alerted 2nt

[Mirjam_3]

In tournament:

 

I ruled by not adjusting.

 

North opens with 2NT and maybe or maybe not after some time he alerted and explained it as 5-5minors.

 

Opp called not for this but for the fact North didnot tell weak.

 

I decided not to adjust based on the idea that i cd close case since N said sry and ew didnot give me the impression they didnt accept his excuse.

 

In tournaments u have to move quick and as i can show u below i already was busy for this one call a long time and than i close and go further so i dont feel guilty about that.

 

I just put the case here because i want to learn how i sd have adjusted if ew wd have asked earlier for one. What do u advise?

 

If u think there is need for you might also correct me on how i dealt with the case.

 

 

 

 

Case:

 

My co-director is not very experienced yet so we spend a lot of time talking about how to deal with things.

 

At a certain moment i get next message from him:

 

co-director: here declarer didn't alert what points have and opps call me what to do ?

->co-director: are they harmed?

co-director: i think no....

->co-director: which board? This one or last one?

->co-director: who called u?

->co-director: i have to look before i can say how to rule

 

co-director tells me name of player, in the meantime i look at what table the co is and i go to that table.

 

Mirjam_3: eastplayer can i help u? what sd have been alerted? Co-director is new so i take over.. plse tell me again

EASTPLAYER: My partner says he kept asking for pt count and could not get a response

->co-director: u sd tell me what board and what complaint i cannot tell u if i dont know..

 

Mirjam_3: which board and what bid u asked about westplayer?

co-director: northplayer alerted 2 nt as 5-5 minors but no points there.....previose board

 

EASTPLAYER: the 2nt opening bid was alerted after several mins as 5 5 in the minors, after I doubled my partner tried to find out ...

EASTPLAYER: what the pt count of the 2nt and could not get a response

 

->northplayer: did u alert and explain the 2nt?

southplayer: nie trafilem rozdania 4 pik moga przegrac

note of me: this remark i overlooked (i see now that it wasnot english and i have no idea what it means…)

 

westplayer: board 3 , he opened 2nt I asked what that meant and he responded 5+5r, i asked point count and never received answer

southplayer: alerted 2nt?

northplayer: I did not write that is preemptive sorry

 

Mirjam_3: do u feel harmed ew?

southplayer: 5:5 minors

southplayer: yes?

Mirjam_3: sure 5-5 that is no problem

southplayer: where is problem

Mirjam_3: but points if asked you tell them weak plse

westplayer: huge error, I did not bid thinking I was behind 19-21 hcps

EASTPLAYER: Well, north probably has a poor connection, and it took an extreme amount of time to get info, but I do not feel it was ...

EASTPLAYER: intentional at all

westplayer: not an issue of intentional

 

tables switched since end of round came ew disappear and ns remain in same table i am but switch to ew

 

Mirjam_3: ok ns u heard them np problem further and next time say weak plse

(I see now i said ns but at the same time they were placed ew)

->new EASTPLAYER: ok ty

->new westplayer: ok ty

 

 

westplayer: they stole contract and we are being penalized for lack of disclosure I think score should be changed

->co-director: ok solved i told ns ok and next time say weak and ew didnt feel harmed so it is solved

 

->westplayer: it is closed now i asked u and u and ur p said ok it was not intentional

->westplayer: i already messaged ns ok and next time they say weak

 

westplayer: what ever didnt expect any director on BBO to have any balls

westplayer: it was an undeclared bid

->westplayer: i dont have balls mr i am female and i am not afraid to rule but if u and ur p say ok i message ok and i close and go ...

->westplayer: further

 

westplayer: my partner said I said nothing

westplayer: it was a poor alert and a penalty was called for

westplayer: forget it

->westplayer: not an issue of intentional i quote you

->westplayer: u wrote in table

westplayer: exactly , I never said it was intentional but that doesnt matter it was a poor alert and a penalty was called for look ...

westplayer: at the score

 

->westplayer: i took over from co and i came and we discussed it and u never asked for penalty do i have to quote u and ur p?

westplayer: as I said before what ever

->westplayer: we agreed there north had to say weak and he admitted that and said sorry than i asked do ew feel harmed an u can scroll b ...

->westplayer: in table chat

westplayer: we got screwed but such is life

->westplayer: there i agree

->westplayer: :)

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sa8h10d98652ck9732&w=sj109765hk73dkqc85&e=sk432haj86dj7caq10&s=sqhq9542da1043cj64]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

South: pass

West: pass

North opens 2NT alerted and explained as 5-5 minors

East: x

South: 4 diamonds

All pass

 

South went down 2

 

At other tables i saw 4s made for west and also 6s down and 6x down but i didnt look up all scores.

[csdenmark]

This link might be a general help to you.

 

http://groups.msn.com/bridgeFILES/alert.msnw

[mr1303]

Forgetting the issue of whether you should adjust, I'd ban this Westplayer from any of my tournaments for what he said there.

