was director right ?

[acer55]

we play a tournament and the bid goes: (i open)

1cl - 1h - 3cl - 3sp

pass pass

now my p bids 4cl and we are -1.i call the director and tell him that 3sp is a forcing bid and the 1h overcaller can t pass it.if the 3sp bidder has hid bid i have nothing with their pass on 3 sp..the problem is, that the 3sp was made with a 6 points hand and my quescion is how did know the 1h player that pard had a weak hand and he has to pass the 3 sp and didn t tell us that the bid is non forcing? we took it as forcing and decided to compete at 4 th level. i d like to hear some ideas :)

[acer55]

we play a tournament and the bid goes: (i open)

1cl - 1h - 3cl - 3sp

pass pass

now my p bids 4cl and we are -1.i call the director and tell him that 3sp is a forcing bid and the 1h overcaller can t pass it.if the 3sp bidder has hid bid i have nothing with their pass on 3 sp..the problem is, that the 3sp was made with a 6 points hand and my quescion is how did know the 1h player that pard had a weak hand and he has to pass the 3 sp and didn t tell us that the bid is non forcing? we took it as forcing and decided to compete at 4 th level. i d like to hear some ideas :)

oups..director said all was ok

[MrAce]

I did not quite understand your complaint. You said that your side thought 3♠ was not alerted and you assumed it to be forcing, and one of them passed a forcing bid, and your pd decided to compete but you would not compete if it was alerted NF ?

 

 

- Common sense tells not to compete when opponents passed their forcing bid, a totally new suit, at 3 level.

 

- If you are competing when they pass their forcing 3 level new suit, this shows you knew or decided that it was non forcing, thus the damage, if any, was not due to alert/no alert

 

 

How did he pass 3♠ ?

 

a- 3♠ was forcing but 1♥ overcaller forgot that it was forcing.

b- 3♠ was NF but overcaller failed to alert it (if it requires an alert)

c- 3♠ was forcing but overcaller decided to pass anyway and hit the jack pot by coincidence

d- They have a way of illegal signalling and they know when it is weak and when not.

 

Option d is the milky way and i do not think it can be proven by a single complaint.

 

By the way, you could get better replies if you posted this in "Law and Rulings" forum

[helene_t]

Which jurisdiction are you playing in? I have never heard about jurisdictions in which a nonforcing 3♠ bid here would be alertable but maybe it is where you play. Always mention jurisdiction when you pose a law/regulation issue.

 

Anyway, as MrAce says, when opps pass a forcing bid it is common sense not to balance since they apparently had a misunderstanding so 3♠ is likely to be a bad contract for them. So even if it should have been alerted you were probably not damaged. Or are you saying that opener would have doubled for penalties if he had known that it was nonforcing?

[rhm]

Anyway, as MrAce says, when opps pass a forcing bid it is common sense not to balance since they apparently had a misunderstanding so 3♠ is likely to be a bad contract for them.

This is only one of several possibilities.

It is anything but clear whether there was a misunderstanding at all, what is going on and whether further balancing is a rational option (probably not here). Here, according to what we were told, there was no misunderstanding.

For example the 1♥ over-caller might not have his overcall and there is a world of difference whether the 1♥ over-caller passes a forcing bid deliberately (For example Kit Woolsey recommends passing "forcing" bids when the conditions are right) or whether the 1♥ over-caller considers the bid not forcing in the first place.

However, it is difficult to see where the damage is.

Responder bid 4♣ after the 1♥ over-caller had passed a "forcing" bid.

 

So the surprise happened and was obvious before the final decision was made.

The 4♣ bidder could have asked opponents about the nature of their bids. He had all the information that something "unusual" was going on.

Claiming that opponents failed to alert is not sufficient, you have to make a case why the non-offending side has been damaged by this type of irregularity.

This is tough here, but not impossible.

For example if the 1♣ opener has a hand, where he could convincingly argue that he would double 3♠, if that bid would have been alerted and explained as non-forcing and in this case responder would never compete further, there might be a case of damage.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[steve2005]

in ACBL land weak jump shifts by responder were recently made non-alertable.

[mycroft]

not true:

in ACBL land weak jump shifts by *advancer* (partner of overcaller) were recently made non-Alertable (Jan 1, 2014). Reference: Changes to ACBL Tournaments in 2014

 

WJS in uncontested auctions by responder remain Alertable.

