Automatic adjustment for failure to alert?

[barmar]

I was kibbing a tourney over the weekend, and saw the following take place.

 

Someone opened 2♦, artificial showing 19+ HCP. There was no alert, and with the opponents silent they ended up in 6NT. At the end of the auction, before the opening lead was made, an opponent called the director (the auction made absolutely no sense if the opening was a weak 2 -- responder kept "raising" ♦ and opener kept bidding ♠ over the raises). He properly admonished the players for not alerting (they apparently didn't think the alert was necessary, because they'd mentioned it when they first arrived at the table), and he simply assigned av+/av- on the board. Then he broadcast to the entire tourney "If you bid 2♦ not showing ♦ and don't alert I will adjust".

 

Was it really appropriate to assign artificial scores at this point? The defenders never mentioned what they would have done differently given the alert (maybe it was in private chat, though). And since it didn't look like 6NT was makeable, they might have been about to get a better score than av+. Shouldn't the director wait until after the hand is over to see if the NOS was damaged?

 

As a kibbitzer, I didn't think it was my place to say anything. Should I have done anything at the time?

[mr1303]

It sounds to me as if your analysis is spot on.

 

1) A 2D opening that is strong and artificial requires an adjustment.

 

2) In order for an adjustment to occur, the Non-offending side needs to show that there is damage. The correct procedure is for the board to be played out, and if the NOS was damaged, an adjusted score is assigned.

 

3) An artificial score such as this is an illegal adjustment. This should only occur if it was not possible to get an actual result.

 

4) Kibitzers should be seen and not heard. In other words, no, you shouldn't have said anything.

[inquiry]

The Directors on the BBO get a lot of leeway in their rulings and indeed what rules they reply. There are a lot of reasons for this.

• One is there are soooo many of them, if the BBO decided to try to police them they would spend their time doing little else.
  
• Two, directors come from different backgrounds and bridge regulations so that they are use to different rules from each other
  
• Three, and importantly. BBO thinks there is value in havnig lots of variety available and let free marked economy decide which tourneys to play in
  • You don't want a tourney with a playing director, avoid those (playing directors are required to note this in their tourney description
    
  • You don't want a tourney where psyches are banned, avoid those
    
  • You don't want one with a rule "no adjustments" choose another event
    
  • You don't want one where there is an automatic 2 trick (or one trick) penalty for failure to alert? Don't play in ones with those rule.
    

No doubt there are other reasons as well for why the BBO doesn't regulated TD's more closely.. they do remove their rights if they are abusive to players, but not generally for using funny rules/laws.

 

Some directors are very clear on what laws they follow. The ACBL club is very good at this. They use ACBL rules and mid-chart ACBL conventions are allowed. My homebase club is also trying to make the rules we use are standardized and readily available. You can find a list of the key ones on our website all in one forum "HomeBase Answers". This situation is covered under our rules on alerting ( HomeBase's Alerting Policy) and Law 40.

 

The first rule on alerting we have is 1. ALL Conventional bids MUST be alerted, non-conventional bids should not. Failure to alert does not automatically mean a penalty will be applied.

 

Since the defenders where alerted to the strong nature of the auction not only by its unusual nature, and by the description before the opening lead, we would not have adjusted this score UNLESS there had been a reasonable problem with Misinformation during the Bidding (LAW 40). If the defending side might have had a good opporutnity to compete and either find a good save, or direct a good lead, or even likely disrupted the smooth auction EW had, then under law 21B3 (HBC FAQ on LAW 21) the director may issue an adjusted score. However, in the case expressed here, this will be a hard one to make a convincing arguement.

 

The defenders got a bad result because the declaring side bid well. The failure to alert a strong opening two had nothing to do with the result (unless the defenders had available a reasonable intervention), and if damage can not be shown by the failure to alert, the result will stand in HomeBase Club events. Other directors are free to run their events by other "rules".

 

BTW, I dislike the application of automatic penalties for failure to alert. And I agree with mr1303's comments on kibitizers. IF the director doesn't ask you for information about what happened at the table (did you see a hesitation, did one player really call the other a nasty name, etc), they should remain silent. They are observers, not participants.

[barmar]

• Three, and importantly. BBO thinks there is value in havnig lots of variety available and let free marked economy decide which tourneys to play in
  • You don't want a tourney with a playing director, avoid those (playing directors are required to note this in their tourney description
    
  • You don't want a tourney where psyches are banned, avoid those
    
  • You don't want one with a rule "no adjustments" choose another event
    
  • You don't want one where there is an automatic 2 trick (or one trick) penalty for failure to alert? Don't play in ones with those rule.
    

In order to make use of this freedom, don't you have to know which tourneys and which directors apply these rules? Unless these details are mentioned in the tourney descriptions (they rarely are, as far as I can tell) it's a crapshoot.

