[jillybean]

Hi,
The same 2 boards both failed to alert artificial opening.

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  Pass  1♣    Pass
 1♦    Pass  4♠    5♣
 5♠    Pass  6♠    Pass
 Pass  Pass  

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 Pass  Pass  1♣    3NT
 Pass  Pass  4♠    Pass
 Pass  Dbl   Pass  Pass
 Pass  

Without the ability to apply procedural penalties, how do you adjust these?
I gave A+- to both but was also considering adjusting 2nd example to 4S, removing the double.

tyia
jb

[pigpenz]

North made a frivolous double, failure to alert is in itself not grounds for adjusting the board. I would let the result stand.

If i had to make a ruling I would let the result stand for N/S and maybe assign avg- to EW for failure to alert if this has happened before,if not I would be more inclined to let the result stand

I dont really feel that N/S were damaged by the failure to alert.
#1 south bid 3nt
#2 south bid 5♣

the only unusual action was onthe hand when North made the frivolous double

[inquiry]

I disagree with the ruling pigpenz suggest.

NS got into trouble on the second hand, simply because south had no way to show is hand opposite a natural 1♣ opening bid, so he got creative. North double after 3NT by his partner is neither frivolous or unreasonble. And if 1♣ had been properly alerted NS would not have gotten themselves into this pickle. I would assign 4♠ making to EW without the double, to try to restore balance (or Ave -/+)

On the first hand, the failure to alert hardly damaged NS. While it is possibly true south would have bid some number of clubs, EASTclearly shows he was going to bid 4♠ anyway, and if West is going to make a slam try over this, there really isn't anything NS can do. If a procedural penatly was avaible, I would apply it, perhaps, but here, I would issue a stern wanring. Note if this is their second or third violation, then I would assign scores as penalty.

[kfgauss]

inquiry, on Sep 1 2005, 04:26 PM, said:

NS got into trouble on the second hand, simply because south had no way to show is hand opposite a natural 1♣ opening bid, so he got creative. North double after 3NT by his partner is neither frivolous or unreasonble. And if 1♣ had been properly alerted NS would not have gotten themselves into this pickle. I would assign 4♠ making to EW without the double, to try to restore balance (or Ave -/+)

I agree with this basically (though I'm not certain what the precise ruling/result should be). One should further note that North's double is quite reasonable, as South seems to have a really big hand: he doesn't have running diamonds, and he really can't have running clubs when East appears to be 5-6.

inquiry, on Sep 1 2005, 04:26 PM, said:

On the first hand, the failure to alert hardly damaged NS. While it is possibly true south would have bid some number of clubs, EASTclearly shows he was going to bid 4♠ anyway, and if West is going to make a slam try over this, there really isn't anything NS can do. If a procedural penatly was avaible, I would apply it, perhaps, but here, I would issue a stern wanring. Note if this is their second or third violation, then I would assign scores as penalty.

East hasn't yet shown that he'd bid 5♠ over 5♣, and we can allow South to bid 5♣ directly over 1♣.

I do think that 5♠ over 5♣ will probably be allowed then, but West, even though he competed to 5♠, has no ability to claim that he'd bid 6♠, so an adjustment to 5♠ seems warranted.

Andy

[Brandal]

inquiry, on Sep 1 2005, 11:26 AM, said:

I disagree with the ruling pigpenz suggest.

NS got into trouble on the second hand, simply because south had no way to show is hand opposite a natural 1♣ opening bid, so he got creative. North double after 3NT by his partner is neither frivolous or unreasonble. And if 1♣ had been properly alerted NS would not have gotten themselves into this pickle. I would assign 4♠ making to EW without the double, to try to restore balance (or Ave -/+)

On the first hand, the failure to alert hardly damaged NS. While it is possibly true south would have bid some number of clubs, EASTclearly shows he was going to bid 4♠ anyway, and if West is going to make a slam try over this, there really isn't anything NS can do. If a procedural penatly was avaible, I would apply it, perhaps, but here, I would issue a stern wanring. Note if this is their second or third violation, then I would assign scores as penalty.

