Missed incorrect alert

[VixTD]

This happened at the club last night in a round of the county pairs championship qualifier (matchpoints):

[hv=pc=n&s=sak932hjt432d2ckj&w=sqthak9dj3cat9754&n=s8hq865dkq8754c32&e=sj7654h7dat96cq86&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1s3c(alerted)d(alerted)ppp]399|300[/hv]

1♠ was natural, Acol, 4+ spades

3♣ was natural and intermediate, but alerted because East thought it was Ghestem

X is negative if 3♣ is natural, undiscussed if 3♣ is Ghestem

 

Before passing South checked the meaning of 3♣ and was told it showed clubs and hearts. At the end of the auction West corrected the misinformation and showed on the convention card that their agreement was to play michaels cue-bids and intermediate jump overcalls. East agreed that he had made a mistake.

 

The TD ruled that South could retract his final pass if he would have bid differently given a correct explanation, but that if the misinformation affected North's action redress could only be given after play was completed. South declined to change his call.

 

Result: 3♣X(W)=, NS -470, 0/6 MPs

 

At the end of play the TD asked North why she had doubled. Had she known the real meaning of 3♣?

"No", she said, "I assumed it was natural, it wasn't alerted". The other three players all agreed it had been alerted.

 

South would have bid 3♥ or 4♥ had he been given a correct explanation, but didn't change his final pass because he assumed that when North doubled she was aware of its (alerted) meaning, and that North might have a penalty double of clubs.

 

EW are a strong, semi-regular partnership (who really ought to know what overcalls they are playing). NS are not so strong, but experienced. They have played only one session together, several years ago. South's preferred methods are for double of a two-suited overcall to be a penalty double of at least one of the suits if neither is the suit bid, but takeout of the suit bid if that's one of the two suits shown. He hadn't discussed this with this partner, and while the first part could easily be assumed as standard, the second could not. (He alerted because he wasn't sure without asking that the bid was showing clubs.)

 

Have NS damaged themselves here, or do you think they're entitled to redress?

[ahydra]

A few dodgy things come to mind by NS - South not changing his final call, North not paying attention. (Though it is EW's responsibility to make sure NS see the alert, there is only so much one should be expected to do, and South was perfectly aware of the alert)

 

But all this wouldn't have happened without the misinformation...

 

Can we award a split score maybe? NS 33% of -470, 33% of 3H-1 and 33% of 4H-2, while EW get 50% of 3H-1 and 50% of 4H-2.

 

ahydra

[RMB1]

I see no grounds for adjustment.

 

When South got to choose whether to change his final Pass, South was not misinformed. South is entitled to assume that North was correctly informed when he doubled - if North was misinformed when he doubled that would be taken in to account later. South chose to assume otherwise and that was a mistake.

 

When North doubled he was no misinformed - by his own admission - he missed the alert and thought 3♣ was natural.

 

Results stands.

 

 

The TD might find the the alert was inadequately done but I find it difficult to recommend a procedural penalty for failing to alert properly when no alert was required. I guess that leaves Law 74D2 and Law 74F - alerting a call so that only one opponent notices is a gesture which may mislead - but I find it hard to believe that the semi-alerter could know what he was doing and what effect it could have.

[pran]

This happened at the club last night in a round of the county pairs championship qualifier (matchpoints):

[hv=pc=n&s=sak932hjt432d2ckj&w=sqthak9dj3cat9754&n=s8hq865dkq8754c32&e=sj7654h7dat96cq86&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1s3c(alerted)d(alerted)ppp]399|300[/hv]

1♠ was natural, Acol, 4+ spades

3♣ was natural and intermediate, but alerted because East thought it was Ghestem

X is negative if 3♣ is natural, undiscussed if 3♣ is Ghestem

 

Before passing South checked the meaning of 3♣ and was told it showed clubs and hearts. At the end of the auction West corrected the misinformation and showed on the convention card that their agreement was to play michaels cue-bids and intermediate jump overcalls. East agreed that he had made a mistake.

 

The TD ruled that South could retract his final pass if he would have bid differently given a correct explanation, but that if the misinformation affected North's action redress could only be given after play was completed. South declined to change his call.

 

Result: 3♣X(W)=, NS -470, 0/6 MPs

 

At the end of play the TD asked North why she had doubled. Had she known the real meaning of 3♣?

"No", she said, "I assumed it was natural, it wasn't alerted". The other three players all agreed it had been alerted.

 

South would have bid 3♥ or 4♥ had he been given a correct explanation, but didn't change his final pass because he assumed that when North doubled she was aware of its (alerted) meaning, and that North might have a penalty double of clubs.

