[david_c]

I've now run two tourneys on BBO (many thanks to mr1303 for co-directing the first one). There has only been one ruling of any interest, and I'd appreciate comments on how it should have gone:

Scoring: MP

W . N . E . S
P - 1♥ - 2♥ - 2♠
P - 3♦ - 4♣ - 4♥
5♣ - P - P - 5♥
P - P - X - all pass

---

The 2♥ bid was alerted and explained as Michaels. 2♠ was not alerted. E/W called about half-way through the play, to point out that 2♠ had been bid on a singleton. 5♥X made an overtrick.

East asks for an adjustment, making the following points:

• 2♠ must be alerted.
  
• N/S bid incorrectly. South was too weak for 2♠.
  
• West would have supported spades if 2♠ had been alerted.
  
• 2♠ should show at least a stopper.

OK, whether or not you agree with those points, should there be an adjustment?

[jillybean]

fwiw
2♠ = cue raise of ♥ should be alerted though Im sure some will just argue that this is just bridge, common knowledge.

I guess the question then is would EW bid 5♠, I think they would for -1

So, adjusted board and warning for NS, note on profile.

[inquiry]

david_c, on Aug 15 2005, 11:21 AM, said:

LIST]
[*]2♠ must be alerted.
[*]N/S bid incorrectly. South was too weak for 2♠.
[*]West would have supported spades if 2♠ had been alerted.
[*]2♠ should show at least a stopper.
[/LIST]

First, 2♠ must be alerted. This much is clear. So there is a chance that EW were damaged. So continue the inquiry.

Second, on the fact that NS "misbid", so what. First, they didn't alert what 2♠ was suppose to be, so the fact he had less than he was suppose to hardly caused damage. But even so, people are allowed to misbid. Throw this part of the complaint away. Feel free to laugh about it while you do.

Third, West would have supported spades if 2♠ had been alerted. I am not sure I agree with this. For one thing, WEST's hand wasn't very good. For another, partner PROMISED spades and WEST had three spades. Did it not occur to him to ask what 2♠ meant. This isn't a matter of common knowledge, this is a matter of, omg, they are bidding our promised suit. I wonder what it is?

Fourth, who ever said 2♠ should show at least a stopper. I have never heard such a thing. Either it shows spades (silly in this context), or it is forcing showing something else. EW could simply have asked if they were confused.

If you ruled for EW, that is your right (and Jilly's), but here the "cue-bid" of our suit is odd enough I think EW have a responsibility to protect themselves and ask if they were confused. Ideally, I would allow the result to stand for EW, and issue a procedural penalty to NS. Since that is not possible, I would issue a warning to NS and let the result stand. I would add NS to my record of warned non-alerters, and next time, not be so light upon them for failure to alert.

Ben

[Limey_p]

Alas, there's no good ruling for this one, since it depends on whose alert regulations you subscribe to.

Some say "alert any conventional bid"

ACBL-style, a bid in a suit shown by the opponents, isn't alertable.

Since you're directing, it's your call. All I can suggest is to try to make the ground rules clear in your conditions of contest.

I would have little sympathy for either side here. e-w seem to be experienced enough to expect some sort of redress, so perhaps they should be experienced enough to *ask* south about his bid. And in the spirit of full disclosure, south should volunteer an explanation of his call.

My suggestion is to rule against both sides:
e-w get to keep their bad result
n-s get (one of) a warning, a procedural penalty, or an adjusted score, depending on your reading of their methods, experience, etc. (South's call may be that of a new player, so education might be more effective than punishment.)

Also, you might post in your conditions of contest "if you call the director, he may rule against *both* sides"

A

[DrTodd13]

You haven't said what the relevant alert rules were for your tournament. If you don't decide this information beforehand and post it, how are people supposed to know what they should alert and what they shouldn't. This is unfortunately, no widely accepted default alerting policy. Many people default to whatever alert system they are familiar with while others alert all artificial bids.

With respect to the claim "N/S bid incorrectly," please consult Law 40A. A player is entitled to make any bid they want even if it widely diverges from their agreements or from standard practice. There is never a penalty because someone chooses a bid that others might not have made.

With respect to the claim "2♠ should at least have a stopper," who are you to dictate what 2♠ should mean to this pair?

