SEWoG

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq8hq97daqj4cakt3&w=s5h86543dt765cqj9&n=sak642ht2dk982c85&e=sjt973hakjd3c7642&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2n(Not%20alerted%20-%20should%20be%20Baron%2C%2016+%20bal)p3sp3nppdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

East calls you at the end of the play and requests a removal of the double due to the lack of alert of 2NT. How do you rule? This is match points incidentally.

[Vampyr]

East calls you at the end of the play and requests a double due to the lack of alert of 2NT. How do you rule? This is match points incidentally.

 

What do you mean he requests a double? He did double.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq8hq97daqj4cakt3&w=s5h86543dt765cqj9&n=sak642ht2dk982c85&e=sjt973hakjd3c7642&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp2n(Not%20alerted%20-%20should%20be%20Baron%2C%2016+%20bal)p3sp3nppdppp]399|300|

East calls you at the end of the play and requests a double due to the lack of alert of 2NT. How do you rule? This is match points incidentally. [/hv]

Assuming that a Baron 2N is alertable and hence East wants to cancel his double IMO the director should allow it. Given correct information, the double was pushy but not close to a SEWOG. Had East tried to protect himself by asking about the auction before doubling, he might generate UI that would inhibit an ethical partner from leading a spade. If SEWOG and Protect-yourself rules were scrapped such daft complications wouldn't sully the game.

[nigel_k]

The double is a reasonable choice if you think both 2NT and 3♠ are non forcing. Definitely not a SEWOG.

[blackshoe]

Assuming that a Baron 2N is alertable and hence East wants to cancel his double IMO the director should allow it. Given correct information, the double was pushy but not close to a SEWOG. Had East tried to protect himself by asking about the auction before doubling, he might generate UI that would inhibit an ethical partner from leasing a spade. If SEWOG and Protect-yourself rules were scrapped such daft complications wouldn't sully the game.

The director was not called until the end of play. Therefore, no cancellation of any call in the auction is possible. This is a mis-information case. Law 21 applies. Law 21B3 says "When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score." This, presumably, is the rectification requested by East; he wants the score adjusted to 3NT undoubled making however many it made. However, when you adjust the score, you have to consider, as the title of this thread suggests, Law 12C1{b}, which says "If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." The question is, "is the double one of 1) a serious error unrelated to the infraction, 2) a wild action, 3) a gambling action?"

 

East did not ask about the auction before doubling because he feared it would inhibit a spade lead. Did he get a spade lead? If he did, and the defense still failed to defeat the contract, then it seems to me his double was a gambling action that failed. If so, perhaps we should let the score stand for EW, and adjust for NS to 3NT undoubled.

 

On the other hand, looking at all four hands, on any lead but a heart, declarer can take nine top tricks before the defense get in. On a heart lead, East can take one or two heart tricks before switching suits. If he takes two, declarer makes an overtrick. If he takes one, declarer makes his contract and may also make an overtrick. Is that what happened? East is upset because declarer made an overtrick in a doubled contract?

 

All things considered, I'm inclined to let the score stand.

 

Edit: It's not a serious error unrelated to the infraction, but it sure seems gambling to me, if not wild as well.

 

Changed my mind. See post #13 below.

Edited November 10, 2013 by blackshoe
changed my mind

[campboy]

East did not ask about the auction before doubling because he feared it would inhibit a spade lead. Did he get a spade lead? If he did, and the defense still failed to defeat the contract, then it seems to me his double was a gambling action that failed.

I don't agree that this follows. The unsurprising fact that they failed to defeat the contract with declarer having an 18-count has no bearing on how gambling the double actually is with the information that East had.

[wank]

of course the double is entirely reasonable with no alerts and much less likely to succeed with correct info. 100% refund for east.

[Fluffy]

Sometimes the opponent's bidding is so bad that you want to double without even looking at your cards. This one is not among them, because the bidding can actually make sense if south suddenly reealuates his ♠Hx as 6 tricks, but he is wrong about the 6 tricks, they will be lucky to get to 4. Double is perfect.

