Failing to alert non-forcing 2H

[jvage]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj73hk6432dj532cq&w=s54hat87d64cat754&n=sk96hqj95dakt98cj&e=saqt82hdq7ck98632&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1d1s2hp3hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This is a case I found interesting from the Norwegian third (of four) division. Players are good, but not top-class. N/S play High-Low doubles, 2♥ was non-forcing. According to Norwegian alert regulations 2♥ was clearly alertable, but North failed to alert. I was not present and I don't know when the opponents were correctly informed and the TD was called (I don't know if East got the option of changing his final pass, but E/W never claimed that he would bid anyway). Play continued, 3♥ went down 1 and the TD was called back. E/W claims that correctly informed West would bid 2♠ after which E/W would reach a making 4♠/5♣ or get at least 500 from 5♥X.

 

How would you rule? There is a follow-up, but these are the facts presented to the TD.

[gnasher]

I'd ask EW for evidence that the West hand is worth a raise to 2♠ in their style. If they couldn't provide any such evidence, I'd leave the score unchanged.

 

I'd be more interested in a claim that East would have had another go over 3♥ - if 3♥ is to play, it seems reasonable for East to bid 4♣. Since they seem not to have thought of this yet, I assume that East wouldn't have thought of it at the table either.

[bluejak]

So West, with clear good defence to 2♥, and inadequate offence [only two small spades] would have bid if it had been alerted?

 

No doubt I could be convinced otherwise, but at first sight this looks like an argument constructed to take advantage of two facts: the failure to alert, and the knowledge of all four hands. It is an unconvincing argument.

[ggwhiz]

In my methods, I could double 2♥ to show ♣ with a ♠ tolerance if properly alerted, a much more convincing argument?

 

I'm not buying the 2♠ bid but kudo's to the appelants for presenting the only legit argument in their favour given their agreements. That's a guess on my part since I don't know what double would mean for them or what they could prove or get away with in that regard.

[AlexJonson]

If North knew that 2H was alertable as weak, then his 3H preempt was (IMO) unacceptable.

 

So,

 

1. If North forgot or didn't know that 2H had to be alerted, there seems insufficient evidence so far that EW would have bid on.

 

2. If North bid 3H knowing he should have alerted, then I would give EW some portion of 4C/5C.

[lamford]

I'd ask EW for evidence that the West hand is worth a raise to 2♠ in their style. If they couldn't provide any such evidence, I'd leave the score unchanged.

 

I'd be more interested in a claim that East would have had another go over 3♥ - if 3♥ is to play, it seems reasonable for East to bid 4♣. Since they seem not to have thought of this yet, I assume that East wouldn't have thought of it at the table either.

I think East-West should have said that West would make a snapdragon double, showing five clubs and a doubleton spade, except he thought 2H was forcing - then he would have had a case.

 

But I don't think the fact that East did not think about what he would have done in a different scenario to the one he faced should deny him redress. The correct approach is to poll ten similar players and find what action they would take with the correct information. If 2H had been alerted as non-forcing, it is much more likely that he would have bid. Would you not?

[AlexJonson]

I think East-West should have said that West would make a snapdragon double, showing five clubs and a doubleton spade, except he thought 2H was forcing - then he would have had a case.

 

But I don't think the fact that East did not think about what he would have done in a different scenario to the one he faced should deny him redress. The correct approach is to poll ten similar players and find what action they would take with the correct information. If 2H had been alerted as non-forcing, it is much more likely that he would have bid. Would you not?

 

I strongly agree that once NS (as it is here) have messed up the auction by their failure to alert,

all balance of doubt transfers to the other side.

 

There still has to be a legal basis for adjustment. Lamford's appears to be a fantasy masquerading as a post.

 

I personally might prefer that the guilty side are automatically punished, but does the Law say that is what happens? I think not.

 

Hence my attempt to cancel the 3H bid, so it's then obvious(?) for EW to continue bidding.

[Vampyr]

I strongly agree that once NS (as it is here) have messed up the auction by their failure to alert,

all balance of doubt transfers to the other side.

 

There still has to be a legal basis for adjustment.

 

I think that it is very difficult to know what you would have done at the time, given correct information. E/W should not be denied redress if there was a successful action that they didn't think of afterwards, ie in a different context. I agree that a poll would be appropriate.

[jallerton]

But I don't think the fact that East did not think about what he would have done in a different scenario to the one he faced should deny him redress. The correct approach is to poll ten similar players and find what action they would take with the correct information. If 2H had been alerted as non-forcing, it is much more likely that he would have bid. Would you not?