[inquiry]

• 
   
   
   
  
• Three, and importantly. BBO thinks there is value in havnig lots of variety available and let free marked economy decide which tourneys to play in
  • 
     
     
     
    
  • You don't want a tourney with a playing director, avoid those (playing directors are required to note this in their tourney description
     
     
     
    
  • You don't want a tourney where psyches are banned, avoid those
     
     
     
    
  • You don't want one with a rule "no adjustments" choose another event
     
     
     
    
  • You don't want one where there is an automatic 2 trick (or one trick) penalty for failure to alert? Don't play in ones with those rule.
     
     
     
    

In order to make use of this freedom, don't you have to know which tourneys and which directors apply these rules? Unless these details are mentioned in the tourney descriptions (they rarely are, as far as I can tell) it's a crapshoot.

Well, playing Directors have to say so upfront.

 

Some directors say upfront (even in their titles) "no adjustments"

 

Many of the more successful directors point to their webpages where this stuff is given.

 

And, just like the main room where you have to figure out who to avoid, the same might well apply to directors (your crapshoot), it only takes one time to figure out you don't want to go back I guess.

 

I have a list of tourneys I will not play in... based upon these and other issues, good news on BBO there is always another tournament in the next few minutes.. :-)

 

Ben

[DrTodd13]

You need to know what the rules are and you need to know the quality of the director. If no rules are specified, then the only valid assumption is that the laws of duplicate bridge are in force and that all rights of sponsoring organizations in those rules have been waived. In other words, sponsoring organizations have a right to restrict conventions but if you don't mention anything about restricting them then there are no restrictions. There is no such thing as a "default" prohibition for highly-unusual methods in the basic laws of bridge. All such prohibitions are decisions of sponsoring organizations.

 

Fred and Uday. Is there any way you can create a web page with a director's test specifically tailored for online play and then add a symbol to the profiles of people who pass the test? That way you can see if your tourney host has passed the director's test and it would let aspiring directors know who to contact for questions about how they should have handled a situation.

[Walddk]

As a kibbitzer, I didn't think it was my place to say anything.  Should I have done anything at the time?

This question is easy to answer:

 

LAW 76

SPECTATORS

 

B. Spectator Participation

A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake, nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director.

[Brandal]

• 
   
  
• Three, and importantly. BBO thinks there is value in havnig lots of variety available and let free marked economy decide which tourneys to play in
  • 
     
    
  • You don't want a tourney with a playing director, avoid those (playing directors are required to note this in their tourney description
     
    
  • You don't want a tourney where psyches are banned, avoid those
     
    
  • You don't want one with a rule "no adjustments" choose another event
     
    
  • You don't want one where there is an automatic 2 trick (or one trick) penalty for failure to alert? Don't play in ones with those rule.
     
    

In order to make use of this freedom, don't you have to know which tourneys and which directors apply these rules? Unless these details are mentioned in the tourney descriptions (they rarely are, as far as I can tell) it's a crapshoot.

I don't know what a crapshoot is,but this "epidemic forum-attitude"

that all strange/bad/silly/wrong/stupid tournament regulations

that some clubs/TD's enforce ruin the enjoyment is somewhat

over the top...

 

This is ofcourse,my opinion,not a truth.

 

When I enter a tournament I respect the rules to the best

of my ability,I don't bother if all the rules are not posted.

 

Yes,I think it's silly with a 1 trick automatic penalty for failure

to say "We play sayc--udca" and the likes at the beginning

of each round,and alert accordingly,but it would not stop

me from enjoying the tournament.

 

I'm just happy there are tournaments I can play,I am thankful

to all organizers,it wouldn't even be the end of the world for

me with a "You have to psyche" tournament.... :D

 

Just my thoughts......it's ok with variety.

[nickf]

As a kibbitzer, I didn't think it was my place to say anything.  Should I have done anything at the time?

I'm sure someone else will quote the exact law but your position is not exactly grey here.

 

The laws will tell you that Kibitzers are to be seen and not heard. End of discussion.

 

nickf

sydney

[barmar]

He properly admonished the players for not alerting (they apparently didn't think the alert was necessary, because they'd mentioned it when they first arrived at the table

I need to clarify something with this recounting. I wasn't at the table at the beginning of the round, so I don't know whether this pre-alert was actually made. When the TD arrived the player claimed he had done so.

 

I don't think it's relevant, though. If the rules require an alert, pre-alerts don't relieve players of that obligation. However, it would be nice if TDs could review the table chat so that they could verify statements like this.

 

Most of the responses don't really get at the point of my original question, though. Was the adjustment legal? If the NOS was about to get a top board, and the TD adjusts to Ave+, they got penalized for calling the TD. Shouldn't he tell them to play the board, and then adjust if necessary? And doesn't the NOS have to show that they would have done something different if there had been an alert?

[pigpenz]

what one has to remember is that a pre alert is not always seen by everyone at the table...I have seen my partner pre alert and then call the director for something that was pre alerted...why i dont know...but in one case if one of the players has one of the other opps marked as an enemy you will not see the chat from the player so you wont see the pre alert.

 

Failure to alert is not necessarily grounds for adjustment but how TD's handle this seems to be ranomly in now how they enforce it.