Adjustment question

[makiigoca]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s532hq85dj954ct43&w=s964haj73dt83cj86&e=skt8ht42dq76ckq92&s=saqj7hk96dak2ca75]399|300|Scoring: IMP

I was a player this time:) I opened 2♣ alerted and explaind it was strong, pass from W, N said 2♦ negative (0-3 pts), E pass, I (S) bid 2nt, W pass, N 3♣ without alert, E pass, S 3♠ 4 cards, W pass, N 3NT, all pass, the lead was small hearts and i made 3NT=. At the middle of the next board W called TD and complained for 3♣ bid from my p, and after a discution TD said that the explanation from my p is not good adjusted the board to AVE==, i agree that the explanation (he thought that with 3♣ bid showed me a possible fit if i had 5 cards) was not good, but i play live tournaments and i know that you can complain only at the beggining of the board (after the lead they saw the dummy and they could complained then but they waited to see if i will get set there and since i made the contract they complained that is not fair i think, so i am asking can a TD be called after the finished board? I think that the lead wouldn't be from ♣ anyway but that is not the point here, Thx all tell me am i right or wrong:)[/hv]

[hrothgar]

Assuming that the 2NT rebid showed a balanced hand, the "standard" meaning of you're partner's 3♣ rebid is normally Stayman. On occasion, the 3♣ rebid would be Baron, asking you to bid 4 card suits up the line. [Your rebid clear suggested that you understood the bid this way]

 

1. Regardless of whether 3♣ is Baron or Stayman, the bid is artificial. I find it hard to believe that the opponents were damaged by the "failure" to alert.

 

2. You are completely correct that the opponents should call the director immediately after discovering the infraction.

 

3. I have no idea where your partner dreamed up a rather unique interpretation of the 3♣ rebid. However, this seems a clear example of a misbid.

 

4. From my perspective, a claim that a player would have bid 3♣ had the bid been properly explained is highly unethical.

 

No adjustment.

 

I would LOVE to see the Director's explanation for his/her ruling...

[TimG]

As a defender, I would prefer to wait until after the hand was over to ask about the apparent irregularity. By pointing it out when dummy comes down, I am basically saying "I have clubs" unless I want to call attention to every failure to alert.

 

In this case, everyone expects 3♣ to be artificial, so I can't see any basis for an adjustment.

[skorchev]

Hi all, I was the TD who adjusted the board A== and I think that I should give you my point of this case.

 

1. Most of the players in BBO never have played tourneys in live and they don't know most of the rules.

 

2. I asked North what mean 3♣ and he explained me that it's 3+ cards and try to find fit (it mean 5 cards) in p's hand.

 

3. My viewpoint: South was a sub and they have not so full agreement and normally 3♣ is stayman, but North have not 4 cards in major, so 3♣ only might be puppet or baron, but North explained me (2.) and I decide that 3♣ is not bridge-bid and if his partner has really fit any game on ♣ surely will be worse than 3NT, and the once reason to bid 3♣ is to impede to EW to find the right lead and there is no other idea of this bid. So I adjusted A==, I could to adjust A+ for EW but I didn't, I could to adjust A- for NS, but I didn't, because there are too many points for finally result of this board.

 

4. Sorry for my BAD english! :)

[hrothgar]

Hi Skorchev

 

> 1. Most of the players in BBO never have played tourneys in live

> and they don't know most of the rules.

 

I agree with this completely, however, from my perspective, this makes it even more important that rulings follow the laws of Bridge. From my perspective, the most critical element of this controversy is that East/West does not walk away thinking that they can use minor irregularities to overturn results at the table. By rewarding this behaviour, you are simply teaching E/W to start lodging frivolous appeals hoping to get bad table results over-turned.

 

>3. My viewpoint: South was a sub and they have not so full agreement and

>normally 3♣ is stayman, but North have not 4 cards in major, so 3♣ only might

>be puppet or baron, but North explained me (2.) and I decide that 3♣ is not

>bridge-bid and if his partner has really fit any game on ♣ surely will be worse

>than 3NT, and the once reason to bid 3♣ is to impede to EW to find the right

>lead and there is no other idea of this bid.

