ruling with missing alert?

[Codo]

In another threat (rookies first..)

McBRuce wrote:

 

But the Laws say that when there is damage, the offending side gets the least favourable result possible without the damage. There are some directors who will refuse to adjust if the non-offenders do anything that looks silly when the full hand record is examined. They fail to realize that players see only 13 cards and damage can easily contribute to strange-looking decisions. I think it has to be abundantly clear that a non-offender is trying for a "double-shot" before making them eat their bad score, and I didn't see any evidence of that on this deal.

 

Are the laws so different in different parts of the world?

Here you need 3 steppingstones:

1. Was there a wrong information?

2. Was there a damage?

3. Was the damage maybe caused by the wrong information.(In doubt rule for the non-offernding side).

 

First question: Is there really a different approach in ACBL land or anywhere?

 

In the given example, we all agree, that there was a missing alert and that E/W missed a game.

So Steppingstones Nr. 1 and 2 are cleary there.

 

But question Nr. two: Does the missing alert really make it harder for E/W to find a GAME?

 

Gerardo and McBruce obviously belive that.

Luis and Ron obviously think this is ridicoulus.

 

Any other comments?

 

Kind Regards

 

Roland

[McBruce]

Are the laws so different in different parts of the world?

 

No. B) I was referring to the "get the non-offending side whenever possible and even if not" tendencies of a local club Director. Example:

 

Board 24 NORTH

June 3, 2003 T96

J97

WEST AK972 EAST

J4 K4 A53

8 KQT3

T8653 SOUTH QJ4

QT752 KQ872 AJ8

A6542

None vul void

West deals 963

 

 

WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH

2NT* Pass 3S+ Double

Pass 3NT Double 4D

Pass# Pass Double 4H

Pass Pass Double End

 

* -- 0-11 points, both minors

+ -- not alerted

# -- after West's pass of 4D, East mentioned that his 3S call should have

been alerted. The Director was called and admonished East for this improper

alert, and asked that play continue. Before passing 4D, North asked the

meaning of 3S and was told that it showed a strong hand and was artificial.

 

North-South had no agreements about any of their bids. 4H* went -3 for 500

on the JS lead.

 

The ruling was NS -500 (no damage), EW AVG- (for failure to alert).

 

 

I had no idea what 3S showed when I chose to bid 3NT, but I imagined that it might be some very long spade suit that might have a shot at eight or even nine tricks. This is a hard case to make when the Director is looking at all 52 cards. The Director, not realizing that I had no way of knowing that 3S was artificial, decided my goofy 3NT call had nullified our right to an adjustment. The ruling of -500/Avg- is not one that the Laws allows, of course. The Director is currently playing in Long Beach and we are eagerly watching the posted appeals cases for evidence of his influence (or vice versa). :)

 

--McBruce

[JRG]

If 2NT was alerted (it appears from your post that it was), then I think it is a grave mistake NOT TO ASK the meaning of 3S. Once or twice when I've felt hurt by an opponent's failure to alert, playing face-to-face with my regular partner, he has had no sympathy with me and told me it was silly of me not to inquire.

 

In this case, it has to be clear that 3S maybe:

 

- psychic

- legitimate, long spade suit (LONG as he didn't take a preference to a minor)

- something artifical

 

While I have some sympathy because of the failure to alert, I don't have a lot.

[keylime]

Just a thought about this...there is a mindset with some directors here in ACBL land that just because there might have been a failure to alert a conventional call doesn't mean an automatic adjustment will be made. To an extent I agree with this but under one precept: both pairs must not fail to continue to play bridge. Remember the infamous "Oh, S**t!" ruling in the Vancouver nationals?

 

Luckily the opening in question is not permitted under GCC rules because it must show at least 10 HCP, however...I get lots of email begging me to permit destructive treatments such as this aforementioned one and Wilkosz (for obvious reasons) in some of my events. As most of you know I run a wide assortment of formats to cater to the majority of players. I get more interest in Superchart events than any other form because everyone feels "included". Do I think the GCC is restrictive? In certain areas, yes. However, the vast majority of the rules and precepts the GCC has make sound sense. As much as some would hate to hear it, believe it or not, the Multi 2D (or its weak equivalent the Wagner 2D) is an attempt to be destructive. Does it work? Well, that's another ball of wax entirely...