 

Having said that, there is no reason to believe that the hand under discussion took place under ACBL jurisdiction - and that this rule doesn't apply to JS in competition in any case, and it's the 3♠ call that is believed to be missing an Alert.

 

I would have the same question, re: the OP, that many have asked - is there any reason to believe that a natural call in a competitive auction, even in a new suit, is Alertable if not forcing? Note, that is a serious question; it depends on the Alert requirements of the Sponsoring Organization under which the competition was held. I expect, however, that the opening side got caught by "I've never heard of anyone playing this NF, so it must be Alertable." Lots of people get caught by that, all over the world - as do people with the converse - "everybody plays it this way, so it must be Standard/not Alertable".

[Stephen Tu]

i d like to hear some ideas

 

- new suits not forcing by the overcalling side of a one bid is fairly common treatment

- if you think the opps passed a forcing call by mistake, surely it makes more sense NOT to bid on, in the hopes they stayed too low or are in the wrong suit?

- at most the opponents failed to alert an unusual non-forcing bid, depending on jurisdiction, but I don't see how this damaged your side at all. There could only be damage if you, directly after the 3 spade call, would have taken a different call had you known 3 spade was non-forcing. But I really don't think this auction should be alertable anywhere, it's an uncommon enough auction that I don't think there are clear standards and you should ask if 3 spades is forcing if that makes a difference to you.

 

in ACBL land weak jump shifts by responder were recently made non-alertable.

How is this relevant, there is no weak jump shift on this auction?

[RMB1]

Can I suggest that (for several reasons) this topic is in the wrong forum.

[dboxley]

In what dimension is 3S forcing?

[gordontd]

In what dimension is 3S forcing?

It is in the one I inhabit, although I recognise that others exist.

[rhm]

I expect, however, that the opening side got caught by "I've never heard of anyone playing this NF, so it must be Alertable." Lots of people get caught by that, all over the world - as do people with the converse - "everybody plays it this way, so it must be Standard/not Alertable".

Is that not an indication what a mess we have made of the alert procedure?

Just consider what "alert" means in English.

I do not need an "alert" for something I can be assumed to understand because it is standard.

I need an "alert" if I can not reasonably be expected to understand the meaning of a call, whether it is forcing / non-forcing / natural / conventional.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Vampyr]

I expect, however, that the opening side got caught by "I've never heard of anyone playing this NF, so it must be Alertable."

 

But if it is possible that the "expert" OP had not heard of this treatment, isn't that a good enough reason to alert?

[acer55]

I did not quite understand your complaint. You said that your side thought 3♠ was not alerted and you assumed it to be forcing, and one of them passed a forcing bid, and your pd decided to compete but you would not compete if it was alerted NF ?

 

 

- Common sense tells not to compete when opponents passed their forcing bid, a totally new suit, at 3 level.

 

- If you are competing when they pass their forcing 3 level new suit, this shows you knew or decided that it was non forcing, thus the damage, if any, was not due to alert/no alert

 

 

How did he pass 3♠ ?

 

a- 3♠ was forcing but 1♥ overcaller forgot that it was forcing.

b- 3♠ was NF but overcaller failed to alert it (if it requires an alert)

c- 3♠ was forcing but overcaller decided to pass anyway and hit the jack pot by coincidence

d- They have a way of illegal signalling and they know when it is weak and when not.

 

Option d is the milky way and i do not think it can be proven by a single complaint.

 

By the way, you could get better replies if you posted this in "Law and Rulings" forum

thanks for the answer.

i just thought that if the bid is forcing i ll have the possibility to postpone my decision for 1 round..but that thing never came to me again..but anyway i don t think that the side that creates problems may get a top score .the director said that they are weak and don t know that the bid is forcing so nothing to do..not all is correct in life.

[acer55]

- new suits not forcing by the overcalling side of a one bid is fairly common treatment

- if you think the opps passed a forcing call by mistake, surely it makes more sense NOT to bid on, in the hopes they stayed too low or are in the wrong suit?

- at most the opponents failed to alert an unusual non-forcing bid, depending on jurisdiction, but I don't see how this damaged your side at all. There could only be damage if you, directly after the 3 spade call, would have taken a different call had you known 3 spade was non-forcing. But I really don't think this auction should be alertable anywhere, it's an uncommon enough auction that I don't think there are clear standards and you should ask if 3 spades is forcing if that makes a difference to you.