 

As you yourself noted, the standard interpretation of 3♣ in this auction is Stayman or perhaps Baron. I don't understand how this can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to impede a club lead. Equally significant, even if North did psyche 3♣ to discourage a club lead, he is allowed to do so.

 

North sounds like a novice player. The 3♣ bid could very easily have backfired. If South was 4-4 in the majors, I'd expect him to correct 3N to 4♥. In this case, North-South got lucky and the 3♣ did not backfire. However, this doesn't justify an adjustment.

[skorchev]

> you are simply teaching E/W to start lodging frivolous appeals hoping to get bad table results over-turned.

 

I think that if I wouldn't adjust i would teach N to bid non-bridge-bids and to impair the pleasure of the game.

 

> I don't understand how this can be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to impede a club lead.

 

I didn't say "delibirate", I said solo-action by North.

 

> Equally significant, even if North did psyche 3♣ to discourage a club lead, he is allowed to do so.

 

When I asked North what mean 3♣ he didn't tell me that it's psyche! I think that the players know when they do psyche bids, and he should tell me that it's psyche when I asked him.

 

P.S. And the title of this post is "TD was called when the board was finished"!!!

 

 

 

Stefan

[hrothgar]

> you are simply teaching E/W to start lodging frivolous appeals hoping to get bad table results over-turned.

 

I think that if I wouldn't adjust i would teach N to bid non-bridge-bids and to impair the pleasure of the game.

One of the central premises of directing is that players are allowed to make mistakes. A mis-bid is not grounds for an adjustment. This is standard operating proceedure, applied almost universally world-wide.

 

There are a small number of highly specific exceptions. [The most notable is misbids that involve the "Ghestem" convention are ground for adjustment in the Netherlands]. However, these exceptions are considered fairly controversial.

 

Ultimately, your ruling boils down to the fact that you don't like the players choice of bids. Your belief that a bid "impairs the pleasure of the game" is not grounds for adjustment.

[hotShot]

Dear skorchev!

 

1. Most of the players in BBO never have played tourneys in live

and they don't know most of the rules

 

So it is very important the TD is applying them right!

 

1) EW have no right to know what cards N holds,

they only have the right to know about agreements NS made.

Since S subbed in, it is save to asume they don't have an agreement.

 

So even if N meant it as artifical bid, he did not need to alert.

 

=> no reasion to adjust.

 

 

2) The 3♣ bid was not alerted so opps have to assume it is natural.

This may not be good bridge, but we are talking Bridge Law here.

 

Bidding a 3 card minor suit as a natural bid is perfectly legal and not even close to a psyche.

Bidding 3 card minor suits is standard e.g. in 2/1 systems System and there is no need to alert the bid.

Even opening 3 card minor suits without alert is perfectly legal.

 

=> no reason to adjust

 

3) N was dummy here, so EW did see the hand after the lead.

There was plenty of time to call TD while the board was still in play.

If they believed it to be importent they had to call than.

Calling 4 adjustment after making a double dummy analysis during

the next board is not ok.

 

=> no adjustment

 

4) Please tell me how North could have know that the ♣ lead should be avoided?

From the North point of view any suit could be the weak suit.

The only way for North to know would be to know the cards S held.

If you have reason to believe that, than adjustment is the wrong way.

A report to abuse@ is the better way of action than.

But this would require some solid evidence.

 

 

5) Usually a 2♣ bid is gameforcing, so N had to bid something.

Strong NT openings can have 5 card suits.

It is usualy better if the strong hand plays the contract,

so bidding ♦ from N might not be the best idea.

So what would be a proper bid for N ?

 

I think your decision was wrong.

[mink]

Hi Stefan,

 

your adjustment looks to me as if you adjusted to what deems right to you, disregarding the requirement of the laws. I shall explain this in detail:

 

Please read Law 12, section C. C1 states that an artificial adjusted score should be assigned if no result could be obtained. Your a== was artificial, but they did get a result at the table. Even if you were right to assign an artificial adjusted score, it could not be a= for EW, because they did nothing wrong and should get a+ therefore.