Same board,two different bidding sequences taking place
at different tables?

To me the interesting question is,in this case,shouldn't
both tables get the same ruling?

Or does what the NS pairs do come into consideration?

[luis]

I'm very sure #2 should be adjusted to 4♠ undoubled.
With the proper alert North has no reason to double 4♠.

About #1 it's confusing. I think I would let the result stand on #1.

[awm]

On the first board, it seems highly likely that south would have bid 5♣ immediately over 1♣ if informed of the nature of the opening. Note that on the actual auction, the delayed 5♣ call basically pushed E-W into a slam they probably would not have otherwise bid, so there's definitely a need for redress here. After 1♣-5♣, east will be put in balancing seat. The logical alternatives at this point would seem to be double, 5♠, or perhaps a pushy 6♣. West is likely to pass a double (4333 shape doesn't argue for bidding) and also to pass a 5♠ call. So the result should be rolled back to either 680 or 500 for EW depending on the likelihood of east balancing with a double versus 5♠ (a 6♣ balance, while possible, certainly will not yield the most favorable likely result for the non-offenders). The only way to really find this out is to poll precision players as to what they would do (how logical an alternative is double in this situation?). My feeling is that double, while perhaps not the most probable action, is sufficiently likely that 500 to E/W should be the result.

On the second board, the 3NT call was doubtless influenced by an assumption that 1♣ was natural. It's a "creative" bid perhaps with no outside cards, but not ridiculous. Partner's double is not ridiculous. Again if 1♣ had been properly alerted, a 5♣ bid is a logical and likely alternative, putting us into the same situation as before. Again the ruling should be either 5♠ making six for E/W, or 5♣X-2, depending on how logical double of 5♣ could be deemed to be.

Without taking a poll, another possibility might be to look for tables where strong 1♣ or 2♣ was opened (and properly alerted) and see if 5♣X-2 is a naturally occurring result. Giving average plus and average minus may accomplish the same thing, although I believe it goes against the letter of the laws for this sort of situation.

[pigpenz]

awm, on Sep 1 2005, 12:59 PM, said:

Without taking a poll, another possibility might be to look for tables where strong 1♣ or 2♣ was opened (and properly alerted) and see if 5♣X-2 is a naturally occurring result. Giving average plus and average minus may accomplish the same thing, although I believe it goes against the letter of the laws for this sort of situation.

again this another suggestion I have made to BBO if this is where this occurred, the TD should be able to see all the results of the board if they feel they are not sure they want to assign redress to.

On the one board south still bid 5♣ and the opps bid a slam they probably would not have bid.

On the other south bid 3NT, now how many people play that as a strong hand, that is why i feel the double by north was frivolous.

so if you are gonna adjust the board then the TD should be able to see all the scores for the board.

[hotShot]

jillybean2, on Sep 1 2005, 05:58 PM, said:

Hi,
The same 2 boards both failed to alert artificial opening.

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

Pass Pass 1♣ Pass
1♦ Pass 4♠ 5♣
5♠ Pass 6♠ Pass
Pass Pass

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

Pass Pass 1♣ 3NT
Pass Pass 4♠ Pass
Pass Dbl Pass Pass
Pass

Without the ability to apply procedural penalties, how do you adjust these?
I gave A+- to both but was also considering adjusting 2nd example to 4S, removing the double.

tyia
jb

Case 1:
Without an alert opener showed a 3+ length in ♣ without a 5 card major.
South has no need to act. If 1♣ is alerted as strong, south knows that west is weak and will have trouble to find bid over south preempt. very likely the bidding will go:

West [space]North East [space]South

 Pass [space]Pass [space]1[cl] [space] [space]4[cl]
 Pass [space]Pass [space]4[sp] [space] [space]all pass

So EW had the benefit of an undisturbed bidding sequence, caused by the missing alert.
So:
1) no alert
2) there was damage
3) damage caused by the missing alert
=> Score correction

Case 2:
North dbl is not irrational, wild or gambling, 3rd Jof♠, AQJ of [SI] should be worth a trick or two. South promissed a double stopper in ♣ so 4♠ might go down.

