[McBruce]

(DISCLAIMER: in the past when I have posted these, some have complained that SAYC-only individuals are not bridge. I'm not interested in that interminable discussion in this thread. Start your own thread if it is vitally important to you to restate that point.)

Scoring: XIMP

---

South opened 2♣ in second seat and the East-West pair passed throughout. The calls were:
South: 2♣
North: 2♥
South: 2♠
North: 3♣
South 4♣
North: 5♣
South 6♣

South claimed 12 tricks at trick 6. The claim was held up by a defender who pointed out that South's 4♣ call was self-explained with the word 'cue.'

Obviously 4♣ is not a cuebid, it shows support for partner's clubs. The partner never saw this explanation as it was a cuebid, and with all pairs playing the same system, so the defenders knew only that South might not have fully understood the meaning of his bid.

The objecter was asked to explain what he would have done differently if given a better explanation of the 4♣ call. Instead of responding to this question, he repeated that the explanation of 'cue' was an infraction. I asked that the claim be accepted and asked again what the objecter would have done differently. He now pointed out that 2♠ should have shown five spades, which is true but doesn't answer the question asked.

I conducted a private conversation with the objecter over the next three boards, and the player did not give me an answer that would lead me to believe that he was going to change any action if the explanation had been correct. I ruled no damage, no adjustment, and fielded more irate comments.

At the end of the game, the South player had finished 4th of 68 players. The objecter sent me this message:

"nice to finish 4th...with lot's of support"

It seems to me that this player was just frustrated that his opponents bid a slam that couldn't be beaten and seized on the self-explanation to try to avoid a bad result.

Have I missed something?

[mink]

For his last comment I put the objecter on my enemy list if this happened to me.

Karl

[hotShot]

If 4♣ would not have been alerted or correctly explained as fit, W would have the chance bid his ♦ because he can be quite sure that east will have support.
Since 4♦ is -3 and EW is vul while NS is not this is not a good idea.
After 5♣ and 6♣ the fit is obvious, so EW can hardly claim a damage for their play.

A lot of player think that a missing alert or a incompleat/incorrect explanation will give them an adjustment. Unfortunatelly a lot of BBO-hosts give these adjustments, because they don't know better, or just to stop beeing bombarded with chat from this player.

This player would have earned a place on my exclusion list.

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

The objecter was asked to explain what he would have done differently if given a better explanation of the 4♣ call.

Absolutely correct. He couldn't answer, because there isn't anything (useful) he could have done differently. Your ruling was completely correct.

What seems to have happened is that South thought 4C was a cue when he bid it, but changed his mind when partner raised to 5C. In f2f bridge, South should have changed his explanation before the opening lead. This would be polite online as well (although it's also pretty obvious from the auction). So it's true South has perpetrated a mild infraction.

But still no damage, no adjustment.

Also in f2f bridge, arguing with the TD after a ruling has been given can result in a procedural penalty, so you'd be quite justified telling West that.

[helene_t]

Agree 100% with the other comments.

But are you supposed to alert at all in an individual SAYC-only tournament? For what purpose? To teach the opponents SAYC? (Sorry if this is off-topic, if you're annoyed with this question just ask me to delete it )

Btw, I like your disclaimer, certain other threads could benefit from a similar statement.

[coyot]

Pardon me, but the self-explanation WAS correct . South indeed HAS club controls and is bidding slow to show extra interest. If he had mere club support and decided to not play 3NT, he would likely jump to 5♣.

It would be much harder to solve if he bid 4♣ on Qxxxx and self-alerted THIS as cue .

But, then, in self-alerted world, you're supposed to tell your opponents what is your partnership agreement, NOT what you have in hand. If I decide to psych, I will still alert my 3rd position 1♠ as "may be about a king weaker than standard opening", not "Psych".

[mpefritz]

You got it right, but you missed banning the griping player in question.

Did the griper's partner ask for an explanation of 4♣ or was it freely offered? In this case, I cannot imagine the supposed self-alert was done to misinform the opps and prevent bidding on the 3rd round after them being quiet. You may want to check South's other boards JUST to be sure that there are no funny alerts. 2♣ auctions are just plain awkward anyway. (Out of interest, how many opened 2NT or 1C?)

Don't you usually have a statement asking for people NOT to hold up play for a ruling as you can adjust later?

This is the thanks you get for restarting your tourney..

fritz

[Gerben42]

I think no alerting should be if all are supposed to play the same system. Then that system is defined as non-alertable and everything that is not SAYC is alertable, but you weren't playing that so this never happens.