[ggwhiz]

I too see no way for 3nt to be making if we don't blow a trick on the lead with the added bonus of a legit possible pull to 4♠ by them. That is if the n/s bidding is as advertised.

 

I'm awarding a stern reminder to declarer of their obligation to reveal a failure to alert before the opening lead for starters.

 

If the final double had been removed in time would it's lead directing nature be UI or AI? I'm guessing AI that would lead to 9 tricks instead of the 10 available on a heart or club lead as an alternative to avg+/avg- and not sure which to award.

[LH2650]

Is there something in the local Alert regulations that causes East to think that 2N is invitational? If not, no adjustment. Move a few NS cards around and this auction could come right out of my old Goren book. In fact, NS could be a bit stronger.

[chrism]

This auction would not be alertable in the ACBL:

Natural 2NT responses that may or may not bypass four-card majors which promise invitational or better values

[RMB1]

Is there something in the local Alert regulations that causes East to think that 2N is invitational?

EBU: a forcing 2NT response is alertable.

 

Players would expect 2NT to be non-forcing. The "undiscussed" meaning of 1x - 2N is 10-12 ish.

[blackshoe]

It's been 20 years since I last played Acol, and I didn't play Baron then, so maybe my thinking was off. It is certainly true that there was a failure to alert. It is certainly true that on the auction without the alert East should expect South to have some 10-12 balanced hand with fewer than four spades. Thus he can expect his partner to have around eight points or so. (Give North 12, South 11, and East 9; that leaves 8). In fact, West has 3. Oops. If NS have only 21 points, then 3NT shouldn't make. Okay, fair enough, the double is not gambling, and certainly not wild.

 

So. Back to Law 21B3: Did the declaring side gain an advantage from the failure to alert? Probably. East might be less inclined to double if he thought NS had 25+ points between them. So we adjust the score. The SEWoG rule does not apply, at least in the bidding. Did the MI affect the play? We don't know. Assuming it did not, I suppose we adjust to 3NT making whatever it made for both sides. If the MI did affect the play, then perhaps we take away any overtricks as well, but I'd want some evidence for that.

 

Failure to 1) call the director during the Clarification Period and 2) explain, in the director's presence, that there was a failure to alert is an additional infraction to all the above. The governing law, 20F5{b}{ii} is a "must" law - the player concerned, South in this case, must call the director and then explain as above. According to the introduction to the laws, when a player fails to do what he "must" do, he should get a PP more often than not. If this is a first time for this South, I give him a warning. If he's already had a warning, or is experienced enough he should know better, I give him a standard PP of (in the EBU) 10% of a top.

 

Anyone disagree? :ph34r:

[Trinidad]

Anyone disagree? :ph34r:

Not me, I agree. Even if I am normally hesitant to hand out PPs, these cases are clear for me. Forgetting an agreement or forgetting an alert is all human. But if you observe that your partner doesn't alert your clearly alertable bid and you don't correct it, you will get a PP.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Not me, I agree. Even if I am normally hesitant to hand out PPs, these cases are clear for me. Forgetting an agreement or forgetting an alert is all human. But if you observe that your partner doesn't alert your clearly alertable bid and you don't correct it, you will get a PP.

 

Rik

 

I agree, although if you come from somewhere where this bid is not alertable, it's a bit harsh to get a PP, or are a beginner fresh out of classes where you were taught this as "normal", there may be mitigating circumstances.

[Finch]

Yes of course he gets his double removed.

I'm not sure whether to give 9 or 10 tricks (or a mixture) on an assumed heart lead. Might depend on their lead style.

I don't think the number of tricks made in 3NTx is relevant because East was defending under false pretences.

[blackshoe]

I agree, although if you come from somewhere where this bid is not alertable, it's a bit harsh to get a PP, or are a beginner fresh out of classes where you were taught this as "normal", there may be mitigating circumstances.

