Lack of Alert that Shouldn't Cause Damage

[billw55]

And to answer the right question:

 

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.

... and when three green cards are laying on the table in plain view! No adjustment for NOS.

 

As for the OS, I am not a director so I don't know the ins and outs of the laws and regulations. Did the regs in use explicitly require an alert of 1NT?

[bluejak]

As for the OS, I am not a director so I don't know the ins and outs of the laws and regulations.  Did the regs in use explicitly require an alert of 1NT?

Perhaps. The OP said "UK" which everyone has assumed meant England. 1NT for the minors is definitely alertable in England and Wales. I am less sure about Scotland and Northern Ireland, though I think it is alertable there.

 

:ph34r:

 

We have a list of abbreviations, which is deliberately not as long as some forums [fora?] because we wanted to encourage people who are not generally involved in Laws=type discussions. It is always accepted to use other abbreviations, but please define them the first time they are used. I was thinking of NOS, OS and PH. Abbreviations in common use generally are also acceptable with no definition, such as EBU, ACBL and [perhaps] NS. I also wonder about L12C1b, which is obvious to experienced posters, but .... B)

[Vampyr]

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.

... and when three green cards are lying on the table in plain view! No adjustment for NOS.

This is a tricky point, because even if carelessness as to the beginning of the auction qualifies as a serious error (which is probably a matter that should be decided by the WBLFC, who have set the bar pretty high), the criterion is "a serious error unrelated to the infraction". How can so many people think that this error is unrelated to the infraction?

 

Anyway, I am just waiting for someone to suggest penalising the NOS under L74B1...

[bluejak]

I do not think that we want the WBFLC deciding matters of judgement. Far better to leave that to the people who actually make such decisions, to polls and players' views.

[dburn]

I do not think that we want the WBFLC deciding matters of judgement.  Far better to leave that to the people who actually make such decisions, to polls and players' views.

If the question were "is it a serious error not to have spotted that partner is a passed hand?" I would far rather have a definitive answer (however arbitrary) than to have a situation in which one Committee might say yes, while another might say no. What would be the point of conducting a poll, or listening to players' views, in such a case?

[karen4]

It is hard to tell, since no hands are given. But, if NS are cold for 4♥, then it seems possible that north also has made a significant error by his final pass (he knows EW are both passed hands). How many errors are north-south allowed, before they are considered responsible for their own result?

I'm afraid I can't remember the exact hand, this was just a discussion in the pub after, but but South was very strong, North did not have another action opposite a non-forcing pass. There was only 1 error.

[karen4]

.. which to me suggests an experienced pair.  To be honest I'm shocked they had the nerve to complain.

 

They didn't. This discussion took place out of academic interest in the pub afterwards.

[bluejak]

I do not think that we want the WBFLC deciding matters of judgement.  Far better to leave that to the people who actually make such decisions, to polls and players' views.

If the question were "is it a serious error not to have spotted that partner is a passed hand?" I would far rather have a definitive answer (however arbitrary) than to have a situation in which one Committee might say yes, while another might say no. What would be the point of conducting a poll, or listening to players' views, in such a case?

What constitutes a "serious error" is a bridge judgement decision. Therefore, asking players for their judgement provides an answer.

[dburn]

What constitutes a "serious error" is a bridge judgement decision. Therefore, asking players for their judgement provides an answer.

Ye Gods and little fishes - what "answer"?

 

Do you mean to say that: in some case A, a player's failure to notice partner's original pass is a "serious error"; while in some case B, it is not?

 

If you do mean to say that, perhaps you could provide an example that might enable students of the Law to distinguish among cases A and B.

 

If you do not mean to say that, what do you mean to say?

[bluejak]

I thought it was quite obvious what I meant to say.

 

Whether in the current case failure to notice that he had passed is a serious error is a bridge judgement decision: therefore it is reasonable to find out what players' bridge judgement on the matter is.

 

Do I mean that it is different in a different situation and a different case, and did my failure to say anything about a different case mean I meant something about a different case? No, I did not refer to a different case nor did I mean anything about a different case.

[dburn]

I thought it was quite obvious what I meant to say.

 

Whether in the current case failure to notice that he had passed is a serious error is a bridge judgement decision: therefore it is reasonable to find out what players' bridge judgement on the matter is.

I am still baffled. What aspect of "bridge judgement" do you believe is exercised in determining whether or not a player has passed at some stage during the auction?