[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     2♦!   4♥    Pass
 Pass  Pass  



N/S playing polish club (not announced) 2♦ was alerted and described as "Weak 2 5 cards". East understood this to be Weak2, 6 cards.

Both pairs were amicable and mistake seemed to be genuine, lack of English rather than deliberate intent to mislead.

How can this be resolved? A-+ , A= and why?

Can I expect pairs to announce their system if playing anything other than sayc?

tyia
jillybean2

[cherdano]

jillybean2, on Feb 19 2005, 05:18 PM, said:

West  North East  South

 -     2♦!   4♥    Pass
 Pass  Pass  

N/S playing polish club (not announced) 2♦ was alerted and described as "Weak 2 5 cards".  East understood this to be Weak2, 6 cards.

Both pairs were amicable and mistake seemed to be genuine, lack of English rather than deliberate intent to mislead.

How can this be resolved?  A-+  , A=  and why?

Did EW claim damage? I would guess E would have jumped to 4♥ opposite the correct explanation, too? If so, I can hardly see how EW would have been damaged from the misexplanation (I assume he found out about the wrong explanation when he saw dummy...). I think you could just let the result stand.

Quote

Can I expect pairs to announce their system if playing anything other than sayc?

I would say only if you clearly say so in the CoC. I try to do it anyway.

Arend

[jillybean]

cherdano, on Feb 19 2005, 10:40 AM, said:

Did EW claim damage?

Yes and asked for adjustment.
Nothing seems so clear cut in the heat of the moment, maybe that comes with experience

[epeeist]

[inquiry]

There was an irreqularity of insufficient explanation. So you have a problem. What would I rule?

First, I would not issue a procedural penalty, so forget about that (can't do it on line anyway). I don't think EW were damaged by the misinformation, but rather by East wild gamble of 4♥. So trying to figure out what the result could be is difficullt. For instance, it is clear EW can make 3NT by East (1D, 6H, 1S, 2C)...but would they (diamond overtake, heart hook, endplay). Also it is clear NS have a nice 4S sac over 3NT (down one, losing 1C, 2H, 1S). So the 4Sx down one is par result.

I think i would like to give NS the result of 2H EW making two (-110 for NS), and for EW, I would allow their wild 4Hx down two (-300 stand). But on line, you can't do either of those. So I would give both sides average minus, based upon the fact that NS should not benefit from their inadequate alert, but EW action was so aggressive, they don't deserve to be protected.

Ben

[hotShot]

1) It is in the site rules of BBO, you have to announce your system. So everyone not playing some kind of BBO Basic should announce his system. But I won't give a penalty for that.

2) The explanation was: "weak, 2 5 cards" which is correct (and much more clear with the ","). But you could argue, that a complete disclosure must be better. If you accept the explanation as correct, EW have no right to an adjustment.

3) You decide to rule "incompleat disclosure" or "misexplanation".
East bid 4♥ thinking that 2♦ was a weak2 with 5+♦.
In that case you have to decide, if most players of about the same skill would bid 4♥ with the east Hand. If you don't think that "everybody" will make that bid, the action qualifies as "gambling".

Code of practice, on ,, said:

Score adjustment

The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C2) is appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an innocent side (although the extent of redress to this side may be affected, see below, if it has contributed to its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling, action subsequent to the infraction). Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction.

"The Code of practice" is as importend as the bridge laws themselfs.

So you should ask east, why he bid 4♥, and what 2♥ or 3♥ would have promised. Bidding game on his own hand with 17 HCP (with Q♦ probably worthless) and only 6 cards in ♥, east might have
dug his own grave here.


The AVE scores are artificial scores and should only be assigned, if there is no way to get a "played" result. So in f2f bridge they yould be no option here. In f2f bridge you would have to assign as "split score" beeing a different result for EW and NS. This is not available at BBO.

So if i decide misexplanation and gambling, i would assign AVE- to both sides.
If you decide just misexplanation, you'll have to give NS AVE- and NS AVE+.
If there is no misexplanation, there is no case.

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Feb 20 2005, 03:39 AM, said:

So I would give both sides average minus, based upon the fact that NS should not benefit from their inadequate alert

"Inadequate explanation", I suppose you mean. There is no such thing as an inadequate alert. Either the call is alerted or it's not.

2♦ was alerted; we know that for a fact. The explanation was inadequate, however, and this could very well be due to a language problem. North might have thought that his explanation was adequate in English, or maybe he had no better way of expressing himself.

As stated in Rules of this Site: "While English is the official language of this site, plenty of our users do not speak English at all or have only limited English skills".

I don't think North tried to hide anything intentionally, and I would be reluctant to impose a penalty on NS in this case. At international championships, yes, but in a random online tourney, no.