 

 

How is this relevant, there is no weak jump shift on this auction?

thanks for your answer

i didn t say that they passed a forcing bid by mistake,i said that they passed a forcing bid.i decided to delay my decision for 1 round that i was sure will come..but it didn t.maybe i dbl 3sp if i know that the bid is nonforcing and i woun t get a zero like our 4 cl contract :).but if they passed a forcing bid by mistake..can they get a top score for their mistake?

[acer55]

thanks for your answer mr rainer

[ahydra]

thanks for your answer

but if they passed a forcing bid by mistake..can they get a top score for their mistake?

 

They certainly can - it's called "rub of the green" in Bridge law. As long as the opponents haven't given you wrong information (including failure to alert, or alerted when they shouldn't have), and have not been illegally communicating nor fielding a psyche or misbid, they can do what they like, and if they get lucky then so be it.

 

I remember some opponents being rather annoyed at my brother once - he was a beginner and passed my 2NT (19-20) with a 7 count or something, but the opps had five cashing tricks off the top. Definitely a mistake, but that's all it was, and the fact it paid off for a top is just the way it goes.

 

ahydra

[jmc]

If you look at an ACBL convention card on the left side under Simple Overcalls there is a section on responses. The boxes for advancer's new suit bids are Forcing, Non-forcing constructive, and Non-forcing. All three of these boxes are BLACK indicating no alert or announcement is required.

[gnasher]

the director said that they are weak and don t know that the bid is forcing

I also don't know that the bid is forcing.

[lamford]

Can I suggest that (for several reasons) this topic is in the wrong forum.

Should it be in the Find a Partner/Teacher?

[akwoo]

I, for one, would not play the 3♠ bid as forcing. If the 3♣ response shows a reasonably good hand, I would not even play 3♠ as constructive.

 

Opponents are allowed to have any bidding system they would like. If their bidding system is sufficiently unusual (as defined by your local regulating authority), they are required to alert. They are always required to explain their bidding system upon request.

[helene_t]

.the director said that they are weak and don t know that the bid is forcing so nothing to do..not all is correct in life.

It is a bit of a dodgy approach, isn't it? Weak players still have to follow the rules. That a player doesn't have enough knowledge to follow the rules is a reason for not giving him a PP. Not a reason for not adjusting against him.

 

That said, you probably have to protect yourself in situations where you should know that many club players won't know what the alert procedure says. For example, here in the EBU you technically have to alert

1NT-(2♠)-3♥*

if it is forcing but plenty of club players play it as forcing not because of a specialised agreement but just because they learned at the beginner's course that a new suit at the 3-level is forcing and they think it applies here. Of course you can't expect those pairs to alert it.

 

The 3♠ bid in question is probably not explicitly described in your SO's alert chart, and probably most pairs play it as nonforcing. So I find it very surprising that you (and apparently the TD as well) think it should be alerted. Once again, you should tell us which jurisdiction you play in.

[Trinidad]

the director said that they are weak and don t know that the bid is forcing so nothing to do..not all is correct in life.

Perhaps you should be open for the possibility that this time you were incorrect.

 

• 
   
  
• Whether 3♠ is forcing or not is a matter for your opponents to decide.
  
• Whether a non forcing 3♠ deserves an alert is a matter of the Regulating Authority (often your country's bridge league / union) to decide.
   
  

You give the idea that you do not know what the Regulating Authority has decided on this. That is fine, not everybody needs to know the law. There are enough bridge lawyers on BBF who can inform you about this (as long as you tell where, in what country, you play).

 

However, it is not fine to not know about the law and walk around with the impression that you were wronged by the TD. As long as you don't hear from an expert (probably a majority of experts) that the TD was wrong (possible, since TDs are only human), you can (and should) assume that the TD was right.

 

Up to now, there has been no expert here on BBF who said that you were wronged. Several have implied that it is quite likely (not more accurate than that since they don't know where you play and what rules were in force) that 3♠ did not deserve an alert and that, therefore, probably the TD was right.

 

And even if you are correct that 3♠ should have been alerted then you still need to show the TD how you got damaged.

 

Finally, suppose that you are all correct about this: 3♠ deserved an alert, you were damaged, and the TD was wrong then my advice would be to either let it be, or make an official appeal. My advice would NOT be to walk around with the idea that you were wronged.

 

Rik