 

EW are a strong, semi-regular partnership (who really ought to know what overcalls they are playing). NS are not so strong, but experienced. They have played only one session together, several years ago. South's preferred methods are for double of a two-suited overcall to be a penalty double of at least one of the suits if neither is the suit bid, but takeout of the suit bid if that's one of the two suits shown. He hadn't discussed this with this partner, and while the first part could easily be assumed as standard, the second could not. (He alerted because he wasn't sure without asking that the bid was showing clubs.)

 

Have NS damaged themselves here, or do you think they're entitled to redress?

 

I don't understand this. According to both explanations (both the first incorrect and the latter correct one) the 3♣ bid shows Clubs, and as such North's double should be for takeout. Furthermore the final pass from West should indicate that he is not "afraid" of playing 3♣X.

 

I do not buy South's statement that while he would have bid 3♥ or 4♥ had he been given a correct explanation he did not change his last call because he assumed that the double was for penalties. This to me is the clearest "self-incriminating" evidence of a "double shot" that I have seen for a long time.

 

Result stands.

[aguahombre]

Just out of curiosity, are you folks applying SEWog? If so, are you saying that South's ill-advised choice was not related to the infraction? The alert itself was the infraction of misinformation, after which South made his assumptions. It doesn't seem to matter what North heard or didn't hear; he made the correct systemic call over 3C. The infraction caused South's doubt about what the Double showed, thus seems very much related to the damage.

 

I am sympathetic with your desire to let the result stand, but am unsure that you can support that ruling.

Edited March 7, 2014 by aguahombre

[paulg]

When South got to choose whether to change his final Pass, South was not misinformed. South is entitled to assume that North was correctly informed when he doubled - if North was misinformed when he doubled that would be taken in to account later. South chose to assume otherwise and that was a mistake.

I would certainly take this view if South were the Secretary Bird or someone very familiar with the laws. However this is a fairly confusing problem and not one even an experienced player will come across often. If South has passed because he is confused about how he is meant to interpret his partner's double in such a situation then it seems harsh to penalise him. And if it is 'obvious' how the double should be interpreted, perhaps the director should have said something to make it clear.

 

I feel the matter is made more confusing by North failing to ask about the alert. This perhaps gives South UI that North is taking the call as natural and perhaps now he is bending over backwards not to take advantage - for example, suppose North had asked and received the Ghestem answer. This may be the context in which South is passing. However mistaken this view, it does seem related to the infraction whilst being a serious error. Not to mention that North's missing of the alert is probably a serious error too! I must admit I thought this was one of Mr Lamford's constructions :)

[mfa1010]

No adjustment, I agree with what RMB1 said.

 

S had the chance to change his call, and that is all we can offer him. If he was worried that his partner might have misunderstood 3♣ because he didn't ask about it, sorry but partner's asking or not asking is UI to south.

 

N chose not to ask about an alerted call - TD established that 3♣ was in fact alerted, as I understand it. Already for that reason N is not damaged by misinformation, since he didn't seek any.

 

Result stand.

[VixTD]

I would certainly take this view if South were the Secretary Bird or someone very familiar with the laws. However this is a fairly confusing problem and not one even an experienced player will come across often. If South has passed because he is confused about how he is meant to interpret his partner's double in such a situation then it seems harsh to penalise him. And if it is 'obvious' how the double should be interpreted, perhaps the director should have said something to make it clear.

 

I feel the matter is made more confusing by North failing to ask about the alert. This perhaps gives South UI that North is taking the call as natural and perhaps now he is bending over backwards not to take advantage - for example, suppose North had asked and received the Ghestem answer. This may be the context in which South is passing. However mistaken this view, it does seem related to the infraction whilst being a serious error. Not to mention that North's missing of the alert is probably a serious error too! I must admit I thought this was one of Mr Lamford's constructions :)

South was not the Secretary Bird, but was familiar with the laws. I must confess: it was me. I'd got it into my mind first of all that "3♣ = a two-suiter, therefore X = penalties" but didn't adjust my thinking when I found that one of the suits shown was the suit bid. If I'd had my wits about me I'd have bid hearts.

 

Of course North's asking or not asking is UI to me, but surely the only way to avoid using UI in these situations is to assume that partner didn't ask because she didn't need to ask. How else do you avoid being influenced by the UI?

 

I didn't ask for a ruling because I didn't think I deserved one, but I might have had taken pity on a player less well versed in the laws. I do think I was put in an awkward situation by the misinformation, even if I should have extricated myself without too much difficulty.

[blackshoe]

I see no grounds for adjustment.

