[luke warm]

lho opened 1C, partner passed, rho responded 1S, i passed, lho bid 2C, partner passed, rho bid 2D, i passed, lho bid 2H, partner passed, rho passed, i doubled ... at this point lho alerted 2H and wrote "15+ pts, 4 hearts, 3 spades" ... then he redoubled... partner bid 3D at which point lho alerted 1C and wrote "15+, 5+ clubs, 4+ hearts"...

we called the direcctor and he let the result stand... with proper alerts they'd have been playing 2H, undoubled of course

what should the director do?

[david_c]

luke warm, on Jul 23 2005, 09:11 PM, said:

what should the director do?

Assuming that 1♣ ought to have been alerted, then failure to alert constitutes misinformation. And if the double of 2♥ was made before the explanation came in, then it seems likely that you were damaged by the misinformation. So the director should adjust, as long as a 2♥ contract would have been better for your side. [Well, I'd want to look at the hands a bit closer, but it seems like an adjustment may be in order.]

I don't believe that the alerts are actually correct, but that's irrelevant.

If the opening side had announced at the start of the round that they were playing Polish Club (or something like that), then the situation would be different - you could still say that they should of alerted 1♣, but I would not allow their opponents to claim damage from an unalerted 1♣ opening. I doubt that this has happened here, but that's only because I trust the person claiming damage; if I was directing and did not know the people involved, then I would attempt to find out whether the system had in fact been pre-alerted. ["Did you say what system you were playing at the start of the round?"]

This post has been edited by david_c: 2005-July-23, 15:25

[luke warm]

yes, we said "2/1, udca" ... they said nothing... of course i'm mainly upset cuz i can't remember having as bad a day playing as today, for a long time

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     1♣    Pass
 1♠    Pass  2♣    Pass
 2♦    Pass  2♥!   Pass
 Pass  Dbl   RDbl  3♦
 Dbl   Pass  Pass  Pass
 

[david_c]

Well, now that you've posted the hand, I have to say your double seems a bit odd. [In fact, thinking about it, [i]any[/i] double after this sequence would be a bit odd: isn't it likely that the opponents have had a misunderstanding? Either that or it's a complete misfit.] So I'm not surprised that the director didn't adjust. Nevertheless, this shouldn't matter as long as the director concludes that the explanation makes the difference between doubling and not doubling. If I was directing, my first instinct would be to say it doesn't make a difference, simply because I don't understand the idea behind the double, but I would give you the opportunity to explain.

[reisig]

With no (timely) alerts ..I'd award average plus and average minus...you get plus.

[jillybean]

I see why EW gets penalty for failing to alert but why are NS rewarded with Avg plus? 2♥= was final contract before double.

tyia
jb

[LH2650]

If you had called the director in a timely manner, the contract would have been returned to 2 hearts, undoubled. Now, the director must estimate the outcome of the play of 2 hearts, giving the defense the correct information, and without declarer having any benefit of conclusions he may reach as a result of your (rather incredible) double. Different results may be chosen for the two sides, per Law 12A2.

[jillybean]

OK for live bridge but how do you rule within BBO limits?

[coyot]

I'm probably blind - but don't find anything alertable in the bidding , that is, unless 2[HE} systematically SHOWS 3 spades along the hearts. Otherwise the bidding seemed perfectly normal and natural (with the exception that I would bid 2[he] straight after 1♠.

So, If I were called as a TD, I would probably
a) ask EW for system meaning of 2♥
adjust ave +- (with EW being the punished side) - because if their 2♥ conveys special information, they failed to alert it in time - and if it does not, they should not alert it.

Since I don't know all the rules, I'm not sure under which circumstances the TD can award ave+/- and when he has to consider the likely contract and its outcome (here undoubled 2♥ seems likely.

[the hog]

david_c, on Jul 24 2005, 07:20 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 23 2005, 09:11 PM, said:

what should the director do?

Assuming that 1♣ ought to have been alerted, then failure to alert constitutes misinformation. And if the double of 2♥ was made before the explanation came in, then it seems likely that you were damaged by the misinformation. So the director should adjust, as long as a 2♥ contract would have been better for your side. [Well, I'd want to look at the hands a bit closer, but it seems like an adjustment may be in order.]

I don't believe that the alerts are actually correct, but that's irrelevant.