 

No matter how upset you feel at a ruling, you don't say that sort of thing to anyone

[hrothgar]

Hi Mirjam:

 

Here's my "take" on matters. Whenever possible, I try to simplify issues by breaking a large complex issues into a series of smaller (and hopefully simplier) components.

 

1. In this case, the first issue to address is whether the alert of 2NT was "timely". Regardless of what explanation North porivided for the 2NT opening, did the alert occur quickly enough for East to take advantage of the information.

 

In this case, it appears that North was able to alert the 2NT opening prior to East taking action.

 

2. The second issue is whether North provided an adequate explanation regarding the meaning of the 2NT bid. In this case, it appears that North described the 2NT opening as showing both minors, but failed to disclose the range.

 

From my perspective, there is fault on both sides. I consider 2NT as "weak with both minors" to be fairly standard. If confronted with a 2NT bid alerted as showing the minors, I would "naturally" assume that this is a preemptive opening rather than a "constructive" opening. East-West have an obligation to protect themselves, either by inspecting a convention card or asking the opponents.

 

In this case, E/W asked the opponents, but were unable to get adequate disclosure. However, East/West indicated that they believe that it was a combination of language difficulties or a bad connection that cause the problem.

 

3. The third issue is East/West's bidding was sufficiently "bad" to break the relationship between the offense and the result. IMHO, East's initial double is irrational and significantly misrepresents the strength of his hand. West's failure to mention Spades is even more problematic in light of the double. East/West do not deserve an adjustment.

 

4. The fourth issue is whether or not North/South desrve a procedural penalty based on failure to adequately disclose methods. I'd want an excuse whether North did not explain the point count for the 2NT opening. I'd be interested to note whether the pair has posted a convention card.

 

5. The last issue is West's little gripe session after the hand.

here, i do believe that a proceedural penalty is in order.

[inquiry]

1) The alert was insufficient, but not a direct cause of the problem.

 

2) There could be some confusion E/W over the meaning of 2NT -X. Is that for takeout to the majors, or is that willing to penalize one or more of the minors. Lookng at East's hand, it is still hard to tell... :)

 

3) I would not penalize NS for the failure to fully explain initiatlly the alert. However, the failure to answer the question regarding hcp range is a big problem. Logically, I think WEST could have worked out what is going on. He himself has what for me is an opening spade bid (and certainly 9hcp). If North had 20, East and south are bidding a lot with 11 hcp. No, it is clear from partner's double that WEST can not have, as WEST alleged as possible 19-20 hcp. Because partner wouldn't double with 11 forcing WEST to bid at the three level VUL. Clearly EAST needs upwards of 15 hcp for this bid. I guess he counted the location of club honors as a plus to get to 15 :)

 

Having said that, West is responsible for his own bidding. So my ruling (don't think this would be easy to do), would be to adkust NS to average - and EW to average +. I do think that EW deserve much of the problems they got, but if NS had answered the inquiries, I think they would have done ok. However, I would like a chat log to show that this was the case, and if North player clearly doesn't speak english, West will have had to have tried to ask South as well. IF WEst failed to ask South when no answer came from North, then I would allow the score to stand, giving a warning to NS about fully alerting in the future.

 

To the issue of "intent". Failure to alert is simply that, never read bad intentions into the failure, but try to use some kind of measure of the effect the failure to alert had on the result. In this case, EW should bid game after the double, so the failure to explain the range is hardly a fatal issue. West allegedly tried to discvoer the range and didn't get an answer. That has to be a more major infraction than the failure ot fully disclose the meaning of the alert. After all, the alert got him thinking enough to ask the right question, proving the initial alert while technically not adequate enough, worked as intended. The problem was the lack of follow up.

 

Ben

 

PS: as for Westplayer conduct, not acceptable. West is probably angry more at himself for not playing bridge and bidding 4♠ than at North from a failure to answer. Or maybe he thought he could pass and if 4♦ was not a good result win the board with a directors pin instead of by playing bridge. I would tend to be rather slow giving corrections for improper alerts to the non-offending side if clear bridge action was called for, but fairly quick giving procedural penalties to the offenders, if procedural penalties are even initiated.

[Gerardo]

Richard:

Constructive answer. Thanks!

 

Ben:

Maybe EW don't deserve Ave+? No need to balance there, just Ave for them (partially at fault)

 

NS should get a warning at least, besides the Ave-.

 

West should get a PP (procedural penalty) for what he said, and give a good explanation of the damage caused, or risk to face another. (when we have them)

 

In any case, West should be invited to don't play in BBO tourneys.

[inquiry]

Richard:

Constructive answer. Thanks!

 

Ben:

Maybe EW don't deserve Ave+? No need to balance there, just Ave for them (partially at fault)

 

NS should get a warning at least, besides the Ave-.

 

West should get a PP (procedural penalty) for what he said, and give a good explanation of the damage caused, or risk to face another. (when we have them)

 

In any case, West should be invited to don't play in BBO tourneys.