 

The correct approach is to assess whether or not East/West have been damaged by the misinformation. If the TD judges that this particular West and this particular East would have made the same calls had they been given the correct explanation, then they have not been damaged. It is then quite irreleveant if (say) 50% of "similar players" would have acted differently.

[AlexJonson]

I think that it is very difficult to know what you would have done at the time, given correct information. E/W should not be denied redress if there was a successful action that they didn't think of afterwards, ie in a different context. I agree that a poll would be appropriate.

 

I agree with your sentiments. I wish that your conclusions were true.

 

But in reality, for the most part, the TD will ask why he has been called.

 

The reasons given for calling the TD in this case are not compelling,

and the evidence of the early posts is that the TD may not search assiduously for damage the plaintiffs failed to mention - and nor perhaps should he.

[lamford]

If the TD judges that this particular West and this particular East would have made the same calls had they been given the correct explanation, then they have not been damaged.

But it is in their interests to say that they would have done, even though they might not think of it at the time. So we have to find some way of judging whether they would or would not have bid differently.

[jvage]

Thanks for the replies.

 

I don't know the details of the N/S system, but I think 2♥ may be up to invitational strength and that 3♥ was not preemptive (shows a hand similar to a 4♥ bid over a normal 9/10+ 2♥).

 

As most posters I was first quite sceptical to E/W's claim that West would bid 2♠ correctly informed, personally I would definitely have passed. I asked some players, the best player (international level) was very clear that pass was best. However, of the players of similar ability to the ones involved, a majority wanted to bid with a correct explanation. As has been mentioned by some posters, a snap-dragon double was generally preferred instead of 2♠. The majority also said they would be more inclined to pass without an alert.

 

The TD, who knows the style of the players involved better than me, decided to adjust. He actually adjusted to 100% of 5♥X -3 (E/W +500) for both sides. Feel free to comment.

 

N/S appealed. Apart from doubting that West would bid after an alert they presented an interesting argument. N/S had a CC available where it was clearly stated on the front that they played High-Low doubles. They sited the Norwegian alerting rules, where it says that players are expected to check the front page of their opponents CC and that TD's should be careful about giving compensation based on missing alerts of bids described on the front of the CC (this applies to team-matches). What do you think of this regulation and how should it affect the ruling (assuming you would otherwise adjust)?

[blackshoe]

I don't have a problem with the regulation, but I would point out that "should be careful" does not mean "don't do it".

 

I suppose it comes down to whether failing to check the CC is a serious error. It's certainly an error, but I don't think it's "serious" in the meaning of the law. IAC, even if it were, the score should still be adjusted (assuming the criteria for adjustment are met) for the OS, at least. In this case, the criteria are certainly met — failure to alert when an alert is required is MI, whatever else may be true, and if the OS gained an advantage the score should be adjusted. One thing is unclear though - is it the case that the NOS did not check the CC, as the OS implied in their appeal?

[jvage]

One thing is unclear though - is it the case that the NOS did not check the CC, as the OS implied in their appeal?

 

This was a written appeal, but E/W did not comment on this. My guess would be that West briefly checked, but either failed to register or forgot this point. It is possible they never checked the CC or even that they did not know what "High-Low-doubles" meant and its relevance to the actual situation. Maybe the reason is relevant when the TD/AC consider whether the suggestion in the above regulation should be followed?

[dburn]

What are High-Low doubles?

[blackshoe]

Certainly it's relevant, for if NS did examine the CC, then they have complied with the regulation, even if they later forgot what the CC said. In that case, I don't see grounds for denying redress.

[lamford]

I asked some players, the best player (international level) was very clear that pass was best. However, of the players of similar ability to the ones involved, a majority wanted to bid with a correct explanation. As has been mentioned by some posters, a snap-dragon double was generally preferred instead of 2♠. The majority also said they would be more inclined to pass without an alert.

 

The TD, who knows the style of the players involved better than me, decided to adjust. He actually adjusted to 100% of 5♥X -3 (E/W +500) for both sides. Feel free to comment.

I am pleased that you conducted what jallerton thought was a quite irreleveant (sic) poll, but a little surprised that the international level players wanted to pass the West hand, while the third-division Norwegian players wanted to make a snapdragon double! Especially so as AlexJonson thought that the post advocating it was a fantasy masquerading as a post. This from someone whose post about whether to sign off in 4S on some three count on one occasion seemed like a fantastist masquerading as a poster.

 

I think the adjustment to 5Hx - 3 should be weighted according to the TD's judgement of how often either West or East would bid. 100% does not seem right; one must also consider the percentage that would bid on the East hand with correct information after their partner's pass.

[lamford]

What are High-Low doubles?

In Brinig's case those high in whisky and low in water.

