Lack of Alert that Shouldn't Cause Damage

[karen4]

I was given this problem after a club game.

 

The auction was, starting with West:

 

P-P-P-1S

1NT(1)-X-2C-P(2)

P-P

 

(1) Meant as and taken as the minors, but not alerted

(2) Would be forcing if the 1NT had been strong and balanced

 

South did not register that West was a passed hand and therefore without an alert took the 1NT to be natural. If this had been the case his subsequent pass would have been forcing. N/S can make 4♥ which is trivial to bid.

 

How do you rule? On the one hand he should know that West is a passed hand and so have the inference that 1NT is not natural. On the other hand, he is entitled to an alert, and the alert would have woken him up.

[blackshoe]

Failure to alert was MI. If there was damage caused by MI, the NOS are entitled to a score adjustment.

[barmar]

What's the jurisdiction? In ACBL-land I think it's standard that 1NT by a passed hand is Unusual. I'm not sure what the alert chart says about it, but I can't imagine anyone claiming damage from a lack of alert. A passed hand simply CAN'T be strong and balanced (unless he psyched his original pass).

[blackshoe]

EBU, not ACBL. See the "description" on the original post.

[mrdct]

Failure to alert was MI. If there was damage caused by MI, the NOS are entitled to a score adjustment.

We seem to have a chicken and egg situation here.

 

The non-alerted 1NT bid is presumed to be "strong balanced" but can't be due to being a passed hand. 1NT by a passed hand is always going to have some unusual meaning so there is surely some duty on the 1♠-bidder to ask.

 

I think the damage was self-inflicted by NS failing to pay attention to who was dealer.

[blackshoe]

Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1{B} below.

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

 

I think the damage was self-inflicted by NS failing to pay attention to who was dealer.

 

So this is a serious error? Or are you saying the damage wasn't caused by the MI? How will you rule? (Please note the last sentence of 12C1b).

[dan_ehh]

I think failing to notice that the 1NT bidder was already a passed hand is a serious error.

 

And forgive me for the deviation, but I am very curious: what would be a "natural" not alertable meaning of a 1NT overcall by a passed hand?

[Free]

Agree with mrdct, you need to protect yourself when someone overcalls 1NT with a passed hand. NS clearly failed to do that.

 

Not sure about the exact laws, but I think a split score is the right adjustment.

[mrdct]

I think the damage was self-inflicted by NS failing to pay attention to who was dealer.

 

So this is a serious error? Or are you saying the damage wasn't caused by the MI? How will you rule? (Please note the last sentence of 12C1b).

Of course it's a serious error to not know who the dealer is when it's printed on the board right in front of you.

 

I also think it's very much a stretch to claim MI from a non-alerted 1NT overcall by a passed-hand which can't reasonably have any natural meaning. In order for there to be MI, the non-alert must have some sort of meaning ascribable to it which, clearly, in this case there is not.

 

It's a little bit like if a cue raise doesn't get alerted in a jurisdiction where such bids are alertable. An opponent can't get away with treating it as natural and then claim damage when they later discover that it was a cue raise and didn't compete because they thought there would be a bad trump break.

 

I rule table result stands.

[helene_t]

Agree with mrdct.

[WellSpyder]

I think the damage was self-inflicted by NS failing to pay attention to who was dealer.

I also think it's very much a stretch to claim MI from a non-alerted 1NT overcall by a passed-hand which can't reasonably have any natural meaning. In order for there to be MI' date=' the non-alert must have some sort of meaning ascribable to it which, clearly, in this case there is not. [/quote']

I don't understand at all the argument that a 1NT overcall by a passed hand can't have a natural meaning. Sure, it won't show 15-17 balanced, but why not, say, 10-11 balanced?

[nige1]

You may judge it ridiculous to agree a no-trump overcall by a passed-hand as natural but some partnerships do have that agreement and such an agrement is quite legal. Many conventions seem ridiculous to others. It's a matter of opinion. Perhaps the victim might have "protected himself" but the only serious mistake here is the failure to alert an alertable call.

[Blue Uriah]

What were the hands? I'm curious how 4♥ can be "trivial to bid" with the right information yet neither player could bid even 2♥.

 

To WellSpyder: it's not usually good bridge to wander in on crap balanced hands when you know partner has, at most, an equally crap balanced hand and could have substantially less.

[helene_t]

What were the hands? I'm curious how 4♥ can be "trivial to bid" with the right information yet neither player could bid even 2♥.

Yes but apparently they had a misunderstanding about whether they were in an FP situation or not.

 

Not sure if I would buy into that. Why would pass be forcing after a natural 10-11 1NT overcall but not after some artificial 1NT overcall? The opposite makes more sense.

 

Besides, they could have protected themselves by asking. If the story about the FP misunderstanding is true (which I suppose we must assume since the OP stated it as a fact) then it is a consequence of the fact that they interpreted the 1NT bid differently. What the 1NT bid actually meant is immaterial AFAICS.

