Adjust ? and if so to what ?

[jallerton]

Forgetting system is not a crime per se, but a pair of this standard should not be alerting over 3NT, thus a disciplinary penalty would both reinforce their need to comply with the rules, and encourage them to play a system that is coomon and understood by them both.

 

Players get the alerting rules wrong all the time. If you are going to issue a procedural penalty every time someone makes that type of mistake, you'll be a very busy TD and you won't be popular with the players or with the scorers.

 

I haven't seen an alert above 3N for about 3 or 4 years, I've seen obvious "near alerts" and done them.

 

I've seen plenty of faulty alerts over 3NT over the last or 4 years, just as I have seen plenty of announced transfer responses to 2NT openings and 1NT overcalls. Now that the alerting rules are slightly more complicated than they were five years ago, I'm afraid we have to accept that people will sometimes get confused.

 

Of course, your "near alerts" have exactly the same practical effect has real alerts.

[Cyberyeti]

Of course, your "near alerts" have exactly the same practical effect has real alerts.

Not necessarily, reaching towards the bidding box and then taking your hand away could simply be a change of mind about a bid, particularly if not immediate, that's one of the reasons I leave my alert card in the bidding box, the people who take their stop and alert cards out and put them by the side make it much more obvious.

[campboy]

FWIW I saw an incorrect alert above 3NT last night (2NT - 3♥ transfer - 4♦ cue superaccepting spades).

 

Anyway, the case looks simple enough that I am surprised there is so much discussion. The North hand makes it clear that when he bid 4♥ he was expecting partner to pass with his likely weak two in spades. So without UI he would expect the 4♠ bid to show a strong two, but has UI indicating that partner thought it showed a weak two.

[bluejak]

I am amazed at some of the posts. Certainly playing the Multi to include all 8 playing trick hands is unwieldy, but so what? People do, and we are not here to teach them bridge. Certainly assuming - as some people seem to - that they are not playing what they say they are playing is completely unjustified without evidence.

 

Is there UI? Certainly: North bid 4♥ intending it to play and partner's alert tells him it is not being taken as to play. Pass/correct is by far the most likely alternative. Thus the UI tells North that partner pretty certainly has a weak two in spades rather than the eight playing tricks in spades that 4♠ would show over a "to play" 4♥. What does it suggest? Clearly passing rather than progressing. thus we disallow the pass. Frankly this is a "baby" ruling that I would expect any TD to find without any difficulty.

 

What do we adjust to? That's more difficult, and of course a weighted score. Since West is presumably doubling 5♠ most auctions will probably end in 5♠ doubled.

 

This seems so simple to me that perhaps someone can explain to me what I have missed.

[aguahombre]

I am amazed at some of the posts. Certainly playing the Multi to include all 8 playing trick hands is unwieldy, but so what? People do, and we are not here to teach them bridge. Certainly assuming - as some people seem to - that they are not playing what they say they are playing is completely unjustified without evidence.

 

Is there UI? Certainly: North bid 4♥ intending it to play and partner's alert tells him it is not being taken as to play. Pass/correct is by far the most likely alternative. Thus the UI tells North that partner pretty certainly has a weak two in spades rather than the eight playing tricks in spades that 4♠ would show over a "to play" 4♥. What does it suggest? Clearly passing rather than progressing. thus we disallow the pass. Frankly this is a "baby" ruling that I would expect any TD to find without any difficulty.

 

What do we adjust to? That's more difficult, and of course a weighted score. Since West is presumably doubling 5♠ most auctions will probably end in 5♠ doubled.

 

This seems so simple to me that perhaps someone can explain to me what I have missed.

 

I don't think you have missed anything. You have, however, failed to correct something, I think. I Have read the ACBL alert regulations over and over; and the thing about "above 3NT" applies to opener's first rebid and beyond, not responder's initial action. Maybe there is something new I am missing, or UK alert rules are different.

 

This, of course does not change your accurate assessment of the given situation.

[RMB1]

Maybe there is something new I am missing, or UK alert rules are different.

 

Er. Yes. Different regulatory authorities have different alerting regulations.

 

Different in England (and Wales) from ACBL, different in Scotland (UK) from England, etc.

 

Is 4♥ "natual, not Pass-or-correct, to play opposite any weak two" alertable in ACBL?

[aguahombre]

Er. Yes. Different regulatory authorities have different alerting regulations.

 

Different in England (and Wales) from ACBL, different in Scotland (UK) from England, etc.

 

Is 4♥ "natual, not Pass-or-correct, to play opposite any weak two" alertable in ACBL?