 

When South got to choose whether to change his final Pass, South was not misinformed. South is entitled to assume that North was correctly informed when he doubled - if North was misinformed when he doubled that would be taken in to account later. South chose to assume otherwise and that was a mistake.

 

When North doubled he was no misinformed - by his own admission - he missed the alert and thought 3♣ was natural.

 

Results stands.

 

 

The TD might find the the alert was inadequately done but I find it difficult to recommend a procedural penalty for failing to alert properly when no alert was required. I guess that leaves Law 74D2 and Law 74F - alerting a call so that only one opponent notices is a gesture which may mislead - but I find it hard to believe that the semi-alerter could know what he was doing and what effect it could have.

West bid 3♣, East alerted, North doubled. North did not ask what the double meant, but hold that thought for a moment. I fail to see how south could possibly "be entitled to assume" that North was correctly informed when he doubled, since the correct information did not come out until after the bidding was over. From South's viewpoint, North heard an alert - which means 3♣ is not natural - and made a call undefined in their system. I suppose "North didn't hear the alert" is one possible inference, but it's not the only one. The real question is why North didn't speak up during the Clarification Period. I think most people, hearing a lot of talk about an alert that "didn't happen" would be asking what the heck is going on. Of course, this leads to the further question whether South is allowed to know that North didn't hear the alert, after North raises that point.

 

I think that if you're going to alert, you are subject to PP for failure to correctly follow the correct alerting procedure, whether the alert is required or not. Whether to award a PP, and the form or degree of such penalty, is as always at TD discretion.

Edited March 9, 2014 by barmar
he kept saying "double" when he meant "alert"

[Bad_Wolf]

So yet another Ghestem screw up, confusion reigns, the opposition end up hosed and the perpetrators walk away laughing. Forget all the technicalities, this is the sort of farcical situation that provides no motivation for pairs to remember their methods and leaves players frustrated, embarrassed and upset. I have every sympathy for VixTD and would throw the book at EW. I for one believe that Wolf is right. This sort of thing ruins the game and if directors don't jump on it it won't ever go away.

 

More soberly I agree with aguahombre and blackshoe.

[campboy]

Just out of curiosity, are you folks applying SEWog? If so, are you saying that South's ill-advised choice was not related to the infraction?

Presumably the answer to the first question is "no", since SEWoG just denies redress to the NOS and some posters are suggesting not adjusting for either side. But it is perhaps worth pointing out that "unrelated to the infraction" only applies to serious errors; if we consider it wild or gambling then we may deny redress whether or not it is related to the infraction.

[pran]

[...]

I'd got it into my mind first of all that "3♣ = a two-suiter, therefore X = penalties" but didn't adjust my thinking when I found that one of the suits shown was the suit bid. If I'd had my wits about me I'd have bid hearts.

[...]

Isn't that precisely the point here?

The damage to North/South was caused by South's failure to recognize the correct information when he was given it.

[paulg]

Of course North's asking or not asking is UI to me, but surely the only way to avoid using UI in these situations is to assume that partner didn't ask because she didn't need to ask. How else do you avoid being influenced by the UI?

Yes, i think that's right. I was just trying to stress how much might be going on in the mind of player who is not familiar with the laws but trying to be ethical. As you've shown, it's non-trivial for someone very familiar with them.

[gnasher]

Of course North's asking or not asking is UI to me, but surely the only way to avoid using UI in these situations is to assume that partner didn't ask because she didn't need to ask. How else do you avoid being influenced by the UI?

Regardless of what questions partner asked or didn't ask, I think you should assume that partner knew the opponents' actual agreement.

 

I think that the director should explain this whenever there is a corrected explanation. I've never heard a director do that, though.

[VixTD]

Isn't that precisely the point here?

The damage to North/South was caused by South's failure to recognize the correct information when he was given it.

Your rabid painting and highlighting of text and exasperated tone suggests to me that you think that NS had an agreement about a double of a 3♣ bid that shows clubs and hearts. I clearly stated that we didn't, and I had no reason to suppose that a double form North of such a bid would have been for takeout of clubs. I do know that a double from North of a natural, clubs-only-showing 3♣ overcall would have been for takeout and opposite such a double I would have bid some hearts.

 

So the misinformation has put me in a difficult situation that I wouldn't otherwise have been in, and as others have suggested, it doesn't seem fair that I walk away from this with a poor score, even if I should really have got out of it if I'd been thinking straight.

[barmar]

I think that if you're going to alert, you are subject to PP for failure to correctly follow the correct alerting procedure, whether the alert is required or not. Whether to award a PP, and the form or degree of such penalty, is as always at TD discretion.