 

If you think you should make an adjustment to an assigned score, you need to find an infraction of a law first by NS and that all requirements for an adjustment are there. There are basicly 2 that might apply: Unauthorized Information (UI) or failure to explain. I cannot see any sign of UI here. And as South was a sub it is highly unlikely that they had already an agreement for this situation that might not have been disclosed. For sure you will not find any law that entitles the director to adjust for the reason "is not bridge bid"!!! Please do not do that again. When you are director you are not teacher.

 

To hotshot 2): a bid of 3!C as an response to some type of 2nt opening is virtually never natural. And if it really was agreed to be natural, it should be still alerted as this is highly unusual. So the only thing you can infer from no alert with such a 3!C is that it has been forgotton or there is no agreement. If you need to know the agreement, just ask. Most likely the correct answer in this case is "no agreement". If EW did not ask, there can never be an adjustment. And if they asked an get "no agreement", adjusting could only be considered if it turns out that NS do play together often and in fact have some agreement or should have one on 3!C.

 

To the question of the original poster, if it is correct that the director was called so late: Law 9B1a states: "The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." But nobody is required to draw attention to the irregularity at once. If players were required to do that, it would cause both UI and unnecessary director calls, as many cases of failure to alert or explain do no harm to opps, so the director could not do anything else than tell the offender that he should have alerted. So I would agree that the director is not called. But if you did not call the director in such a case and later discover that you are damaged in a non-trivial way, I see no reason why not call the director then.

 

However, EW in this case for sure were not able to demonstrate how they were damaged.

 

Karl

[Gerardo]

Just like to say I think this is an example of what a thread about a contested ruling would be (at least so far :)).

 

Good job for all involved, please keep the good work!

[hotShot]

One more thing!

 

Why didn't S bid 2NT at once? 21 HCP and 4333 seems perfect for that.

 

This may show that NS had an agreement about 2NT openings, and the hand is not strong enough for a game force (even a semiforcing should have at least one trick more).

 

The declaration of the 2♣ bid as strong is not very specific. Does strong mean

16+, semiforcing or game forcing. And if this hand is not an 2NT opening, what hand would be a 2 NT opening.

 

Asking these question may raise a suspicion about an incompleat or unrevealed partnership agreement here.

 

This might have been a reason for a score adjustment.

[makiigoca]

"Why didn't S bid 2NT at once? 21 HCP and 4333 seems perfect for that."

 

I didn't open 2NT because i play 2♣ openning with 21+ pts, and i really didn't know my p, we had no agreement, i was a sub there:) I open 2NT with balanced hand and with 19-20pts:)

[skorchev]

Hum, at seems that nobody defend my viewpoint :) => my decision is wrong, so I should apologize to NS!

 

Thanks to everybody who commented this case and especially to Karl(mink), his comment was really good!

:(

-----------

 

Regards

Stefan

[mink]

I started to write the following when hotshot's post was the last one, so I did not know "makiigoca Posted on Aug 16 2004, 12:21 PM" and "skorchev Posted on Aug 16 2004, 12:23 PM"

 

Stefan Skorchev himself told us that South was a sub. I cannot believe that he and his partner had time to discuss the bidding after some sort of 2nt opening before this board. Most likely they also did not discuss the strength of a 2nt opening.

 

You are correct, Robert, that in SAYC of French standard this would be a 2nt opening. But we have no idea what South's idea of the stanard is here. I recently played 2f2 with a partner f2f who opened 2nt with 19-20 and 2!C - 2!D - 2nt with 21-22. Opps cannot asume only one specific range here when not alerted. Even if you think that NS agreed on something like this you cannot infer that they also agreed on some non-standard subsequent bidding after that.

 

Karl

[jtfanclub]

Assuming that the 2NT rebid showed a balanced hand, the "standard" meaning of you're partner's 3♣ rebid is normally Stayman.

It doesn't matter if 99% of the world population plays it as Stayman. In ACBL land, a bid of Stayman after a non-opening NT bid must be alerted. Even when it should be obvious. 3♣ should be natural and non-forcing, and that North meant it as something else and South interpreted it that way implies a concealed agreement.

 

Having said that, unless it was an SAYC tourney, I wouldn't adjust it. It seems like a warning is appropriate. Were I to adjust it, I'd adjust the score to whatever 3NT would have made on a club lead.

