in possession of information that he would not be if the bids had been properly alerted. Does this information affect the result? Probably not, but the fact remains that it could. To try to decide if it did affect the results will delve into players skill level, etc. Too mucy work in general, and then player will say, "i would always do such and so" so the dlb didn't affect my play at all. Truth? Lie? white lie?

Don't get boggled down that issue. There was a violation that COULD (potentially) affect the score. Award an average mimus to EW and average plus to NS... but only if they called you immediately. If they played out the hand in the hoes of settting it and then called the director, I would allow the result to stand, but would issue wafrning to EW.

Ben

So many issues...

First, 17 declerers took 9 tricks or more in notrump, 17 declarers took 8 tricks or less in notrump. But I don't think looking at the other tables is a relevant issue at all... there was a violation (well two, as 1C was not alerted either) at this table.

[Dragan]

I think that we here had problem with so called unauthorised information.

1) Opps give or got unauthorised information ? I think Yes
2) Opps use unauthorised unformation ? I think Yes

conclusion:
________________________________________________
Result must be adjust...

[mpefritz]

1) Do I think E-W were playing a system whereby a passed hand call of 1♦ to a 1♣ opening means 11+? Not really unless profile/cc has such info. In the absence of such a cc/profile info, I believe the answer of 11+ told you about the hand NOT what the call meant. The movie shows that 1♦ was alerted as "♦" (and 1♣ as "13+").

2) Did West's call of 3NT seem as if 1♦ meant 11+? Maybe, but many people overbid online for no reason.

3) Was the play of the heart suit influenced by the X? Probably not.

4) Was the lead influenced by the X? Maybe, but perhaps a diamond would be led normally from North, and the heart suit would likely be played as shown.

5) Did the bidding make WEST declarer instead of EAST? maybe.

6) MOST of the 3NT that went down were played by EAST.

I don't think an adjustment is needed, UNLESS it can be shown that EW did have the specific agreement of the 1♦ call.

fritz

[Dragan]

I remind you all, nothing isn't alerted, explanation come after conclusion of 3nt, and asking about 1c opening and 1d response

[jdulmage]

Most of you have not factored in that a majority of the declarers that went down were sitting in "East" position and this was played in the "West" position.

Secondly, both 1♣ and 1♦ were alerted. Albeit, the opps were not informed about the short club. Just because they said it was "11+ HCP" does not really say anything about their call to 3NT nor the defense of the opponents.

Just about every single person got a major suit lead on this one, regardless of direction.

So unless there was some sort of partnership agreement on the 1♦, I would also let it stand. Regardless of the delayed alert.

[Dragan]

Note:
1. I remind You, Nothing is alerted, explanation come at the and of bidding
2. Do we analyze best scenario to the quilty side or something else ?

Dragan

[hrothgar]

Dragan, on Sep 27 2004, 10:50 PM, said:

Note:
1. I remind You, Nothing is alerted, explanation come at the and of bidding
2. Do we analyze best scenario to the quilty side or something else ?

Dragan

Dragan, in many ways this board is similar to the last one that you presented:

More specifically, it is critical to understand the difference between damage that was "subsequent" to the infraction versus damage that was "consequent" to the infraction.

The concept of unauthorized information is not material to this example.