It's not clear that East failed to alert correctly. 2 of the 3 other players saw the alert. The ACBL Alert Procedure says that it's the alerter's responsibility to ensure that the opponents are aware, but doesn't say how one is expected to do that. If it looks like an opponent was distracted, or looking elsewhere, I might wave the alert card some more or ask "Did you notice that I alerted?" But as you've mentioned in other threads, players and TDs are not expected to be mind-readers. How far must players go to "ensure" this?

[blackshoe]

It's not clear that East failed to alert correctly. 2 of the 3 other players saw the alert. The ACBL Alert Procedure says that it's the alerter's responsibility to ensure that the opponents are aware, but doesn't say how one is expected to do that. If it looks like an opponent was distracted, or looking elsewhere, I might wave the alert card some more or ask "Did you notice that I alerted?" But as you've mentioned in other threads, players and TDs are not expected to be mind-readers. How far must players go to "ensure" this?

As far as is reasonable. B-)

 

The alert procedure says 'Using bidding boxes, an Alert is made by tapping an Alert card on the table or by tapping the Alert strip on the side of the bid box. In addition, the Alerter must say "Alert."' IME most people leave the alert card in the box, or wave it around in the air briefly. I haven't seen an Alert strip in years, but back when I did see them, they usually stayed in the box too.

 

If I alert something, and an opponent looks like he wasn't paying attention, I'll ask if he heard my alert. If my partner's not paying attention, that's his problem.

[Trinidad]

It's not clear that East failed to alert correctly. 2 of the 3 other players saw the alert. The ACBL Alert Procedure says that it's the alerter's responsibility to ensure that the opponents are aware, but doesn't say how one is expected to do that. If it looks like an opponent was distracted, or looking elsewhere, I might wave the alert card some more or ask "Did you notice that I alerted?" But as you've mentioned in other threads, players and TDs are not expected to be mind-readers. How far must players go to "ensure" this?

The least a TD should do is investigate and ask how the alert was made.

 

If it turned out that this was sloppy, you give a PP (or a warning). If it was a proper alert than you conclude that North was asleep.

 

Some people alert properly, others don't. I don't remember an opponent ever missing one of my alerts. I have, at times, forgotten to alert, but when I alert, the opponents will notice.

 

Rik

[pran]

Your rabid painting and highlighting of text and exasperated tone suggests to me that you think that NS had an agreement about a double of a 3♣ bid that shows clubs and hearts. I clearly stated that we didn't, and I had no reason to suppose that a double form North of such a bid would have been for takeout of clubs. I do know that a double from North of a natural, clubs-only-showing 3♣ overcall would have been for takeout and opposite such a double I would have bid some hearts.

 

So the misinformation has put me in a difficult situation that I wouldn't otherwise have been in, and as others have suggested, it doesn't seem fair that I walk away from this with a poor score, even if I should really have got out of it if I'd been thinking straight.

I am sorry the way you consider my comment and I really doubt if there is any reason for characterizing my "tone" as you do. I based my comment on the information provided about the various situations for the double made by North.

 

My point was, and still is that when South received the correct information it is his privilege to change his last call (provided his partner has not subsequently called) to the call he claims he would have made had he had the correct information at the time he made that call.

 

South need not (or even should not) bother about what basis North had for his double, South is safe if he calls according to the assumption that North had the correct information.

 

If this leads North/South into damage then that damage was caused by North having made an undesirable call because of the incorrect information, and as he was prevented from correcting his call then this damage shall be compensated with an adjusted score.

 

If, however, (as here) South fails to use his opportunity to change his call according to the corrected information, possibly because he assumed that North had based his double on the incorrect information, he does so on his own risk and enjoys no redress for damage that would have been avoided had he used this opportunity.

[iviehoff]

Of course North's asking or not asking is UI to me, but surely the only way to avoid using UI in these situations is to assume that partner didn't ask because she didn't need to ask. How else do you avoid being influenced by the UI?

More accurately, you should assume your partner didn't "need" ask precisely because they already knew just what the agreement was, which could have come from reading the card, knowing the opponents, being good at mindreading, or whatever. Not, didn't ask because they didn't need to know, didn't realise they needed to know, didn't care to know, or any other reason for not "needing" asking.

[blackshoe]

If, however, (as here) South fails to use his opportunity to change his call according to the corrected information, possibly because he assumed that North had based his double on the incorrect information, he does so on his own risk and enjoys no redress for damage that would have been avoided had he used this opportunity.