 

Maybe North looked at their CC, saw 1NT was artificial and therefore decided that S's pass was nonforcing. While S didn't look at their CC and assumed pass was forcing due to E's failure to alert. I think this is far-fetched. Maybe there is a case for a split score but I don't see how NS can be entitled to an adjustment.

[karen4]

North assumed the 1NT overcall was not natural as he realised West was a passed hand. South assumed it was natural as it was not alerted and he didn't notice West was a passed hand. I can't remember the actual hand but South had a 5-5-2-1 5-loser hand and N/S had the agreement that pass was forcing if the 1NT was natural, and that a forcing pass then pulling the double showed a good hand with shape, whereas an immediate bid over 2C showed a weak hand with shape. It was actually on their card so whether you think it is a sensible was of playing, I'm sure that it is actually what they do.

 

The comment about protecting themselves by asking is a little unfair in my view. If I open 1 of suit and get an unalerted 1NT overcall by a non-passed hand, which is the situation South thought he was in, I would never ask. I would assume strong and balanced and I have yet to be damaged by not asking.

 

I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

[campboy]

Strangely, I might well go wrong the other way round here. In most partnerships* I play pass as forcing after we double an unusual 1NT or 2NT, but non-forcing after we double a natural 1NT and they run -- so if North thought it was natural and South thought unusual we might have the same auction.

 

*with some people I play pass as forcing in either case.

[mrdct]

You may judge it ridiculous to agree a no-trump overcall by a passed-hand as natural, but some partnerships do have that agreement ...

Can you give me any examples of partnerships that play a 1NT overcall by a passed hand as 10-11 balanced? I've played a fair bit of bridge in my life in everything from a senior citizens daytime duplicate to a world championship and I've never come across it.

[barmar]

I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

I think it is. The damage was caused at least as much by his own inattention as by the lack of alert.

[barmar]

You may judge it ridiculous to agree a no-trump overcall by a passed-hand as natural, but some partnerships do have that agreement and such an agrement is quite legal. Many conventions seem ridiculous to others. It's just a matter of opinion. Perhaps the victim might have "protected himself" but the only serious mistake here is the failure to alert an alertable call.

While it could be natural in the sense that it shows a balanced hand, it can't be "strong and balanced", which is what most people consider a natural NT overcall to be. Unless he's psyched or they're playing a forcing pass system (which is prohibited in most events), he can't be strong.

[blackshoe]

I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

I think it is. The damage was caused at least as much by his own inattention as by the lack of alert.

Even if the NOS get to keep their bad result, the OS probably still ought to get a score adjustment.

[aguahombre]

Interesting. The same common sense is present in the EBU (from the posters' comments), but the laws applicable to common sense situations are so very different from the ACBL.

 

The Alert Chart is very clear in two different places in the ACBL:

---not alerted: conventional notrump overcalls by a passed hand

---alerted: any 1NT overcall with a lower limit of less than......etc.

 

But, of course, lots of things are different over there; like cuebids which are not an offer to play in the cuebid, and jump out at you as something you might want to ask about. This is not a suggestion for any change in anyone's laws. I wouldn't want the post to be bumped.

 

It is merely an observation --and a restatement for the casual reader that the answers by Blackshoe are for EBU only, in case you assumed differently because he is an ACBL director.

[gordontd]

I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

I think it is. The damage was caused at least as much by his own inattention as by the lack of alert.

L12C1b says:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)

Is the part in brackets satisfied? Had there been no infraction, the failure to notice the first pass would have had no effect.

[jeremy69]

Can you give me any examples of partnerships that play a 1NT overcall by a passed hand as 10-11 balanced? I've played a fair bit of bridge in my life in everything from a senior citizens daytime duplicate to a world championship and I've never come across it.

 

 

Yes. I have played in a match against a pair who did this (reasonable club pair). Mind you it went for 1100!

[helene_t]

I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

I think it is. The damage was caused at least as much by his own inattention as by the lack of alert.

L12C1b says:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction)

Is the part in brackets satisfied? Had there been no infraction, the failure to notice the first pass would have had no effect.

Good point.

 

But I don't think this is a case of consequential damage at all. A 1NT overcall was not alerted. N and S made (if we take their words that they play FP only if 1NT is natural) different assumptions about what such an un-alerted 1NT bid means.

 

As it happens, the failure to alert the 1NT bid was (if we don't buy into the argument that 1NT by a passed hand is self-alerting) an infraction. But that is not what caused the damage. NS would have had the same misunderstanding if E had expected W to hold a balanced 11-count.

[blackshoe]

It is merely an observation --and a restatement for the casual reader that the answers by Blackshoe are for EBU only, in case you assumed differently because he is an ACBL director.

It's an EBU case. I said so, in my second post in the thread. So EBU regulations apply. If it were an ACBL case, ACBL regulations would apply. If it were a matter of the Laws, not regulations, then in most cases it wouldn't matter which jurisdiction applied, as the laws are (mostly) the same for both.