With respect to the claim "2♠ should have been alerted," like I said, it all depends on what your alerting rules are. In the ACBL, cue-bids of implied suits are rarely alertable. Under ACBL rules, I don't believe this bid is alertable. If you are operating under "alert all artificial bids" then yes this bid should have been alerted.
However, my main point here is that the lack of an alert is irrelevant because E/W failed to protect themselves so there is no adjustment. If an opponent is bidding the suit that your partner has said he has and he hasn't alerted his bid and you need to know what that bid means in order to make a call then ASK A QUESTION! I don't find a raise of spades from the west hand to be clear even had they asked the appropriate question. Moreover, even if E/W land in 4♠, south has demonstrated his intent to bid 5♥ anyway. Is 5♠ crystal clear after 5♥? Anyway, this latter question is irrelevant because the main problem here is that E/W did not protect themselves by asking about an obviously unusual bid so I do not award an adjustment. If E/W appealed, I think I'd even give an AWMW (appeal without merit warning).

[jillybean]

"failure to protect youself" is very subjective.

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair? In an open tournament this does seem to create an unfair advantage.

Failure to alert 2♠ bid could create confusion for some players - did my partner bid correctly, did I understand my partners bid correctly, should I pass for penalty?



jb

[david_c]

Thanks for the comments. The good news is I ruled that the result should stand, and my replies to East were almost exactly what Ben says above.

As for the alerting regs, I'm still in the process of trying to decide what the best thing to say is. I'm considering phrasing it like this:

Please alert anything which your opponents might not understand, and explain in English. You definitely MUST alert:
- ALL artificial bids;
- opening bids which are not the same as in SAYC.

Any comments on this? (For today's tourney, I only wrote the first sentence.)

[Walddk]

jillybean2, on Aug 15 2005, 07:15 PM, said:

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair?

Absolutely, since I follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The laws do not distinguish between experts and beginners, so a TD is not allowed to rule differently just because an offender is a beginner.

Follow the rules, or don't follow them. You can't stop in the middle of everything.

Roland

[DrTodd13]

If E/W are experts then I laugh at them for not protecting themselves and award no adjustment.

If E/W are novices then I explain to them that if a bid sounds strange (like bidding the suit your partner claims to have) and their bid depends on what the strange bid means then they should ask what it means, whether it was alerted or not. N/S don't deserve more punishment because their opps were novices. How are you supposed to know what skill your opps are anyway? If the pre-posted alert rules were violated by N/S, then I give them a warning. If they are habitual violators, then I give them a procedural penalty. I still don't award an adjustment because E/W have to learn the rules sometime and now is as good a time as any.

[jillybean]

Walddk, on Aug 15 2005, 10:23 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Aug 15 2005, 07:15 PM, said:

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair?

Absolutely, since I follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The laws do not distinguish between experts and beginners, so a TD is not allowed to rule differently just because an offender is a beginner.

Follow the rules, or don't follow them. You can't stop in the middle of everything.

Roland

Say the offender (non alert) here is WC and the non offending side is Beginner.

Failure to protect yourself is dependant on knowledge & experience not an "exact" law?

[david_c]

One other point: I didn't think it was completely clear that 2♠ was intended as a cue-bid. Maybe South bid it as some sort of psyche (that would explain why he had a weak hand for the bid). But South didn't want to say very much, and so I wasn't able to determine what it was.

[Walddk]

jillybean2, on Aug 15 2005, 07:26 PM, said:

Walddk, on Aug 15 2005, 10:23 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Aug 15 2005, 07:15 PM, said:

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair?

Absolutely, since I follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The laws do not distinguish between experts and beginners, so a TD is not allowed to rule differently just because an offender is a beginner.

Follow the rules, or don't follow them. You can't stop in the middle of everything.

Roland

Say the offender (non alert) here is WC and the non offending side is Beginner.

It doesn't change anything. The bottom line is that the laws do not allow you to distinguish. You may disagree of course, but then you need to change the laws first, explicitly stating that there are certain rules for beginners and other rules for world class players.

Roland

[DrTodd13]

david_c, on Aug 15 2005, 09:18 AM, said:

Thanks for the comments. The good news is I ruled that the result should stand, and my replies to East were almost exactly what Ben says above.

As for the alerting regs, I'm still in the process of trying to decide what the best thing to say is. I'm condering phrasing it like this:

Please alert anything which your opponents might not understand, and explain in English. You definitely MUST alert:
- ALL artificial bids;
- opening bids which are not the same as in SAYC.

Any comments on this? (For today's tourney, I only wrote the first sentence.)