 

Last night I myself has a most difficult ruling to render last night because there not only wasn't sufficient bridge logic exercised but furthermore the auction and language barriers were completely muddled. Did I make the best decision? Depending on who you ask, that answer varies between the best decision ever made to "Why did you penalize us? I thought my bid was natural!". I luckily had at my fingertips two nationally rated directors to throw this problem at and they independently came up with the same ruling that I did, but still...the cultural differences of interpretation made it most challenging. Did I learn from this? Defintely. It made me continue to strive to provide as equal of playing field as possible with sensitivity given to regional differences. Contrary to popular belief, there is more than one interpretation of rules, procedures, and structures.

 

The failure of an alert is at times difficult to adjust. You bring into the equation possible misinformation, rolling back the auction, and at times heated discussions about whether or not a call is conventional. Simply look at some of the decisions rendered at NABC's and in Europe (there's an excellent Swiss site that has a nice complilation but I don't have it readily available) on failures to alert, MI, and tempo. Being a director at times is no picnic, but I enjoy the challenge and the prestige given to me by the adoring members of BBO. Frankly, it's nice reading 10-12 good emails instead of spam in my inbox. ;)

[the hog]

Do I think the GCC is restrictive? In certain areas, yes. However, the vast majority of the rules and precepts the GCC has make sound sense. As much as some would hate to hear it, believe it or not, the Multi 2D (or its weak equivalent the Wagner 2D) is an attempt to be destructive.

 

Perhaps its inappropriate for me to comment on US regulations, however....the Multi 2D destructive? Well we differ greatly on that opinion, I think it is a mild, easy to defend against bid. Wilkosz destructive, or Hrothgar's Frelling 2s? Probably, but so what? Part of playing bridge is to stop opponents from bidding accurately to their contract. Else why pre empt, why are psyches explicitlly allowed.

 

To me as an outsider your GCC regulations make no sense at all, Dwayne. They are designed purely to preserve the status quo in US bridge. If I lived over there I probably could not be bothered playing as it would be too boring. Another victory to Ayatollah Wolff and his minions.

 

Incidentally, what is the "oh s**t" ruling you refer to?

 

Ron

[keylime]

Here's where I'm about to open a major can of worms but that's never stopped me before. There's two schools of thought about the Multi. One is that is is a progressive treatment that most of the world plays and encounters, while the other is that it's "dirty bridge" or "destructive and disruptive". I firmly believe it's a little of both.

 

Psyches are another topic entirely and I will post something to that effect later on. However I will simply say that the provisions given by the ACBL are inadequate at best and are in need of revision. At least they prohibit psyching conventional bids and responses at certain levels, but this I feel isn't enough.

 

The status quo in bridge here is very region specific. The GCC with some creativity can be stretched to an incredible limit in a system (simply look at Key Lime Precision -- my method is GCC legal yet has incredible levels of complexity, and yes I do have a Mid-Chart and Superchart flavor...). I feel it is designed to allow the majority of players, who are older than most other NBO's (average age 66) to enjoy and compete. Mr. Wolff doesn't carry as much credence anymore when it comes to convention disruption and the like...Jeff Meckstroth and a couple of others have been instrumental recently in the regulations. Do I agree with them? Not necessarily -- if anything they set me back some. However I did understand the reasons why.

 

The ruling I mentioned occurred in 1986 if memory serves. Basically a declarer was playing the hand and miscalled in tempo a card from dummy...after a pause realized his error and uttered the epithet. Instead of ruling that the card called was played, the committee in ruling stated that declarer has the right to be barred from making an irrational play. This ruling has haunted the ACBL for quite a long time.

[the hog]

You still have not addressed my question Dwayne - what is wrong with destructive methods? Pre empts (2, 3 and 4 level openings) can hardly be regarded as constructive methods. Why is this regarded as "dirty bridge". Its just part of the game, just as much as is interference with trash over a big C. Wayne, I am not going to sit back and let you "Key Lime" yourself to the top spot without making it hard for you, just as my opps don't for me when I play relays. Destructive methods, ces ne pas?

 

Lets be honest about this, US regulations are aimed at making life easy for those who comprise the bulk of your membership and those who have a vested interest in preseving the status quo. Look at Meckstroth's antics at attempting to protect his clients against the big bad Ekrens 2C opening recently. This hypocrisy from someone whose system is rumored to run to 800 pages.

