[Fluffy]

1♣-(1NT)-2♠-(pass)
4♠-(pass)-pass-(double)
all pass

1NT overcaller and 2 spade bidder are screenmates, at that side everything is fine, 1 club is alerted as strong club, 1NT shows hearts and another, and 2 spades is spades.


However at the other side of screen, 1 club is alerted but not with the proper procedure by 1CO (1 club opener), instead of using the alert card, the player points with his finger to the bidding, but the other player (lets call him 4SD 4 spades doubler) says he didnt notice. 1CO asks about 1NT and is answered 15-17 balanced by 4SD.

Both players call director, 4SD because he doesn't want to double 4 spades based on partners bidding, and 1CO because he wants to bid and make 6 spades with the correct explanation of 1NT meaning after a splinter bid.

the play was a 12 trick claim to declaring side at trick 2.


some other factors:

4SD had a poor double xx-Q10xxx-Qxx-xxx

It is board 8 of a team match of 10. On board 1, the stong club pair had opened 2 club precision, on board 2 they had a 1 club opener with relay sequence of several bids, and on board 4 they opened 2 clubs precision again.


This happened on the transnational world championship on table 11 of the swiss at 7th round, so all players are suposed to be very high level.

[jallerton]

Interesting. We would obviously need to see the hands and listen to the arguments of the players, but let's suppose that the TD judges that 6♠ would have been reached had Responder known the 1NT bid to be hearts and another suit. Then one could argue as follows:

Table result (with Opener's side NV) = 4♠x+2, N/S -790
Without the infraction, Advancer would know 1♣ to be strong, so would have described 1NT as hearts and another, and hence 6♠ would have been reached for N/S -980.
For the non-offending side, this is worse than the table result, so the infraction did not cause any damage.
Therefore, table result stands.

Other thoughts:

1. The failure to ensure that his screenmate had seen the alert was technically an infraction. However, the screenmate's sleepiness was a contributory factor to the damage. There would still be a technical infraction if they had opened a strong club on all of the first seven boards, but would it then be reasonable to claim damage on the basis of a unseen alert of 1♣ on board 8?
2. It is possible that the player really did see the alert but assumed (wrongly) that the alert was a "could be a doubleton" alert and did not bother to ask.
3. The player who doubled 4♠ should be asked to explain his reasoning. The TD might then consider whether the double should be classified as wild and/or gambling.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-October-25, 15:21, said:

However, the screenmate's sleepiness was a contributory factor to the damage.

I believe there is an absolute duty on the alerter to ensure that the alert is seen, so even if the previous seven boards had been a strong club, that would not matter. The offending side does not get redress for the MI caused by their own infraction, so it seems on the face of it to be a routine adjustment to 4S=. For East-West. And I would indeed consider letting the table result stand for NS, as the double does appear to be SEWoG. But is it unrelated to the infraction? I think not and therefore the table result stands.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-October-25, 16:16, said:

I believe it is the absolute duty on the alerter to ensure that the alert is seen, so even if the previous seven boards had been a strong club, that would not matter. The offending side do not get redress for the MI caused by their own infraction, so it seems on the face of it to be a routine adjustment to 4S=.

I wasn't proposing to give the offending side any redress. According to Law 12B:

Law12B said:

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(b).

Assuming that slam would always have been reached had Responder's screenmate seen the alert, the "expectation had the infraction not occurred" is N/S -980. The actually table result was N/S -790. N/S are deemd to be the "innocent side". -790 is not less favourable than -980. Therefore, using the definition above, there was no damage.

lamford, on 2011-October-25, 16:16, said:

For East-West. And I would indeed consider letting the table result stand for NS, as the double does appear to be SEWoG. But is it unrelated to the infraction? I think not and therefore the table result stands.

I agree that the double is not unrelated to the infraction. However, that is only relevant for "serious errors". According to Law 12C1b, redress should be denied for "wild or gambling actions" irrespective of whether such actions are related to the infraction.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-October-25, 16:32, said:

I agree that the double is not unrelated to the infraction. However, that is only relevant for "serious errors". According to Law 12C1b, redress should be denied for "wild or gambling actions" irrespective of whether such actions are related to the infraction.

We agree on E/W -790, it would seem. I did state "the table result stands" but I got there by the wrong route. I now agree that N/S do not get redress for the double that was WoG, so they also get -790. In my view doubling 4S is both a serious error and wild or gambling. How does one proceed if it is both - perhaps a weighted score 50% of -790 and 50% of -620 although that seems a bit silly? The other issue is that South might have felt an ethical duty to double in case partner had psyched. Would that be WoG?