In my opinion, asking people to alert based on what they think their opponents might not understand has loopholes that a congressman would be proud of. I really believe you want an objective standard of what is alertable and not a subjective standard. Also, the first part of your statement seems to conflict with the second part. I fully expect almost everyone to understand stayman and blackwood. Are those alertable? They certainly are artificial. Is the first part of your statement only meant to refer to natural bids that have unusual meanings...like non-forcing or showing/denying a certain number of cards in a side suit?

[DrTodd13]

david_c, on Aug 15 2005, 09:27 AM, said:

One other point: I didn't think it was completely clear that 2♠ was intended as a cue-bid. Maybe South bid it as some sort of psyche (that would explain why he had a weak hand for the bid). But South didn't want to say very much, and so I wasn't able to determine what it was.

Normally, 2♠ would be invite+ with ♥ support. In this case, the guy appears to be psyching that bid hoping to be able to play 4♥ undoubled.

[olegru]

inquiry, on Aug 15 2005, 11:42 AM, said:

First, 2♠ must be alerted.

Agree and disagree at the same time.

First, 2♠ must be alerted if NS is expirienced partnership and they have agreement (explicit or implicit) about meaning of 2♠ bid in such of auction.
But what if they just a picked up partnership and 2♠ was based on a common sence? I would probably alert anyway and explain as a "no agreement" but not sure it is the best way to handle.

[jillybean]

DrTodd13, on Aug 15 2005, 10:35 AM, said:

david_c, on Aug 15 2005, 09:27 AM, said:

One other point: I didn't think it was completely clear that 2♠ was intended as a cue-bid. Maybe South bid it as some sort of psyche (that would explain why he had a weak hand for the bid). But South didn't want to say very much, and so I wasn't able to determine what it was.

Normally, 2♠ would be invite+ with ♥ support. In this case, the guy appears to be psyching that bid hoping to be able to play 4♥ undoubled.

This isn't exactly a gross misrepresentation of your hand, should NS be penalized for an illegal psyche?

[DrTodd13]

jillybean2, on Aug 15 2005, 09:45 AM, said:

DrTodd13, on Aug 15 2005, 10:35 AM, said:

david_c, on Aug 15 2005, 09:27 AM, said:

One other point: I didn't think it was completely clear that 2♠ was intended as a cue-bid. Maybe South bid it as some sort of psyche (that would explain why he had a weak hand for the bid). But South didn't want to say very much, and so I wasn't able to determine what it was.

Normally, 2♠ would be invite+ with ♥ support. In this case, the guy appears to be psyching that bid hoping to be able to play 4♥ undoubled.

This isn't exactly a gross misrepresentation of your hand, should NS be penalized for am illegal psyche?

It isn't a gross misrepresentation of length but it is a gross misrepresentation of strength. Whether it is a psyche or not doesn't matter. I still don't penalize them. I don't even agree that there is anything called an "illegal psyche." I call any rule that attempts to prohibit certain psyches as illegal itself.

[Elianna]

Walddk, on Aug 15 2005, 10:23 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Aug 15 2005, 07:15 PM, said:

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair?

Absolutely, since I follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The laws do not distinguish between experts and beginners, so a TD is not allowed to rule differently just because an offender is a beginner.

Follow the rules, or don't follow them. You can't stop in the middle of everything.

And yet, I've SEEN rulings that are based on the (usually non-offender's) skill-level. Usually they are in the aspect of "Did they do something egregious enough to cancel the offense?". (Usually worded as "Did they fail to play bridge?"). But they put these questions in context of skill level. (In ACBL bridge)

Also, there is one aspect where ACBL makes it a policy to look at player's levels: In polling people to ask logical alternatives. When they're trying to find out what a world class player would have done without a hesitation by pard (for example) it makes no sense to ask a beginner what they would have done. Unfortunately, ACBL makes this determination of skill level by masterpoints, which aren't quite accurate necessarily, but that's a discussion for another thread.

[mycroft]

1. If this is an ACBL tourney, E/W are out of luck. "Most cuebids [including bids of suits shown, but not yet bid] are not Alertable." Who knows what 2S means - who cares. If it's important, ask.

2. If this is most BBO tourneys, then there's *probably* a failure to Alert ("standard" BBO alerting tradition is "Alert anything artificial and anything opponents might not expect". But it's just a tradition, and anyone is free to set their own rules for their own tournaments). So, you do the investigation.

"N/S, what is your agreement of 2S after 1H-2H Michaels?" If it's an Alertable meaning, then there's been a failure to Alert. if "No idea, never came up", well, that's different.