South has a gambling 3NT opening and no bid left to describe his hand after a natural 1♣ opening.
South 3NT over a natural 1♣ opening should show ♣ values.
South can hope west might lead ♣ giving them a good score. I think the 3NT bid qualifies as gambling.
TD's should not support this by adjusting NS's score, but EW should not benefit from their missing alert. So a split score would be appropriate (Setting EW to 4♠ undoubled).
Since this is not possible yet, i would assign a Ave-- online, making 4 new enemies ........

[pigpenz]

an interesting thing that i just thought of but no one has brought up, on the one hand was there an alert of the 1♦ bid, if there wasnt then there was the failure to alert 2 bids by the same pair. That is more serious to me than forgetting to alert once.

[awm]

The thing about the second board is, 3NT is "to play" and could be based either on a running minor or all-around values. From north's perspective:

(1) Opener has apparently promised 5-6 in the blacks. Partner must have at least one club trick to justify the 3NT call.

(2) Partner cannot really have a running minor, as north has such good diamonds and east apparently has six clubs. It therefore seems likely that south actually has a good hand.

(3) It is not unlikely that east, frustrated at being unable to show his 5-card spade suit, has made a wildly gambling 4♠ call and deserves to be punished.

It seems pretty reasonable to infer from the auction (which is a somewhat ridiculous auction to begin with assuming a natural 1♣) that 4♠ will probably fail. This is often one of the issues with psychs -- all sorts of "normal" inferences are thrown totally out of whack. But the 1♣ call was not a psych, but an unalerted agreement. Thus N/S are entitled to protection.

[Brandal]

awm, on Sep 1 2005, 01:47 PM, said:

The thing about the second board is, 3NT is "to play" and could be based either on a running minor or all-around values. From north's perspective:

(1) Opener has apparently promised 5-6 in the blacks. Partner must have at least one club trick to justify the 3NT call.

(2) Partner cannot really have a running minor, as north has such good diamonds and east apparently has six clubs. It therefore seems likely that south actually has a good hand.

(3) It is not unlikely that east, frustrated at being unable to show his 5-card spade suit, has made a wildly gambling 4♠ call and deserves to be punished.

It seems pretty reasonable to infer from the auction (which is a somewhat ridiculous auction to begin with assuming a natural 1♣) that 4♠ will probably fail. This is often one of the issues with psychs -- all sorts of "normal" inferences are thrown totally out of whack. But the 1♣ call was not a psych, but an unalerted agreement. Thus N/S are entitled to protection.

Am I the only one who thinks it's the same board bid
differently on 2 tables?

After failure to alert 1C on both tables,does what NS bids
matter?

[awm]

Brandal, on Sep 1 2005, 01:59 PM, said:

Am I the only one who thinks it's the same board bid
differently on 2 tables?

After failure to alert 1C on both tables,does what NS bids
matter?

Certainly the bidding of NS matters. For example, if south had bid 6♣ over 1♣ and been doubled for 800, he would have to live with the table result. There's no reason to think that action would've been effected by the failure to alert -- if he's bidding 6♣ over a NATURAL 1♣ surely he would bid it also over a precision 1♣.

There's also a question about "failure to play bridge." If east had bid 7♠ and south lead a small club (won by dummy's jack), after which north ducked the diamond ace and 7♠ came home, then I don't think N/S are due any adjustment at all (their defense being so ridiculous, that it cancels the infraction).

Finally, if E/W stopped in a spade partial at one table and made, there would be no adjustment because N/S already received an excellent result (despite that fact that the failure to alert might've talked south out of bidding 5♣ and going for 200 or more). There's never an adjustment to improve the score of the offending side.

So yes, in principle the N/S bidding after the 1♣ matters. Some people have argued that north's double on the second board was "failure to play bridge." But I don't think that's really true, and would make the same ruling on both the boards in question.