 

"Conventional" calls, which is what opener took 4H to be --even though it was not intended as such.

 

Anyway, I found it in your Tangerine book. ACBL should use that simple approach..opening bid only.

[Cyberyeti]

I suppose I should now give the punch line.

 

The ruling on the night was in effect "You gained 6 IMPs on the board, be happy with that" (5♣-1 at other table).

 

Normal for Norfolk ...

 

Unsurprisingly we've appealed.

[Cyberyeti]

It gets worse. We notified the TD within 5 seconds of his ruling on the Friday night that we were appealing, he said he wanted it in writing from the captain (by email). The captain has no home email and works Tues-Fri, Tues unsurprisingly is busy so he sent it in on Weds from work and the same director who made the ruling ruled it out of time :(

 

The whole team is considering pulling out of the league now, and severing all ties with this particular club as we'd rather play using the rules of bridge rather than be in the wild west. Unfortunately the EBU with pay to play has rendered the bridge club I used to play at unable to be part of the EBU, so not sure what to do now, possibly join direct.

[WellSpyder]

Unfortunately the EBU with pay to play has rendered the bridge club I used to play at unable to be part of the EBU, so not sure what to do now, possibly join direct.

I was told that provided you have joined the EBU through an affiliated club, you will remain a member even if you leave the club. So provided you play in enough pay-to-play events (including EBU congresses, etc) to qualify for normal membership benefits, you should not need to find another club just for the purposes of joining the EBU.

[bluejak]

Appeal to the National Authority? The National Authority for England is vested in the EBU L&EC, and has jurisdiction for this purpose only over all duplicate in England, so I understand, including duplicate not played within the auspices of the EBU.

 

Mind you, I am not in a position to advise you so to do. It is merely an idea.

[lamford]

It gets worse. We notified the TD within 5 seconds of his ruling on the Friday night that we were appealing, he said he wanted it in writing from the captain (by email). The captain has no home email and works Tues-Fri, Tues unsurprisingly is busy so he sent it in on Weds from work and the same director who made the ruling ruled it out of time :(

 

The whole team is considering pulling out of the league now, and severing all ties with this particular club as we'd rather play using the rules of bridge rather than be in the wild west. Unfortunately the EBU with pay to play has rendered the bridge club I used to play at unable to be part of the EBU, so not sure what to do now, possibly join direct.

While I agree entirely that the original ruling was wrong, and it does seem a simple decision to correct to either 6Sx-6, on a normal KD lead, or some weighting of 5Sx-5 and 6Sx-6, I do not mind which, I think that your failure to appeal on time was a major factor. 179 Internet cafes are listed in Norfolk, and why could one of the other players not have sent the email on behalf of the captain? And what was the matter with the post?

[Cyberyeti]

While I agree entirely that the original ruling was wrong, and it does seem a simple decision to correct to either 6Sx-6, on a normal KD lead, or some weighting of 5Sx-5 and 6Sx-6, I do not mind which, I think that your failure to appeal on time was a major factor. 179 Internet cafes are listed in Norfolk, and why could one of the other players not have sent the email on behalf of the captain? And what was the matter with the post?

So it would have been posted on Sunday by the time we'd got our stuff together, and probably arrived Tuesday, is one day that important ? The captain normally has email, but his computer blew up, so the rest of the team were unaware of this issue. We did notify him clearly on the night that we were appealing and were given no indication of how long we had to do so.

[lamford]

So it would have been posted on Sunday by the time we'd got our stuff together, and probably arrived Tuesday, is one day that important ? The captain normally has email, but his computer blew up, so the rest of the team were unaware of this issue. We did notify him clearly on the night that we were appealing and were given no indication of how long we had to do so.

I would agree that he should have stated what the deadline for receipt of the written appeal was - presumably he did need it in writing to forward it for other opinions. Are there rules of the event that specify how appeals are to be made?

[gordontd]

I would agree that he should have stated what the deadline for receipt of the written appeal was - presumably he did need it in writing to forward it for other opinions. Are there rules of the event that specify how appeals are to be made?

Usually it's the director who fills out the appeal form, and a verbal request for an appeal (with the appropriate deposit) is normally enough to instigate an appeal. Like you I wonder if there were conditions of contest that cover this.

[Cyberyeti]

I'll have a look, but this is Norfolk, and the event is the county league, but it is run by one of the clubs (and by their rules), I doubt they're that organised.

 

For example, a previous run in was where nobody ever published the licensing regs, and some people assumed the top division was level 4 while others assumed level 3.

[pran]

Usually it's the director who fills out the appeal form, and a verbal request for an appeal (with the appropriate deposit) is normally enough to instigate an appeal. Like you I wonder if there were conditions of contest that cover this.