 

Ron

[keylime]

What's wrong with destructive methods? Well, I just am of the opinion that to deliberately attempt to destroy the opponent's methods is not only contracondusive to the game, but an infringement of ethics. As you mentioned, people will come up with anything to get in the way of a forcing club (CRASH, Suction, Nightmare - those three come readily to mind). I firmly feel that CRASH is very destructive and shouldn't be permitted unless the event is of sufficient quality (I've seen it used and abused and admittedly I got my lion's share of 500's and up dealing with CRASH, and I have a solid method for confronting this). With Suction, it's nearly as destructive as CRASH, but at least you have some idea with the transfer suit or the contrapositive two suiter what's going on. With Nightmare, each bid is clearly defined with a limited scope. I wished the ACBL under GCC events only would mandate just like they do over a NT opening that there be an anchor suit known. Under Mid-chart or Superchart, hey, let anything go because we all are grown-ups.

 

Ever since Bergen's writings here in the U.S., there are a great number of players that will preempt on horrible hands. Recently I encountered a Bergenite that preempted on 9-x-x-x-x-x. We got into 3NT and guess what her partner led for me? The King from K-x. Not only did this guarantee the contract, but they were nice enough to allow me 3 extra tricks that I wasn't counting on when the bidding ended. Does this mean that aggressive preempts are bad? Not necessarily. I simply am stating that there should be something of quality in the preempted suit. Let's face reality, classical style preempts are rare. I feel that preempts should be lead directional at worse case. Statistical analysis has proven that the more advantageous a preempt is, the more often it is to backfire on the preempters. Since I do play with numbers, I'll play the percentages most of the time and be happier for it.

 

However, the quality of the opposition matters greatly in my evaluations. If I'm dealing with superior players, then I pull partner off to the side and explain that I will be more assertive and attacking in my preempts, game tries, etc. However, with lesser opposition I tend to me more cautious in approach. These are IMP styled views I know, but that's the format I play in by far the most.

 

Of course, knowing my luck, I'll have someone make a preempt on 9-x-x-x-x-x again by the end of the week and have it work out, but that to me is more a rarity than the norm.

[the hog]

What's wrong with destructive methods? Well, I just am of the opinion that to deliberately attempt to destroy the opponent's methods is not only contracondusive to the game, but an infringement of ethics.

 

Totally disagree with the above. To take this to its logical conclusion, you have to ban all pre emptive bids.

 

Also if you are of the opinion you express above, Dwayne, you cannot then say "Under Mid-chart or Superchart, hey, let anything go because we all are grown-ups. " If something is unethical, it is unethical, regardless of what level you are playing. Needless to say I don't think interfering with the opps bidding is unethical at all. Differences are what makes life interesting.

 

On a totally different issue I must admit I cannot understand why anyone would want to play in any event other than the highest level available. What is the point in pitting yourself against any opposition but the best. I have never come to grips with your concept of "Flighted events". I guess your concepts of GCC, mid charts etc relates to this.

[keylime]

Some of the oldtimers in the ACBL still loathe flighted events...I can hear them right about now...<chuckles>

[the hog]

Interesting. I would have thought old timers would be in favour and others would be against flighted events. Id rather knock of Meckwell in round 1 and lose in round 2 of the Vanderbilt than win 10 flight B events.

[keylime]

It's funny you mentioned Meckwell. Recently I saw two absolute beginners give them three straight bottom boards at matchpoints. Isn't bridge a wonderful game? ;)

[McBruce]

Somehow, the ACBL draws a line somewhere between opening 3H to take up bidding space and more potent destructive calls, by banning (in GCC, Mid, and Superchart) "methods whose PRIMARY PURPOSE is to destroy the opponent's methods." As for how to define this, I have no idea. Obviously they consider pre-empts to be OK, leaving the question: what is a pre-empt's primary purpose?

 

To me it seems that many of the agreements that seem (to this ACBL veteran) to be too destructive are those that carry two or more widely different meanings. Far too often the people who play these methods will describe them in the most minimalist way allowed. (I am sure The_Hog is not among them!) A few examples from my experience:

 

-the Polish Club opener is destructive when the explainer fails to mention that the three types of hands possible are not equally likely. Most know this from experience, and many would make that conclusion, but to many facing it for the first time and hearing an "A, B or C" explanation, it sounds like there is a good chance that it is a rock crusher, and not--what, less than 5%? Full disclosure, it seems to me, would dictate explaining it as "artificial and forcing; usually 12-15 balanced, sometimes 16-18 with long clubs, rarely 19+ any distribution." The destuction is not in the bid itself, but the way the minimal explanations sound, especially to those who are unfamiliar. This is why people don't make bids against these auctions: because they are afraid to go for a number and the explanation sounds like it is much more likely than it really is.