[Cascade]

inquiry, on Sep 2 2005, 04:26 AM, said:

On the first hand, the failure to alert hardly damaged NS. While it is possibly true south would have bid some number of clubs, EASTclearly shows he was going to bid 4♠ anyway, and if West is going to make a slam try over this, there really isn't anything NS can do. If a procedural penatly was avaible, I would apply it, perhaps, but here, I would issue a stern wanring. Note if this is their second or third violation, then I would assign scores as penalty.

West didn't make a slam try he was pushed into bidding 5♠.

There is no reason to suspect that he will get pushed the same if there is initial pre-emptive action from South.

Therefore I think NS deserve an adjustment.

[coyot]

I don't think that adjusting either board to 4♠ is fair.

If someone opens artifical STRONG club, I will bid 5♣ with the South hand (borrowing one red trick from partner for a safe -500 against a likely game. Will they double me or will they gamble 5♠?

In both cases, the damage to NS line was clear in the very first round of bidding (a natural 1♣ opener strongly suggests weak NT hand with both major 4cards, over which noone will want to preemt 5♣.)

[pigpenz]

another thing that bothers me is the auction where it goes
1♣ 3NT

I almost feel that the 3nt bidder had to know that it was a forcing club and not alerted
holding 8 solid ♣'s if the actual bid was ♣'s what are the real odds that partner is gonna have some for us to even be able to use these puppies.


Now going back to the last question i asked, sure there was a non alert on the 1♣ bid but was the 1♦ negative response alerted, if not then there is a dual partnership problem. If it was alerted then the cat is out of the bag that the ♣ bid was forcing. Like wise:
1♣ 3NT responses
isnt the hallmark of the forcing club system that the respones even over interference mean something????
pass 0-4hcp
double 5-9
something along those lines?

In both cases it may have not been so much that the forcing club wasnt alerted but that the responses to it werent alerted!!!

[jillybean]

pigpenz, on Sep 2 2005, 09:56 AM, said:

Now going back to the last question i asked, sure there was a non alert on the 1♣ bid but was the 1♦ negative response alerted, if not then there is a dual partnership problem.  If it was alerted then the cat is out of the bag that the ♣ bid was forcing.

Neither bid was alerted.

[mycroft]

pigpenz, on Sep 1 2005, 12:09 PM, said:

again this another suggestion I have made to BBO if this is where this occurred, the TD should be able to see all the results of the board if they feel they are not sure they want to assign redress to.

As a player of unusual systems, I would be very upset if this copout became instituted into yet another place.

Why should the TD look at the scores on the board to make their ruling? Nothing in Law 12C either authorizes this or gives any reason for its use.

Here, of all cases, "look at the scores" should be obviously a poor idea - for better or for worse (from the point of view of the players at this table), this hand was opened a strong club, and the opponents have their own defences against that (including a sound strategy of over-preempting versus what they would bid over a natural opening). In order for the other scores to be at all relevant, you can only compare against those tables where a strong club was opened, and a similar strong club defence was used. So, how many does that leave?

A classic example: 1NT not explained - X (one suit) - 2H to play - X; AP. 2Hx goes for 300, but 1NT was 9-12. Of course the doublers were misinformed, and of course we have to check for damage. All the other results are 3NT= the doublers' way. So do we have automatic damage, and we assign 3NT=? Of course not - none of the other tables had to defend against the mini-1NT. We follow the Book: for the non-offenders, the score is asjusted to the best score that was likely; the offenders get the worst score at all possible. The other scores on the board are just a hindrance to making those determinations, because they foster the thought, "of course they would have got to 3NT". No, they might have got to 3Hx-3, 4S=, they might have made an overtrick because they knew more about the opponents' hands than the rest of the field, they might not have been able to resolve the situation with their defensive methods to mini-1NT,...

Why are the other scores not relevant? Because the other tables didn't have the same decisions to make. That simple. It's obvious in my example, it's obvious in the discussed case (unless it was a 80% precision tournament), but it's almost always true.

Michael.