I don't think South's reason for not changing his call is relevant. He had the choice, he made the wrong one. He said himself he would have bid hearts had he been thinking clearly. I do think Law 12B2 prohibits a score adjustment here. The only question remaining is whether EW should receive a PP, and if so whether that PP should be a warning or in MPs or IMPs, for East's failure to ensure that both opponents were aware of the alert. I think a warning is appropriate; I don't think a PP in points is appropriate.

 

Out of curiosity, I might ask North what he would have done if he'd heard the alert, but the answer has no bearing on the ruling. I would also ask him why he didn't speak up during the Clarification Period when he heard folks talking about an alert that didn't happen. That answer won't affect the ruling either, but it gives the TD the opportunity to remind him to speak up when this happens.

 

My ruling: Result stands (Law 21, Law 12B2); PP(Warning) to EW (BB 4A8, Law 90).

[VixTD]

Can I just check that I understand the thinking of some of you on this? Here's another matchpoint problem:

[hv=pc=n&e=skt532ha54d86ckj7&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(Announced%20%2212-14%22)p2d(Announced%20%22hearts%22)d2hp3dppp]133|200[/hv]

At the end of the auction South calls the director and says that the announcement that 2♦ showed hearts was incorrect; their agreement was that it was a weak takeout into diamonds. This is established to the director's satisfaction, he judges there was misinformation and offers East the chance to retract his final pass if he would have called differently at that point given the correct information.

 

A double from West of a 2♦ transfer would show diamonds and suggested a lead, but not much interest in competing. A double of a natural weak takeout would show a takeout of diamonds and opening values (or not much less). East judges that if West has the former hand type he should stick with his pass, but if she has the latter he should bid 3♠.

 

In deciding whether to change his final call, East should assume that West doubled a natural 2♦ bid and not an artificial one. He should bid 3♠ and expect an adjustment from the director if it turns out (as he suspects it will) that East actually has some diamond honours and no spade support. If East were to stick with his pass and complain afterwards when West (unexpectedly) turns up with a 4-4-1-4 twelve count that he was unable to show because of the misinformation, he'll receive no redress from the director.

 

Is that right?

[helene_t]

Doesn't sound right. Why wouldn't it be AI to East that West was told that 2♦ was a transfer when he doubled it?

 

The OP question is more complicated because of the issue with partner not having seen the alert.

[iviehoff]

At the end of the auction South calls the director and says that the announcement that 2♦ showed hearts was incorrect; their agreement was that it was a weak takeout into diamonds. This is established to the director's satisfaction, he judges there was misinformation and offers East the chance to retract his final pass if he would have called differently at that point given the correct information.

 

A double from West of a 2♦ transfer would show diamonds and suggested a lead, but not much interest in competing. A double of a natural weak takeout would show a takeout of diamonds and opening values (or not much less). East judges that if West has the former hand type he should stick with his pass, but if she has the latter he should bid 3♠.

 

In deciding whether to change his final call, East should assume that West doubled a natural 2♦ bid and not an artificial one. He should bid 3♠ and expect an adjustment from the director if it turns out (as he suspects it will) that East actually has some diamond honours and no spade support. If East were to stick with his pass and complain afterwards when West (unexpectedly) turns up with a 4-4-1-4 twelve count that he was unable to show because of the misinformation, he'll receive no redress from the director.

 

Is that right?

No, I don't think so. This is different because here there was an announcement that the bid was hearts, and that is AI. That is different from your partner failing to ask about a bid, which is UI. You know exactly what your partner knew when your partner made the bid, because both the fact of and content of the announcement is AI. Now the attempted knock-down of this would have your partner then piping up saying "Well I knew the announcement was nonsense, but I wasn't helping the opposition out by drawing this to their attention. I knew that you'd be protected from the consequences by the MI laws if you didn't also manage to work that out and see what I was up to." But I think that is silly, because having got the announcement the player can rely on the information given, even if he knows it is wrong, and he is taking an unnecessary risk by saying he knows it is wrong.

 

There is an intermediate case, which is the more common one than these extremes, and is the more difficult one. In fact I thought about writing about it in my previous post, but had second thoughts. This is where your partner explicitly asks about a bid (likely alerted). Now players are supposed to ask for themselves, not for their partners, but it seems to be taken as read that you don't have to repeat your partner's request for explanation, and so the information provided by one partner's question is treated as AI to both the partnership. Now one can make an argument that the fact that one's partner asked for and heard the explanation is UI, only the content of the explanation is AI, how it arose is not. But I think that is twisting things in a silly way to make it different from the announcement case above. I think it is best to treat it just like the announcement above, and that's what people seem to do.

[gnasher]

I would also ask [North] why he didn't speak up during the Clarification Period when he heard folks talking about an alert that didn't happen.

Because that would give UI to South.