[mrdct]

Fluffy, on 2011-October-25, 14:01, said:

This happened on the transnational world championship on table 11 of the swiss at 7th round, so all players are suposed to be very high level.

It looks like we are talking about board 8 from round 7.

Whilst the OP correctly states that the manner in which West alerted his 1♣ bid was not proper procedure (as per WBF GCC 25.3), it needs to be understood that pointing at alertable bids is overwhelmingly the custom and practice these days. In the many hours that I've watched the video coverage of this year's Bermuda Bowl, I can't recall ever seeing a player touch the ALERT card, let alone place it on the tray waiting for his screenmate to return it as required by the "proper procedure". Notwithstanding that, I fully agree with Lamford that it is the alerting player's sole responsibility to ensure that his screenmate has noticed the alert and if South didn't see the alert that can only mean that West was not overt enough with his finger pointing. The fact the West did not use the correct alerting procedure leaves him no leg to stand on so I'm going to let South undo his double (which I don't believe is anywhere near a SEWoG) and rule 4SW+2 -480 for both sides.

Another interesting twist on this hand is that South failed to alert 1NT (under the misahrehension that it was natural and strong) which appears to have contributed to East-West missing a cold slam which was bid by about half the field; but I think West wouldn't be able to run much of an argument as firstly "nobody" plays a natural 1NT overcall against a strong club and secondly, it was his own laxidazical approach to alerting that lead to 1NT not being alerted.

[Cascade]

Indeed I am surprised that the strong club side did not suspect something was awry when the player was told 15-17. It seems reasonable for this player to at least check that his opponent understood that 1♣ is strong.

However I think it is close whether or not doubling 4♠ is wild or gambling.

[mycroft]

So, given the hand and the heart fit, (pity that it will only take 7 tricks in hearts), were the club alerted properly and West noticed, not only would he have given the correct explanation, almost certainly he wouldn't have passed 2♠. It's harder to splinter in hearts over 3♥ than it is over 2♠ (but if he's willing to bid 5♥, and it would mean splinter still, 6 will be automatic).

I don't know what to do with the whole ruling. I feel quite strongly that it's not my responsibility to remember what they play, even if there are previous examples - similarly, it's very much my responsibility to ensure that they hear our Alerts, even if it is the 5th 12-14 NT opener this match. I do believe that anyone who believes straight up that 1NT is 15-17 after a strong club is being ingenious ingenuous (when it happened to me, the agreement *was* 15-17, but I double-checked it. Oh, the actual bid was a psychic).

I don't find the double out of line; it's aggressive, surely, but it should be 20-20-ish in points, and partner *should* have a spade trick, and my queens will promote any soft values he has in the reds into tricks, and it doesn't *sound* like they're going to take 8 spades and a couple of aces. I certainly don't expect to be giving away overtricks (I might, but I don't expect it). Sure, West should have a strong hand (given the non-Alert, he's just raised an "I have spades, but not enough strength to double 1NT" to game), but still.

However, if we believe that West was "wrong but right" in the Alerting, and should have the benefit of hearing the Alert, wouldn't he send 4♠x back? Granted, that leads to a likely +800 (5♥x-4) instead of +790, but still.

[Edited: thanks barmar]

[Fluffy]

Cascade, on 2011-October-26, 00:21, said:

Indeed I am surprised that the strong club side did not suspect something was awry when the player was told 15-17. It seems reasonable for this player to at least check that his opponent understood that 1♣ is strong.

However I think it is close whether or not doubling 4♠ is wild or gambling.

I was 100% sure that 1 club had been understood, not being understood never crossed my mind. Pehaps I was also tired after this long bridge day.

I asked about 1NT, and my opponent with a huddle in his voice that seemed to me like "I don't know", we do't have any agreement, answered 15-17, I can't understand how he didn't realice what was going on just for my puzzled face wich was something like WTF?

This is not the first time I have problems for opponents not seeing my alerts with screens, so I think I have to improve on this matter.

Reasons why I didn't try for slam on this hand:

-Partner's failure to double 1NT seeemed to make 2 spades weaker in case it was natural.
- I really though 1NT was artificial, (but my screenmate forgot his agreements) and then 2 spades could be a cuebid. This is the main reason for no redouble
-Our poor agreements never expected not to have a cuebid avaible on this situation, I couldnt think of any forcing bid I could do, except 4 in a minor wich would seem like natural very strong. Against normal ovecalls 2 spades shows 5-7 and its not GF. Our agreements have improved this night.

[mrdct]

Fluffy, on 2011-October-26, 15:12, said:

I was 100% sure that 1 club had been understood, not being understood never crossed my mind. Pehaps I was also tired after this long bridge day.