 

-either/or bids like Suction or Multi. The ACBL probably should allow these but the people who play these methods in my experience have not been very forthcoming with a suggested defense. I asked for a defense to Suction after my partner opened 1NT and RHO overcalled, and my LHO, a well-known online teacher, smiled and said "just let it happen." When the "suggested defense" is to wait a round and let the opponents clarify their holdings, this is destruction at its worst.

 

I think ultimately the test is: did you adopt this convention because you felt it would give you an technical advantage, or because you felt you would gain through the opponents' unfamiliarity? If the latter is more important, the convention is destructive and unethical, although the magnitude varies. It simply is not reasonable to take the standards at a 128 board KO series, where you can study your next opponent's methods intensely, and apply these standards to a pairs game where in 3.5 hours you may face 13 different opponents and any studying of methods is going to be limited to a minute or so.

 

I see no problem with destructive conventions as long as Full Disclosure is available and freely offered. Others, especially in the ACBL where we are regrettably shielded from many reasonable conventions used elsewhere in the world, may disagree and wish to play in tourneys where no such methods are allowed. Why worry? Anyone experienced enough to make fairly informed comments here will be welcomed as a BBO-TD by Uday and Fred, and then you can run what you want.

 

--McBruce

[the hog]

I see no problem with destructive conventions as long as Full Disclosure is available and freely offered.

 

This I totally agree with. Full explanations are expected and understood. Mind you, this means an sayc 15-18 opening should also be alerted where I come from, because it is unexpected.

 

I think ultimately the test is: did you adopt this convention because you felt it would give you an technical advantage, or because you felt you would gain through the opponents' unfamiliarity? If the latter is more important, the convention is destructive and unethical, although the magnitude varies.

 

This I do not.

Unfamiliarity is a matter of where you are geographically and against whom you play. To me sayc is unfamiliar and odd. If you play serious bridge, you should have meta agreements that allow you to cope with say unanchored 2 suiter openings, or a 2H opening that is either a weak 2 in H or in S. We play transfer opeinings in Pairs events here and a 10 second discussion is usually ample for our opps to have a workable defence. The problem is that if you are shielded from anything that is remotely difficult, you will never be able to cope.

 

the Polish Club opener is destructive when the explainer fails to mention that the three types of hands possible are not equally likely

 

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

The 1C opener is alertable as "12-15 balanced, or 16-18 with C or 18+ any."

 

If you don't know that a 12-15 hand is more likely than a big hand of 18+, then that is your problem. Do you want me to give you a probabilities table when you have a decision to make between a possible squeeze and say a 3-3 break as well?

[luis]

The Hog said:

To me as an outsider your GCC regulations make no sense at all, Dwayne. They are designed purely to preserve the status quo in US bridge. If I lived over there I probably could not be bothered playing as it would be too boring. Another victory to Ayatollah Wolff and his minions.

Incidentally, what is the "oh s**t" ruling you refer to?

 

Well, I had a little accident last Tuesday when the-worst-td-in-the-world decided it was time to ban Moscito because he was getting too many complains from old ladies. Then the "guy who knows what can you play" decided the system was ok adding 4 HCP to our requierements for relays.... sigh.....

I wonder if I can get Australian citizenship by pleading I'm being tortured by our only-one TD and our NBO ? Maybe you guys need a bridge player :-).

[keylime]

I'll tell you all a funny story that happened to me at a National in Houston, TX (Spring 2002). At the time, KLP used the Wagner 2D opening, which is basically a weak two in an unspecified major (think Multicoloured minus all the strong meanings). My partner and I sat down and started play in a two session event (she needed her remaining gold points). We had this opening come up 4 times in the first session, and all four times after the director was called, the ruling was that we were perfectly allowed to play this treatment. Not bad so far. Second session had it come up 3 times, and on the seventh time a director finally ruled correctly that the treatment wasn't permitted under GCC rules (at the time, I was not very versed in the GCC, so KLP was a lot more simplified than it is now). Luckily the director didn't rule damage or give a procedural penalty, but the mass confusion of having five different directors give a ruling that is clearly on the Mid-Chart spoke volumes about some of the issues the ACBL was having in monitoring the games.