Awarding average to both sides would be a Solomonic decision which I would make. Misexplanation is too harsh a word to use here in my opinion.

Roland

[jillybean]

epeeist, on Feb 20 2005, 12:21 AM, said:

But in a non-pay tourney, not sure why people should care so much...(I write this  after multi-paragraph post on the subject  ).

Your comment about people not caring as it is a non pay tournament bothers me! One of the reasons I have started running tournaments is in an attempt to help keep free tournaments running where there is not tolerance of deliberate slow play, non existent and inadequate explanations of alerts, rude players, and my pet hate - kibitzers are banned! (etc,etc).
Perhaps I am wearing rose colored glasses, I will read the other post on the subject. Do people really not care?!!

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Feb 20 2005, 08:39 AM, said:

There was an irreqularity of insufficient explanation. So you have a problem. What would I rule?

First, I would not issue a procedural penalty, so forget about that (can't do it on line anyway).  I don't think EW were damaged by the misinformation, but rather by East wild gamble of 4♥.  So trying to figure out what the result could be is difficullt. For instance, it is clear EW can make 3NT by East (1D, 6H, 1S, 2C)...but would they (diamond overtake, heart hook, endplay). Also it is clear NS have a nice 4S sac over 3NT (down one, losing 1C, 2H, 1S). So the 4Sx down one is par result.

I think i would like to give NS the result of 2H EW making two (-110 for NS), and for EW, I would allow their wild 4Hx down two (-300 stand). But on line, you can't do either of those. So I would give both sides average minus, based  upon the fact that NS should not benefit from their inadequate alert, but EW action was so aggressive, they don't deserve to be protected.

Ben

It is true that the bad distributions indicated by 2♦ should caution East a bit. But I really doubt that would be a consideration for someone who makes this wild jump to 4♥ with 16 working HCP and 6 losers. I strongly suspect East would have bid 4♥ anyway.

Arend

[Walddk]

jillybean2, on Feb 20 2005, 04:27 AM, said:

... and my pet hate - kibitzers are banned!

I couldn't agree more Jill. Disallowing specs is almost the same as saying: "We think there's a great risk of cheating if we allow specs". Certain pay tourney hosts use this policy, and I strongly disagree.

If you really fear cheating, the whole idea of pay tourneys with BBO$ awards is wrong. As soon as money is an issue, cheating is too, sadly, but that doesn't mean that you should bar 99.999999% of the members from watching a bridge game.

Roland

[luke warm]

yeah, this is also a pet peeve of mine (but i'm an addicted kibber, so my opinion might should be discounted)... i even wish bbo would adopt a 'no ban allowed' rule for tourneys (not for main room or most team matches tho)

[Gerardo]

the explanation is inadecuate even if interpreted correctly, as it should include "at least 1 major", hand with 2 minors opens 2NT

[epeeist]

jillybean2, on Feb 20 2005, 04:27 AM, said:

epeeist, on Feb 20 2005, 12:21 AM, said:

But in a non-pay tourney, not sure why people should care so much...(I write this  after multi-paragraph post on the subject  ).

Your comment about people not caring as it is a non pay tournament bothers me! One of the reasons I have started running tournaments is in an attempt to help keep free tournaments running where there is not tolerance of deliberate slow play, non existent and inadequate explanations of alerts, rude players, and my pet hate - kibitzers are banned! (etc,etc).
Perhaps I am wearing rose colored glasses, I will read the other post on the subject. Do people really not care?!!

I was being somewhat self-deprecating. I do care, and inadequate explanations (or failure to alert) is my biggest pet peeve after rudeness.

Indeed, I played in at least one of your recent tournaments based on its description.

[jdulmage]

inquiry, on Feb 20 2005, 03:39 AM, said:

There was an irreqularity of insufficient explanation. So you have a problem. What would I rule?

First, I would not issue a procedural penalty, so forget about that (can't do it on line anyway). I don't think EW were damaged by the misinformation, but rather by East wild gamble of 4♥. So trying to figure out what the result could be is difficullt. For instance, it is clear EW can make 3NT by East (1D, 6H, 1S, 2C)...but would they (diamond overtake, heart hook, endplay). Also it is clear NS have a nice 4S sac over 3NT (down one, losing 1C, 2H, 1S). So the 4Sx down one is par result.

I think i would like to give NS the result of 2H EW making two (-110 for NS), and for EW, I would allow their wild 4Hx down two (-300 stand). But on line, you can't do either of those. So I would give both sides average minus, based upon the fact that NS should not benefit from their inadequate alert, but EW action was so aggressive, they don't deserve to be protected.

Ben

Exactly. It's too bad we can't exercise the "Special" adjustment command online, because that was exactly what I was thinking too.

A- for both sides works fine in this case, because the damage has affected both sides and the results could have been completely different.