penalties

[SirSatai]

#395 pairs board number 15 east have got 5 pcs ♠ 4 pcs ♥ 1 pcs ♦ and 3 pcs ♣ bid were like that

 

w: 1♦ pas e: 1♥ pass

w: 2♥ pas e: 2♠

w: 3♣ dbl e: 3Nt all bids there were no alert and east gave wrong bids thats why i could not count ♦ and game was +1 i called Td and want adjustment because there were no alert and no missclick ( east did not say 1♥ bid was missclick) Td did not accept to give penalties

at this position what should Td do?? ( i am a Td also i want to learn because one day i can stay in same position)(my idea e-w in penalties score change A- for e-w)

 

sorry for my poor english :)

[helium]

well.... since no alert was made i assume that opps play a natural system, where 1♥(and bidding ♠next rund show min 4-4.

 

SO east is free to bid however he like as long as its not a part of there system!

But if they play a system where the 1♥bidder could have a loonger ♠they should ALERT.

 

Im no expert so pls tell me if im wrong:))

 

 

 

kenneth

[hrothgar]

I'm very glad that I wasn't the TD when this disagreement occured.

I suspect that you are going to have a lot of trouble coming up with a ruling that will make everyone happy.

 

From my perspective, there are a few key points that need to be considered:

 

1. Who was "sponsoring" the tournament. Alert standards differ depending on whether the ACBL, the EBU, or Abalucy is sponsoring a tournament. In the absence of and official sponsor, you'll need to make your won judgement call regarding what set of regulations to employ.

 

2. Most alert systems are based on something roughly akin to the following:

 

Players should alert partnership understandings that are sufficiently unusual that they would surprise the opponents

 

Note that there are two elements to this statement.

 

Bids are alertable if they are Unusual AND they are part of a partnership agreement.

 

In this case, a 1♥ response is certainly an unusual bid. However, I question whether it is part of a partnership agreement. My guess is that that 1♥ bidder was a novice player who didn't quite understand what he was doing... Alternatively, it could have been some kind of bizarre psyche...

 

From my perspective, the key piece of information required to generate an accurate ruling is understanding why the 1♥ call was chosen.

[hotShot]

The rules don't require that you bid your longest suit, they don't even require that your bids describe your hand.

 

They order you to, reveal all partnership agreements.

In face2face bridge you know if a pair plays on a regular basis,

online you have to guess.

 

So as director you have to decide:

 

1) Was the alert realy missing?

 

2) Did you have a damage?

 

3) Is the missing alert responsible for the damage?

 

Only if you answer all 3 questions with yes, adjust the score.

 

No partnership agreement answer 1) with no => no adjustment

The question why the 1♥ bid was choosen is irrelevant, but it might help to discover, if there is a partnership agreement.

 

Where you damaged? well 3NT should not make => yes there is damage

 

Is the missing alert responsible for the bad result?

 

NO!

How would it help you to know that East might have longer ♠ than♥?

It would still be more likely to assume he has got only 4.

 

As far as you know West could hold 3rd ♦Q. If East had only 4 ♠ after your small ♦ lead, he would still make it.

 

East and you think that west hast a ♦ stop, but he has not.

The 5th ♠ just makes the overtrick.