Well for EW....

 

If West asked only north and got no answer, I allow 4♦ down two stand. That is probably worse than average minus even. IF West asked North, then south when north not answer the range on 2NT, I take that as positive indictation he was trying to determien to bid or not. Sure he should have worked it out, but what more could he do than ask both opponents. In this case, and only in this case, I would in fact consider that evidence that if he had been told, he would have bid. Now, it seems clear to me WEST is not an experienced player, and might not have been able to draw the correct inference from his partners vul bid... so if both opponents failed to answer his inquiry (ehehehe), I would award the adjustment. After all, Inquiry should always be respected... B)

 

So the first infraction is not horrible. The second infraction, ignoring an Inquiry, is simply untolerable..... hehehehehe

 

Inquiry

[hrothgar]

Hi Ben

 

IMHO, I think that you have this one wrong:

 

East/West's poor result was subsequent to the 2NT bid, but not consequent.

As a result, I don't think that the partnership deserves an Average+.

 

Anyone who is confused by these terms might want to check the following URL:

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_lan0.htm

 

I will note in passing that their are better sites on the Internet to ask for advice regarding rulings. There are a wide number of folks (myself included) who have opinions regarding rulings, however, ultimately, getting feedback from top level tournament directors is probably more useful.

 

I'll suggest again that David Stevenson's International Appeals forum at http://blakjak.com/iacf.htm might be a better location to solicit advice.

[Gerardo]

Try this one: BridgeTalk Forums, there are discussion forums and Law forums, one for rulings, the other the one Richard mentioned.

 

If you post there, mention where the rule is to be applied (online for BBO rulings; would be Netherlands for the Muiderberg question in another thread).

[inquiry]

Haven't you notice Richard, I am never wrong? :-)

 

I fully understand the problem, and I am familiar with the letter to editor you quote. In fact, I reread that Bridge World just a few weeks ago, and quite a few others as well, since I was reviewing challenge the champ hands and ZAR point issues.

 

But ok, here is my take, I absolutely agree that EW have a responsibility to protect themselves in these situations, and not make stupid bridge decisions based upon what is logical and then try to win upon appeal if their silly action turns out bad for them. However, here, imho, WEST tried to protect himself. He inquired as to the range of the 2NT bid. IF he heard 3 to 8 hcp, for instance, do you doubt for a second he would shoot 4♠? I don't. How about if he heard 6-10? No doubt either. So, WEST took ACTIVE CONTROL of the situation and tried to inquire about the range. Now, even a modest player of limited ability, would have worked it out that this was not a big hand (I don't accept the claim that this 2NT is "standard" but of course in poland it is). But since WEST inquired and no answer came, he had to guess. And he guessed wrong what the bid shows. So, imho, WEST was indeed injuried. If he simply assumed it was strong and passed, I would not give any adjustment. In fact I am fairly harsh, if he only asked north, and upon hearing no reply assumed it was strong, I still give no adjustment. But if he asked both, and both refused (or at least didn't) anwering, then I do give adjustment.

 

Now the question is to why average plus instead of average? That is more difficult, but I think EW would easily stop in 4♠ and some will overbid, and some will defend 5♦X, so 4♠ would have rated to be above average.

 

So, was there an infaction? Yes

Was their compounding issusue? Yes, failure to explain when asked

Could EW protect themselves? Yes by asking for clarification

Did EW protect themselves? They tried, but opponents didn't reveal their method

Was their clear injury? Yes, if West asked, he was thinking bid 4♠ if 2NT weak

Within skill level, should EW avoid this disaster? Apparently not, if West couldn't work this out on his own, he is not very good bridge player.

 

All this leads to an adjustment imho.

 

If I was WEST and I passed this 4♦, I would say I brought this on myself. Let me add, that if Hgorthar was west and he passed 4♦ I rule the same. If some of our dear friends in the BIL were west and they passed with the facts as given, I would adjust. I would put this WEST player clearly in the bottom half of the BIL membership, and/or a "sharpe" who thought he could win by initial pass. If WEST makred himself Advanced or higher, I would take him at his word and also not adjust.

 

Ben

[Rado]

Hi all friends,

 

Further to Ben's post:

 

"did they try to protect themselves by asking" - yes

"they did not receive answer"

 

Now is the right moment to call TD. - not done at the table

 

Continuing play after that means the non-offenders accept the situation as normal and no damage.

CLaiming damage at the end sounds like what we call "2 way shot" = let's see whether 4♦ dbl is good result and if not we will call TD to help.

 

In my honest view there was no damage after EW continue the play without receiving answer so result should stay. Only warning or a small procedural penalty for NS in order they to understand that full disclosure is better and more pleasant way to play bridge:-)))))

 

Just for example when I play with Ppilot in tourney I always pre-alert our 1♥/♠ openings as light, and when I bid 1M I write without waiting somebody to ask: "8-15p 5+cards"

 

Regards

Rado