There always may be mitigating circumstances. That doesn't excuse the attitude amongst some people, players, directors, and club owners included, that PPs "just aren't done," whatever the circumstances. That's nonsense.

[aguahombre]

Sounds like visitors wishing to play Bridge in the EBU might want to wait for the respective governments to enact a PP treaty.

[blackshoe]

Note that I did not say that I would not consider the fact that a pair was visiting my country and might not be familiar with our alerting regulations in deciding between a PP in points and a warning. In fact, in such a case, unless some other circumstance induced me to lean toward a PP in points, I would almost certainly issue a warning. No need for treaties. I will also say that "more often than not" (see the lawbook) does not mean "always".

[mamos]

I'd like to make three comments about this case

 

1) I agree with those who suggest that SEWoG is not relevant in this case. Where MisInformation is involved, what happened during the auction and play following MI is not generally relevant to the ruling - what matters overwhelmingly is what would East have done with the correct explanation. If East had been told that South had 16+ balanced he would not have doubled. The contract should be adjusted to 3NT making whatever number of tricks the TD decides is appropriate.

 

2) In the EBU it would be unusual to award a PP for South's failure to call the TD in a timely fashion. Only a serial offender or a very experienced player would be awarded a PP

 

3) MI cases generally involve Unauthorised Information. North's failure to alert suggests that North has forgotten the convention, so South must take care to avoid a suggested action. I'd need to ask South why he chose 3NT rather than say 4♠. I might need to poll a few of South's peers who play this (imho) horrid convention It might be considered that bidding 3NT was a "safer" action in light of the MI than the alternative 4♠.

 

Mike

[blackshoe]

On your comment #2, Mike, I recognize that it would be rare, and not only in the EBU, to award a PP in these cases, but how does one reconcile that reluctance with the law's admonition that a PP should be issued "more often than not"? It seems to me those who won't issue a PP are ignoring the law.

[ggwhiz]

On your comment #2, Mike, I recognize that it would be rare, and not only in the EBU, to award a PP in these cases, but how does one reconcile that reluctance with the law's admonition that a PP should be issued "more often than not"? It seems to me those who won't issue a PP are ignoring the law.

 

I agree with the sentiment 100%. A PP of 10% of a top seems gentle and not punitive and would get the attention of the lower level players you are trying to educate much more effectively. That said, I stated that I would give a stern reminder of declarers obligations in my first post as sadly this is the max I have ever seen being handed out.

[Zelandakh]

I'd need to ask South why he chose 3NT rather than say 4♠.

As I understand the Baron 2NT convention, South's 3NT rebid is pretty automatic here. North's 3♠ rebid shows 5+ spades and denies another 4 card suit. South's 3NT now shows 2 spades and North is expected to continue with 6+ spades. I am not sure why 4♠ should be considered a LA unless North-South are playing a system that does not open 1♠ on 5332 hands. Even then, 4♣ would surely be a better bid with a max and a hole in hearts.

[barmar]

On your comment #2, Mike, I recognize that it would be rare, and not only in the EBU, to award a PP in these cases, but how does one reconcile that reluctance with the law's admonition that a PP should be issued "more often than not"? It seems to me those who won't issue a PP are ignoring the law.

I think there are two reasons: 1) Most directors probably don't realize that the Law says they should ussue a PP, rather than just may do so; 2) many of the rest ignore it because they consider this part of the law to be an ass.

 

Even if we improve education of the first group, they'll probably mostly migrate into the second group. There's not much incentive for improvement -- leagues aren't interested in enforcing this, so they're not going to pull club sanctions because directors aren't applying the Laws in complete accordance with the book.

[blackshoe]

I guess the question is "why do people consider this part of the law to be an ass?"

 

I've never raised kids, but even I know that without some form of punishment when they do wrong, they'll never learn to do right.