What is there to adjust? I don't get it.

[hrothgar]

Frances beat me too this one...

[McBruce]

Thanks everyone for your support. It's nice to know that I sometimes get them right!

helene_t: But are you supposed to alert at all in an individual SAYC-only tournament? For what purpose? To teach the opponents SAYC?

Good point, I do announce that no alerts or explanations are necessary since we all play the same system. But if someone offers a self-explain which causes damage I will adjust. It is hard to imagine such a situation though.

I nearly put the player on my exclusion list, but gave him the benefit of the doubt. I figure he will avoid my tourneys unless he realizes that the ruling was right and he was wrong. Much better to let the player return and play: if another incident occurs and I have to ban him, he loses a result.

[epeeist]

You may be correct about the complainer's motivation, but I think many people -- it took me a while myself -- have problems reconciling themselves to the idea that even if someone gives a wrong explanation of a bid, there's no remedy unless damage can be shown.

It seems like the bad explainer is "getting away" with something. In a sense, they are -- they got lucky that their misexplanation did not cause damage and lead to adjustment.

So if the complaining person doesn't understand that damage must be shown, your questions about what they would have done differently may seem to them irrelevant ("Why is he asking what I'd do differently, south is the one at fault!"). If you have enough patience to engage in a lengthy discussion with someone, as it sounds like you did in this case, is emphasizing that point -- damage must be shown -- more helpful than asking what would have been done differently?

Or is it appropriate to in public chat to the whole table, say something like "Explanation was incorrect, south, be more careful in future. You are lucky that no damage can be shown which means that opponents do not get an adjustment". That tells south he did something wrong, and tells the complainer why no adjustment.

[keylime]

The ruling, ultrasound.

The dissenter, ultra rash. Deserves a banning.

[McBruce]

Good post, epeeist:

You may be correct about the complainer's motivation, but I think many people -- it took me a while myself rolleyes.gif -- have problems reconciling themselves to the idea that even if someone gives a wrong explanation of a bid, there's no remedy unless damage can be shown.

I agree that this is a common misperception. Not sure what we can do about it though. Some grumps defy education. Some TDs give penalties without thinking and it becomes a shock to encounter one that tries to restore equity instead of throwing the book at the offending side.

It seems like the bad explainer is "getting away" with something. In a sense, they are -- they got lucky that their misexplanation did not cause damage and lead to adjustment.

I really don't think there was a chance of that. I think it was just a misstatement. Happens to all of us, even English as first/only language speakers. Look what I did in the original post:

"The partner never saw this explanation as it was a cuebid, and with all pairs playing the same system, so the defenders knew only that South might not have fully understood the meaning of his bid."

I meant self-explanation, not cuebid, of course.

So if the complaining person doesn't understand that damage must be shown, your questions about what they would have done differently may seem to them irrelevant ("Why is he asking what I'd do differently, south is the one at fault!"). If you have enough patience to engage in a lengthy discussion with someone, as it sounds like you did in this case, is emphasizing that point -- damage must be shown -- more helpful than asking what would have been done differently?

Fair point. My original report of the incident did not include the whole scene. The objecter had clearly made his objections known publicly before I was called and continued to do so. There really was no need for me to tell South that his explanation might have been conceived as misleading; the objecter had told him nine or ten times already. I made it quite clear to the objecter over the course of the next three boards that I needed to find damage to consider an adjustment.

Or is it appropriate to in public chat to the whole table, say something like "Explanation was incorrect, south, be more careful in future. You are lucky that no damage can be shown which means that opponents do not get an adjustment". That tells south he did something wrong, and tells the complainer why no adjustment.

That would be appropriate, but in cases like this where some judgement on my part might be required I usually tell the players that I will look at the board when I have some time. Usually this means the score stands as played, subject to later judgment. It's never easy to make a good ruling when players are arguing and trying to make their points and discredit others'. Better to get them playing again and promise a long look at it when there is ample time.

And, of course, if I eventually make an adjustment I let the players know why I have done so. (Sometimes the side adjusted against comes after me before I can type the explanation...) I never begin a tourney without a large sheet of paper preprinted with all of the problem types that can come up, and I jot down things as they happen so that I can always look at them when I have some time.

Anyhow, even if there was a case for damage here, the objecter could always have asked privately for a clarification of what was meant by 'cue.' Or, the objecter might have called me privately during the auction instead of waiting until a bad result was apparent. Waiting until 6♣ is a make smacks of the 'catch as catch can' mentality.