 

Out of frustration I changed the 2D opening to the Mexican Romex form, where it has remained on the GCC form of the card. Do I think the Wagner is destuctive? Not really -- the opponents could still compete and if you had a good hand opener's second bid told the quality and suit of preempt. Same thing with transfer preempts -- loved them until they themselves moved to the Mid-chart.

 

The ACBL at least is attempting to open more games to the Mid-chart, but having to carry 2000 MP's to use these treatments is a pretty high cost to pay for many members.

[JRG]

 

On a totally different issue I must admit I cannot understand why anyone would want to play in any event other than the highest level available. What is the point in pitting yourself against any opposition but the best. I have never come to grips with your concept of "Flighted events". I guess your concepts of GCC, mid charts etc relates to this.

 

 

Someone else commented on "flighted events" and being liked by old-timers. I think I probably count as an old-timer (gave up bridge for about 12 - 15 years before starting to play again - family, job, getting a university degree part-time, trying to start a business...).

 

Anyway, when I first encountered flighted events, I HATED them. I dislike playing against a pair without having a clue as to their bridge ability. I still dislike flighted events.

 

In a similar vein, I've never really understood the point of "Seniors Games". If it is to create an event for people whose mental capabilities are declining, then it is condescending and an insult. I've played against Canadian world-class players of yesteryear - Bruce Elliot, Percy Sheardown, Eric Murry, Sammy Kehela... They are quite capable of removing your undershirt before you realize your tie is crooked. A name that is probably familiar to more people (I never had a chance to play against him), is the late Oswald Jacoby.

 

Cheers,

[mycroft]

Luckily the opening in question is not permitted under GCC rules because it must show at least 10 HCP, however...

 

Interesting thread - but if you nailed me for this in one of your tournaments, I'd ask you politely to go back and read the GCC. 2NT weak, both minors *is* GCC, and has been so as long as I've been playing...

 

An opening two-suited two-of-a-suit bid requires 10 HCP (GCC 6), but:

 

7. OPENING NOTRUMP BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating at least 5-4 distribution in the minors.

 

Side note: it didn't come up in 200 boards this week :-)

Michael.

[keylime]

The 2NT opening is permitted but it has to show at least 10 HCP under the GCC -- I recommend asking Mike Flader because I'm pretty certain that you must have 10 HCP to open any two level bid with two known suits. :)

[hrothgar]

Dwanye, you are confusing two sepate rules

 

Quoting the GCC:

 

6. OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5-4 distribution in the suits.

 

7. OPENING NOTRUMP BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating at least 5-4 distribution in the minors.

 

Rule 6 is intended to enable Flannery type 2D/2H openings.

Rule 7 legalizes a 2NT preempt showing both minors. Note that there is a strength requirement for the Flannery type opening but not for the 2NT preempt.

[keylime]

Here's what I'm going to do...since I am in the business of getting it right all the time, I have asked for the assistance of the ACBL's guru Mike Flader to give me the absolute exact definition on this topic. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and it won't be the first time either. However, for some reason, I don't think I am, as of this point.

[hrothgar]

Here's what I'm going to do...since I am in the business of getting it right all the time, I have asked for the assistance of the ACBL's guru Mike Flader to give me the absolute exact definition on this topic. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and it won't be the first time either. However, for some reason, I don't think I am, as of this point.

 

Fine and well to ask.

However, the wording on the GCC is clear and unambiguous. If the ACBL has defined that the 2NT opening requires 10+ HCP then they have an obligation to correct the actual rules rather than relying on back channel communications.

 

For what its worth,I'm equally sure that the 2NT is allowed on weaker hands.

[keylime]

The GCC being clear? That's a novel concept in the eyes of some...then again our own tourney directors don't even know the mechanisms of the chart! :)

[inquiry]

The discussion of can you open 2NT with a weak minor two suiter with 10 or 2 points is besides the original point.... at least as far as I am concerned. If you open such 2NT... you MUST alert it. Without the alert, it is big problem, either way.

 

Ben

[keylime]

Besides KLP, I only know on one pair I've ever encountered that used the NT opening to show the minors. They are locally based here in Tampa, and they use 3NT as 5-5 in the minors, 11-15 HCP.

 

It's a rare to see opening that's for sure...