If the opening side had announced at the start of the round that they were playing Polish Club (or something like that), then the situation would be different - you could still say that they should of alerted 1♣, but I would not allow their opponents to claim damage from an unalerted 1♣ opening. I doubt that this has happened here, but that's only because I trust the person claiming damage; if I was directing and did not know the people involved, then I would attempt to find out whether the system had in fact been pre-alerted. ["Did you say what system you were playing at the start of the round?"]

Jimmy, both Richard and i think that the result should stand as we think that your opps probably explained the whole auctin. The ay you have got it is that 1C showed 15+ C&H. Rich and i don't think thats the case.

Mind you we have both had far too much sake and beer. We also think the
2C bid is potentially questionable.

Cheers in inebriation.
Ron and Hrothgar

[luke warm]

LH2650, on Jul 23 2005, 08:18 PM, said:

If you had called the director in a timely manner, the contract would have been returned to 2 hearts, undoubled. Now, the director must estimate the outcome of the play of 2 hearts, giving the defense the correct information, and without declarer having any benefit of conclusions he may reach as a result of your (rather incredible) double. Different results may be chosen for the two sides, per Law 12A2.

we called immediately after he alerted 2h

[luis]

I would let the result stand for your side and adjust to 2♥ undoubled for them for the failure to alert.
Their result has to be changed due to the infraction but your side doesn't merit any adjustment since the double of 2♥ is quite irrational in my opinion.

Luis

[luke warm]

yeah, it was an irrational day... in any case, that does bring up a few questions... does a director have to know why a player made a certain bid? iow, do directors routinely made rulings based on their opinions of correct bidding?

i guess what i'm asking is, even tho a bid seems irrational does this subjective judgment play a role in determining whether or not rules were broken and whether or not damage occured if they were broken? thanks

[LH2650]

luke warm, on Jul 24 2005, 02:07 PM, said:

i guess what i'm asking is, even tho a bid seems irrational does this subjective judgment play a role in determining whether or not rules were broken and whether or not damage occured if they were broken? thanks

The director must conclude that you and/or your partner would have done something different, given the correct information. If there is no rational basis for your bid given the information available to you at the time, why should he reach that conclusion? BTW, I think 2 hearts is going down, and your partner's equally strange bid is the cause of your disaster.

Luis's ruling is not possible. You can apply a procedural penalty for a failure to alert, but you can't change the score unless there was damage.

[mink]

The "15+" in both alerts sound like the 1!C opening ist some kind of strong club. This should be alerted earlier of course. But the alert of 1!C is obvoiusly not what they could possibly agreed upon, so I rather think the player did not realize what alerts are supposed to explain. Maybe even the bid was only explained because North or South asked for it by clicking, and East felt obliged to write something, which was more a description of what he actually held than a decription of what they agreed upon. From North's point of view, being vulnerable, I see opps have a misfit if I assume that all bids are natural, without the alerts. This is enough to convince me that the only possible call is pass. Double is truely irrational, heading for desaster.

The main information I can get from the explanations is that there are 15+ points in the East hand. But this is not really new to me, as I do not expect that they bid the missfit to this level without some extra values. So I cannot see why North, issueing this irrational double without the explanation, would not do so if he received the explanation in time. It is irrational in both cases.

I would give East some advice concerning alerts and explanations, but not change the result in any way.

Karl

[luke warm]

even if there were better (ie, more rational) bids than the double, should a director's judgment of the bidding enter into the decision? karl, you seem to be saying that even tho east alerted (albeit at the end of the auction) 1C in a certain way, you would unilaterally interpret his alert not to mean what he wrote, even saying it "..is obvoiusly not what they could possibly agreed upon.."

is it within a director's discretion to make that determination? this is one reason i don't host/direct tourneys... i feel that if one alerts and explains a bid, it's because that's what the p'ship has agreed upon... i also don't feel it's within the director's purview to make value judgments on the bidding when interpreting the laws... however, i could be wrong in that...

this is really confusing to me, and the only reason i'm still posting on it is for informational purposes... for example, how do your statements that "..the only possible call is pass.." and "..I cannot see why North, issueing this irrational double without the explanation, would not do so if he received the explanation in time.." have any effect on whether or not n/s were harmed by e/w failure to alert *any* of the bids? do you *have* to "..see why.." in order to rule?