FWIW: The standard procedure that I know leading up to an appeal is:

1: The Director makes a ruling at the table (A ruling must have been made before it can be appealed)

2: One involved side states a request for an appeal of this ruling

3: The Director fills in an appeal form with the facts leading up to his ruling and the ruling he made. (He may also fill in further considerations at his own discretion.)

4: The appeal form is handed to the appealing side with an invitation for their comments (including their reason for the appeal)

5: The appeal form is then handed to the other side with an invitation for their comments.

6: Finally the appeal is considered and ruled upon (by the AC).

 

So I cannot see that the Director has done his job in the OP case.

[RMB1]

It gets worse. We notified the TD within 5 seconds of his ruling on the Friday night that we were appealing, he said he wanted it in writing from the captain (by email). The captain has no home email and works Tues-Fri, Tues unsurprisingly is busy so he sent it in on Weds from work and the same director who made the ruling ruled it out of time :(

 

Did your team manage to take this any further?

 

As I was the only one who was not surprised by the original ruling, you clearly were likely to succeed in an appeal, if you could be were heard.

[Cyberyeti]

Did your team manage to take this any further?

 

As I was the only one who was not surprised by the original ruling, you clearly were likely to succeed in an appeal, if you could be were heard.

We've appealed against the ruling out of time, and if we succeed in that, the other appeal will be heard. I spoke to the EBU, and they suggested that if we were unambiguous that we wanted to appeal at the time and I feel we were, then it should be in time.

 

One related point. The club says it uses white book procedures. These seem to fall flat in the club situation (they're designed for EBU congresses with a rider for matches played privately), the concept of the playing director where he can't look at it till after his last board causes issues with what's set down there. By the time he wanted to think about setting up an appeals committee, the obvious candidates had all left.

 

I've said to the club that having some procedures for dealing with this would be good. Maybe a paragraph in the white book would also be good.

[bluejak]

I do not understand what procedures in the White book you are suggesting could or should be modified for clubs. True, judgement rulings are more difficult for a playing TD. But what else can he do but deal with it as soon as he can?

[Cyberyeti]

I do not understand what procedures in the White book you are suggesting could or should be modified for clubs. True, judgement rulings are more difficult for a playing TD. But what else can he do but deal with it as soon as he can?

Some idea of how "in time" should work and how to handle appeals that can't be done on the day.

[bluejak]

There is a fair amount on point even if not written specifically for clubs.

 

A club may wish the correction period to last until the commencement of the next weekly duplicate.

 

A request for a ruling or for an appeal against a ruling must be made within the

Correction Period as specified under Law 92B.

 

Two appeals had arisen where it had been very difficult to conduct the appeal. In one

case the appeal arose right at the end of the tournament where one pair had left

unaware of the appeal. The second one arose after the evening session of a congress

where qualification for a final the next day was involved. One pair had left and the TD

had to rely on suitable committee members arriving early enough the next day to hold

the appeal and hoping the other pair would also arrive in time to participate, having no

way to contact them.

 

Requests for appeals received within the time limits have to be entertained. In

particular pairs involved in a ruling should check to see whether the time limit for

lodging an appeal had expired before leaving. TDs need to let players know about the

deadlines for appealing.

 

Where the TD could not find a suitable Appeals Committee of three people then a

committee of one, a telephone Referee or even the DIC could hear the appeal.

Where it was necessary to conduct an appeal where one pair did not even know it was

happening, it was always an option of the Appeals Committee to halt the proceedings if

the absence of one side might prejudice the procedure.

 

If it is not possible to convene an Appeals Committee at a single time and place (for

example in the case of a match played privately), then a 'balanced' Appeals Committee

should still be appointed, and its members should liaise, eg by telephone or email, in

order to reach a verdict.

[Cyberyeti]

Well the appeals committee finally met, and decided to sort of rule in our favour, but award a split score which kept a large part of the original result and thus made almost no difference (1 IMP, no VPs). Our captain has decided not to take it further, so we have to accept this farce unfortunately :(

[jallerton]

Oh dear, this sounds like an illegal "Reveley" ruling to me.

 

If it is judged that pass of 4♠ is not demonstrably suggested by the UI and/or that there is no logical alternative to passing then (100% of) the table result should be retained.

 

If it is judged that pass of 4♠ is demonstrably suggested by the UI and that there are logical alternative(s) to passing then the pass is illegal and no percentage of the table auction should be allowed. In this case, it would not be possible to arrive at a contract of 4♠ by any other route, so 0% of that contract should be included in the weighting.