[Gerardo]

One minor note: We are NOT in ACBL land ;)

[hrothgar]

It doesn't matter if 99% of the world population plays it as Stayman. In ACBL land, a bid of Stayman after a non-opening NT bid must be alerted. Even when it should be obvious. 3♣ should be natural and non-forcing, and that North meant it as something else and South interpreted it that way implies a concealed agreement.

Comment the first: BBO does not equal ACBL land

 

Comment the second: Even if this were "ACBL land", you're wrong about alerting requirements. The most recent version of the ACBL's alert charts is posted at http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html The section entitled "Responses to Notrump Opening Bids and Overcalls" clearly indicates that a 3♣ Stayman response to a NT overcall is not alertable if the call asks for a 4 card major.

 

Comment the third: Real hard to argue a concealed partnership understanding when dealing with a player who was substituted into the tournament.

[TimG]

In ACBL land, a bid of Stayman after a non-opening NT bid must be alerted.

Can you provide a reference for that? The alert chart on the ACBL website:

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html

 

makes no distinction between 2♣-2♦-2N-3♣ and 2N-3♣.

[jtfanclub]

In ACBL land, a bid of Stayman after a non-opening NT bid must be alerted.

Can you provide a reference for that? The alert chart on the ACBL website:

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html

 

makes no distinction between 2♣-2♦-2N-3♣ and 2N-3♣.

Actually, yes it does. From the link:

 

Responses to Notrump Opening Bids and Overcalls

 

 

Note that it doesn't say Notrump Opening Bids, Overcalls, and rebids (or just Notrump Bids)...I have to assume that's a deliberate omission. That would mean that Stayman does have to be alerted after no-trump rebids.

 

Having said that...it's not ACBL land here, and I wouldn't adjust unless it was specifically stated to be an ACBL tourney.

[hrothgar]

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html

 

makes no distinction between 2♣-2♦-2N-3♣ and 2N-3♣.

Actually, yes it does. From the link:

 

Responses to Notrump Opening Bids and Overcalls

Please consult the following link: http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html

 

More specifically, look at the following quote:

 

NOTE: A 2NT rebid after a response to a strong 2♣ opening is deemed to be a strong notrump opening for the purposes of this regulation, as is a 1NT or 2NT rebid after a strong, artificial 1♣ opening and response.

 

I don't think that it gets much clearer than this...

[jtfanclub]

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html

 

makes no distinction between 2♣-2♦-2N-3♣ and 2N-3♣.

Actually, yes it does. From the link:

 

Responses to Notrump Opening Bids and Overcalls

Please consult the following link: http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html

 

More specifically, look at the following quote:

 

NOTE: A 2NT rebid after a response to a strong 2♣ opening is deemed to be a strong notrump opening for the purposes of this regulation, as is a 1NT or 2NT rebid after a strong, artificial 1♣ opening and response.

 

I don't think that it gets much clearer than this...

I did not see that...thank you. I stand corrected.

 

That didn't used to be there, did it?

[hrothgar]

http://www.acbl.org/play/alertChart.html

 

makes no distinction between 2♣-2♦-2N-3♣ and 2N-3♣.

Actually, yes it does. From the link:

 

Responses to Notrump Opening Bids and Overcalls

Please consult the following link: http://www.acbl.org/play/alertprocedures.html

 

More specifically, look at the following quote:

 

NOTE: A 2NT rebid after a response to a strong 2♣ opening is deemed to be a strong notrump opening for the purposes of this regulation, as is a 1NT or 2NT rebid after a strong, artificial 1♣ opening and response.

 

I don't think that it gets much clearer than this...

I did not see that...thank you. I stand corrected.

 

That didn't used to be there, did it?

Not sure when it got added

sorry

[TimG]

Note that it doesn't say Notrump Opening Bids, Overcalls, and rebids (or just Notrump Bids)...I have to assume that's a deliberate omission. That would mean that Stayman does have to be alerted after no-trump rebids.

From the second row of the alert chart, in the "category" column is: Conventional/Artificial. In the same row, in the "No Alert" column is: Stayman (next higher level of clubs). You don't really have to look any further.

[TimG]

I have to assume that's a deliberate omission.

You're talking about the ACBL. Omissions are seldom deliberate. ;)