[luis]

luke warm, on Jul 24 2005, 11:37 PM, said:

even if there were better (ie, more rational) bids than the double, should a director's judgment of the bidding enter into the decision? karl, you seem to be saying that even tho east alerted (albeit at the end of the auction) 1C in a certain way, you would unilaterally interpret his alert not to mean what he wrote, even saying it "..is obvoiusly not what they could possibly agreed upon.."

is it within a director's discretion to make that determination? this is one reason i don't host/direct tourneys... i feel that if one alerts and explains a bid, it's because that's what the p'ship has agreed upon... i also don't feel it's within the director's purview to make value judgments on the bidding when interpreting the laws... however, i could be wrong in that...

this is really confusing to me, and the only reason i'm still posting on it is for informational purposes... for example, how do your statements that "..the only possible call is pass.." and "..I cannot see why North, issueing this irrational double without the explanation, would not do so if he received the explanation in time.." have any effect on whether or not n/s were harmed by e/w failure to alert *any* of the bids? do you *have* to "..see why.." in order to rule?

When there's a MI case the TD Job is to
1. determine if there was missinformation (there was)
2. determine if there was damage (there was)
3. determine if the damage was caused by the MI (it wasn't the damage was caused by the reopening double and the MI had nothing to do with that)

When one of the 3 points doesn't apply the TD job is to let the result stand and you are free to appeal if you feel there're bridge considerations to contemplate, TDs can't rule based on bridge considerations they can only obey the rules of bridge.
My guess is that an AC wil dismiss the case fast and you will lose your deposit.

Your opponents may get a procedural penalty for their failure to properly follow the alert regulations.

Luis

[luke warm]

The_Hog, on Jul 24 2005, 07:25 AM, said:

Jimmy, both Richard and i think that the result should stand as we think that your opps probably explained the whole auctin. The ay you have got it is that 1C showed 15+ C&H. Rich and i don't think thats the case.

Mind you we have both had far too much sake and beer. We also think the
2C bid is potentially questionable.

Cheers in inebriation.
Ron and Hrothgar

hey you two reprobates!! hahahahah

they did explain the whole auction, more or less, in the fashion i described... the first alert *and* explanation came after the double of 2H and before the redouble.. the 2nd explanation, of 1C opening, came after the double of 3D

but if the 2 of you, drunk or sober, think everything's ok, that's good enough for me... now get some sleep then send richard kayaking for more booze

[McBruce]

LAW 21B. Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent

1. Change of Call

Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17E), a player may, without penalty, change a call when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent (failure to alert promptly to a conventional call or special understanding, where such alert is required by the sponsoring organization, is deemed misinformation), provided that his partner has not subsequently called.


What's the problem? The doubler changes his call to pass, the auction is over, the TD determines how many tricks are made in 2♥ and adjusts to that.

Note that it doesn't matter at all whether the double is 'rational' or not. This guideline (not followed by all; some NCBOs allow more lattitude to the non-offending side) refers to auctions in which the non-offenders take a long-shot action AFTER an infraction in an attempt to get a good result by luck or by TD decision. In this case, when the double was made, nobody knew there had been an infraction. The doubler is allowed to take back his double even if it was a psyche.

All we need is to determine that the doubler would have passed having been given correct and timely information about the auction. Nobody would keep an auction alive for the opponents if both of them have 15+ according to their agreements.

Trouble is, online (especially on BBO) the facts are harder to determine. TDs cannot tell WHEN information has been provided and (not to insinuate that the original poster here has done so) many players look for ways to avoid having to get a result against unfamiliar systems.

Without any way to determine WHEN the information was provided it's hard for the TD to know what to do. It would be better if 1♣ openers, and maybe some others, were automatically alerted according to the system in place. Then we TDs would not see such silly paranoia perpetrated by non-offenders who are too lazy to learn the basics of other systems. (Again, not to imply at all that these were the motives of the original poster.)

[LH2650]

McBruce, on Jul 24 2005, 08:40 PM, said:

What's the problem?  The doubler changes his call to pass, the auction is over, the TD determines how many tricks are made in 2♥ and adjusts to that.

The 3 diamond bid had been made before the director was called. The double could not be retracted.