[AlexJonson]

I am pleased that you conducted what jallerton thought was a quite irreleveant (sic) poll, but a little surprised that the international level players wanted to pass the West hand, while the third-division Norwegian players wanted to make a snapdragon double! Especially so as AlexJonson thought that the post advocating it was a fantasy masquerading as a post. This from someone whose post about whether to sign off in 4S on some three count on one occasion seemed like a fantastist masquerading as a poster.

 

I think the adjustment to 5Hx - 3 should be weighted according to the TD's judgement of how often either West or East would bid. 100% does not seem right; one must also consider the percentage that would bid on the East hand with correct information after their partner's pass.

 

You seemed to be advocating that EW invent an agreement they did not have. If West had a bid that showed 5C and 2S, I suspect he might have used it with two aces, and I strongly suspect he might have mentioned it in the later debate.

 

The TD made his decision - and if I had been in NS I'd have accepted it with good grace, but I'm stil not convinced about the EW story, and the poll seems slightly suspect, since it seemed to encounter people who either played a convention EW didn't, or wished they played it.

[nige1]

As most posters I was first quite sceptical to E/W's claim that West would bid 2♠ correctly informed, personally I would definitely have passed. I asked some players, the best player (international level) was very clear that pass was best. However, of the players of similar ability to the ones involved, a majority wanted to bid with a correct explanation. As has been mentioned by some posters, a snap-dragon double was generally preferred instead of 2♠. The majority also said they would be more inclined to pass without an alert. The TD, who knows the style of the players involved better than me, decided to adjust. He actually adjusted to 100% of 5♥X -3 (E/W +500) for both sides. Feel free to comment.

IMO, the director acted impeccably (as Lamford explains) and his judgement.seems reasonable .

[mycroft]

Without a snapdragon agreement, do they have a "card-showing" agreement for the double? If so, this looks like a perfect time for it. If North passes, East will pull, obviously, and 5C should be reached (so +500). If North bids 3H, I think East will likely still bid, and again +500 (they may only get +100, but this is the NOS, so they get the benefit of the doubt, and 4C is reasonable).

 

I sort of understand High/Low doubles (at least, if they're like Negative Free Bids), but North's argument is specious, if High-Low Doubles is the only thing on the front of the card. It certainly isn't obvious to "everybody" what that means, and especially what that means for non-double auctions. It's as if I wrote in the "Things to know" box about "Asking bids: Alpha, Gamma, Epsilon; accepting transfer or bidding singleton is Beta" and then arguing that they should know that 2S unAlerted doesn't show spades.

[lamford]

You seemed to be advocating that EW invent an agreement they did not have. If West had a bid that showed 5C and 2S, I suspect he might have used it with two aces, and I strongly suspect he might have mentioned it in the later debate.

No, I would not want them to invent an agreement that they did not have, but as we learn later most third division Norwegian players seems to have been taught Snapdragon in their first-year biology classes. I agree that I phrased it poorly, and should have said "If West had genuinely claimed he would have doubled, even if just take-out, with correct information, then I would be more inclined to believe him, rather than his claim that he would have bid 2S." I think most pairs would play that double was takeout here, even if not specifically discussed, showing clubs with spade tolerance. What other meaning could it have - Lightner?

[AlexJonson]

No, I would not want them to invent an agreement that they did not have, but as we learn later most third division Norwegian players seems to have been taught Snapdragon in their first-year biology classes. I agree that I phrased it poorly, and should have said "If West had genuinely claimed he would have doubled, even if just take-out, with correct information, then I would be more inclined to believe him, rather than his claim that he would have bid 2S." I think most pairs would play that double was takeout here, even if not specifically discussed, showing clubs with spade tolerance. What other meaning could it have - Lightner?

 

I agree with your reformulation. (Though after a recent thread on doubles in the EBU I might hesitate to say 'takeout, what else could it mean' in any moderately complex auction - more likely to automatically alert and mumble about values).

 

Did I really insist on driving to slam with a 3 count? When was that? I do hold pretty poor cards, so I'm prone to action faced with a few pictures, but 3 points...

[bluejak]

I think the failure to weight the score terrible. That means that the TD is 85+% sure how the auction would go without the infraction, including that he is sure that West would bid 2♠. Of course a snapdragon double is more reasonable, but he did not say he was going to call that, did he?

 

While I think some adjustment credible - even though I doubt it is right - this 100% stuff cannot be right.

 

What do I think of your regulation? Terrible. I loathe the presumption that you have to remember things so you will know when opponents break the rules by not alerting. The only advantage of such a regulation is to encourage people not to alert correctly.

[ggwhiz]

Once again kudos to E/W for making their case on actual agreements rather than inventing snapdragon on their card before going to committee.

 

They do deserve an adjustment and a weighted one seems right.