I asked about 1NT, and my opponent with a huddle in his voice that seemed to me like "I don't know", we do't have any agreement, answered 15-17, I can't understand how he didn't realice what was going on just for my puzzled face wich was something like WTF?

This is not the first time I have problems for opponents not seeing my alerts with screens, so I think I have to improve on this matter.

These are quite interesting additional facts which the TD needs to way-up in determining whether or not South had noticed the alert. At the end of the day, however, if South says he didn't see the alert it's pretty hard for the TD to find otherwise.

If alerting using the more common style of pointing at the alertable bid (which is what I always do I have to admit) one thing that I do to protect myself is make eye contact with my screenmate as I'm doing it. When you are alerting your own bid rather than partner's, another common technique is to wave your bid around in your screenmate's face before placing it on the tray.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2011-October-26, 12:34, said:

I do believe that anyone who believes straight up that 1NT is 15-17 after a strong club is being ingenious

ITYM ingenuous, which is almost the opposite of ingenious.

[mycroft]

Zigackly. I can pronounce it, but I can't spell it. Thanks barmar! Will edit to fox fic fix.

[ahydra]

Surely NS should read EW CC before starting the round? Not to mention the previous boards' auctions! I'm therefore not giving a lot of sympathy to the "didn't see the alert" thing (would be different if it was the 3rd round of bidding in a relay sequence). But I won't class the X as SEWoG if South really thought North's bid was 15-17 balanced. So NS get -480 and EW get 980 (or perhaps E/W 980 for both sides and a small PP to West for not using proper alert procedure). No idea if either of those are legal because I'm not a TD.

ahydra

[jallerton]

ahydra, on 2011-November-01, 17:20, said:

So NS get -480 and EW get 980 (or perhaps E/W 980 for both sides and a small PP to West for not using proper alert procedure). No idea if either of those are legal because I'm not a TD.

ahydra

If you have no idea if either of your proposed adjustments would be legal, perhaps you ought to reconsider your use of the word "so".

[phil_20686]

It seems like in a 10 board round not knowing what your opponents opening bids mean is already a serious error.

I honestly cannot ever remember a round where I didn't not start by asking roughly what the opponents play if only to make sure me and my partner were 100% on our defensive agreements, also I always check their CC in a ten board round. I would obviously feel different in a 2 board round.

Tapping your bid as an alert is completely normal alerting procedure at a high level. I have basically never seen an alert card used early in an auction at junior internationals, and if it is used it is normally to emphasise that the meaning is particularly odd. No one ever uses it for opening bids where its basically assumed that your opponents should know what's going on.

IMO south's failure to alert 1N is a much bigger issue than the failure to alert 1N `according to proper procedure'.

[blackshoe]

If players want to ignore the rules of the game, that's up to them. In the 90% of cases where it doesn't make any difference, who cares? But if there is a later problem, they should not expect to be treated as if their irregularities were not irregularities.

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-01, 21:46, said:

If players want to ignore the rules of the game, that's up to them. In the 90% of cases where it doesn't make any difference, who cares? But if there is a later problem, they should not expect to be treated as if their irregularities were not irregularities.

The alerting regulations for teh WBF are absurd. For those who don't know correct procedure - you are meant to place the alert card on your or your own bid, and wait for your screenmate(I.e. opponent) to remove it and hand it back to you. This is impractibly slow and is followed by absolutely no players. (WBF general conditions of contest 25.3)

Even the more pedantic flaunt this regulation since normally they just tap their alert card on the alertable bid - I do not see that flaunting the alert regulations by tapping the bid with your finger is any different from flaunting the regulations by tapping the bid with an alert card, which is absolutely the most that anyone does. The fact of the matter is that meaningfully tapping the bid is accepted practice.

[blackshoe]

<shrug> Not my problem. Take it up with the WBF Tournament Committee, or whoever else is responsible for the regulation.

[bluejak]

It does not matter whether the regulation is absurd or not. If a player does not follow it, he cannot expect rulings in his favour.

However, in practice the main thing about alerts is that you should make sure your opponents see them. Tapping an alert card and getting an acknowledgement is good enough in my view even if against the regulations, and will not get a ruling for MI against you.

Tapping the alert card without making sure your opponent sees it and claiming "everyone does this" will correctly get you ruled against.

[Trinidad]

The problem with the WBF regulation is that it is more time consuming than the common way to alert with screens while it doesn't solve the problems that come with the common methods to alert. There is no difference between a player who points at his bid with the opponent nodding that he has seen it and a player placing the alert card on his bid and his opponent removing it. In neither case is there any proof that there was an alert.

I often grab my pen and write the explanation down rightaway. That is not following the regulations either, but at least I will have proof that I explained the bid.

Rik