"South, what did you think your agreement was, or what did you expect partner to take it as, and why did you expect it?" - note, not *hope*. If there's an expectation, and a reason why the expectation is valid, then they likely have an implied partnership understanding, which is just as disclosable as the express agreements.

"South, why did you bid 2S?" Law 40A says this is irrelevant to this hand, but it could be a psych, could be "generic force", could be misclick, could be...and it starts to create partnership experience.

3. If there was a failure to Alert, did the misinformation damage E/W? Usually I'm lenient here - possibly too lenient. But what was west hoping for - that N/S would play 2 spades in the 5-card fit? And if he's too weak to bid 3S or double 2S (whatever that would mean) the previous round, surely after East shows a moose with 4C, and South clarifies her intentions with 4H, he can bid 4S instead of 5C.

Unfortunately, the bad lie of the black suits dooms both 5S and 6C. Still better than 5Hx, but I don't believe the fact that west wasn't told that 2S wasn't natural contributed to not finding the sacrifice.

4. As for "he didn't have the hand for 2S anyway" and the rest of that guff, N/S don't have to play the same system E/W do (and in fact I don't), and Law 40A says that 2S can mean whatever they want it to mean, subject to the tournament's convention regulations. Usually when the opponents do something "stupid" (i.e. "not what I play") they get a bad score. This time they didn't and it isn't anybody's fault.

Michael.

[mycroft]

Elianna, on Aug 15 2005, 11:53 AM, said:

Walddk, on Aug 15 2005, 10:23 AM, said:

jillybean2, on Aug 15 2005, 07:15 PM, said:

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair?

Absolutely, since I follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The laws do not distinguish between experts and beginners, so a TD is not allowed to rule differently just because an offender is a beginner.

And yet, I've SEEN rulings that are based on the (usually non-offender's) skill-level. Usually they are in the aspect of "Did they do something egregious enough to cancel the offense?". (Usually worded as "Did they fail to play bridge?"). But they put these questions in context of skill level. (In ACBL bridge)

Yes. And that is in accordance with the Laws of Bridge.

There are three places where "class of player" - world class, beginner, anywhere in the middle, even "known coffeehouser" - matters:

1) Claims and concessions. The footnote to Laws 69, 70, and 71 makes clear that "normal play" includes "careless or inferior for the class of player, but not irrational".

2) Logical Alternatives (mentioned above). While the Laws do not define LA, most bridge organizations do so with relation to "class of player" or "player's peers". And frankly, that's the right thing to do - the expert is going to look for a play to get partner off the endplay as a matter of course in obvious situations; the beginner is going to say "why did you lead a heart, partner? You gave them the contract."

This bites both ways, and annoys both the experts playing against novices, and the novices playing against experts. The novices get upset when the experts "get away with" something, especially something they get ruled against for, because for them there is no LA, while for the novices, it is. The experts get upset because the novices' don't even know what their hesitations mean, so what becomes UI is less.

3) Protection from MI. Again, the Laws don't say anything specific here, they refer to disclosure "according to SO's regulations". Most SOs, however, put in something like "If you know that a call is likely Alertable, you have to protect yourself; no fair gaming technicalities of the Alert System" (the ACBL's quote is (fairly long):

- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.
- Adjustments for violations are not automatic. There must have been misinformation.
- An adjustment will be made only when the misinformation was a direct cause of the damage.
- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.

).

Yes, it causes some problems (If I ask, they will snootily tell me that they don't play transfers, and I've just passed UI to partner. If I don't ask, and it was a transfer, the TD won't give me my chance to double 2H). But the gamesmanship that is avoided by these sorts of rules - players trying to win through the TD what they couldn't get at the table through exploiting trivial infractions of Alert Procedure - was prevalent, is still too prevalent, and seems to be gloriously free in the online world.

Note that "class of player" or "player's peers" involves both experience and system style; I'd be annoyed if several players at my MP level passing 1C-1S; 2C with a barren 8-count meant that I had to pass partner's Asking Bid in Clubs in a game-forcing auction because it took him 15 seconds to decide what order to ask the questions in (to make a ludicrously extravagant example; much more common are the 250 MP players (or their British equivalent) who play weak NT. Even if you explain the inferences to yer average 250 MP American, they aren't going to grok weak NT 1m auctions. Heaven help me when there's a question of LAs when I'm playing EHAA!)

Michael.