Another failure to alert 1NT* forcing

[P_Marlowe]

#1 The oppoenents should alert their bids.

Saying 1NT is not forcing and playing 2/1 gf is not contraditory, it is quite common to play 1NT as semi forcing,

No idea, if a semi forcing response requires an alert.

But the later exchange seems to clarify that the opponents play 1NT as forcing.

 

#2 The next question is, are you damaged?

Without the alert the 1NT has less than inv. strength, and you know, that you have to act now, or never - unless partner

finds a reopening bid, which wont be X, due to your heart length.

But it is somewhat less likely, that the opponents have a 8 card fit, and they wont have a 9 card fit, the absence of the

9 card fit makes action more risky.

 

I find it hard to judge, if a 3H bid over 2S was discouraged by the failure to alert, ..., I would say No, but I would most

likely not be there, I would either have bid 3H direct over 1S, or having passed over 1S, I would have passed over

2S in either scenario as well, but this is a case, to be solved by polls (if the director has the time).

The problem with a poll: Some will bid 3H now, because they would have bid 3H earlier.

 

So I would rule no damage, but make a note, that a specific pair is quite sloppy with their alerts.

[jillybean]

Of course when I am comparing STD to a 2/1 auction here I am doing so in a forcing 1nt context, please read the thread title

Whether a 3♥ bid is advised or not is irrelevant, the OS gained an advantage from their infraction.

(read Ed's response upthread)

 

It appears that I can freely gain advantage by not alerting bids and in failing to do so, only risk being labeled as "quite sloppy with our alerts".

[barmar]

3. Jillybean told the Director that had she known that 1NT was forcing, she would have bid 3♥ over 2♠. The advisability of doing so is not relevant to the ruling, only the possible outcome(s) are relevant.

Statements like this are hard to assess. It's self-serving, but that doesn't mean we automatically discount it. But we can't ignore the possibility that seeing dummy influenced her.

 

This is why we usually poll in cases like this. You give pollees her hand, and the auction with the announcement, and find out if they would have acted. If a significant number would have bid 3♥, we adjust.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

It appears that I can freely gain advantage by not alerting bids and in failing to do so, only risk being labeled as "quite sloppy with our alerts".

...

If you encounter the TDs only once, this is risk free, but those habits tend to fester, and they will start to know you,

and in case of doubt rule against you, and maybe hand out procedural penalties.

And once cheating rumors appear (justified or not), they hardly go away, and those rumors can also be started by players,

that have met you at the table.

.

 

And see my reference to a poll.

If the poll indicates, that 3H is a valid bid, that became less attractive due to the failed alert, you will get an adjustment,

I doubt it, but the results of the poll may prove me wrong.

[blackshoe]

The question this incident brought to my mind has to do with whether "gained an advantage" requires that there must have been damage to adjust the score.

 

Law 21B3: 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 law does not, in itself, say anything about "damage" as defined in Law 12.

One might ask "if there is no damage how can we adjust the score"? Maybe we can't. In the given scenario, where the actual final contract might well have been different absent the infraction, have we obtained "normal play of the board"? If we haven't, that's perhaps a path to an artificial adjusted score. If we have (I lean that way) I don't see a path, so if there was no damage (ie. there's no potential result which would result in a better score for the NOS) then I don't see adjusting. There's also the question of aggregate score vs matchpoints. We are taught to adjust on the basis of aggregate score, but in a MP event, it's possible (I think) that an aggregate score exists which would appear to provide no damage, but the corresponding MP score would indicate damage.

 

In any case, Law 73C is a "must" law; violation should incur a procedural penalty absent a very good reason not to give one -- and "we just don't do that" isn't even a barely good reason not to give one.

[jillybean]

...

If you encounter the TDs only once, this is risk free, but those habits tend to fester, and they will start to know you,

and in case of doubt rule against you, and maybe hand out procedural penalties.

And once cheating rumors appear (justified or not), they hardly go away, and those rumors can also be started by players,

that have met you at the table.

.

 

And see my reference to a poll.

If the poll indicates, that 3H is a valid bid, that became less attractive due to the failed alert, you will get an adjustment,

I doubt it, but the results of the poll may prove me wrong.

 

Are you sure we need a poll?

 

This isn't a situation where I may have been influenced by my partners BIT, MI, UI, this is not a test of logical alternatives.

My opponents committed an infraction by not announcing a forcing 1nt bid, had I been given that information I would have bid differently.

[P_Marlowe]

Are you sure we need a poll?

 

This isn't a situation where I may have been influenced by my partners BIT, MI, UI, this is not a test of logical alternatives.

My opponents committed an infraction by not announcing a forcing 1nt bid, had I been given that information I would have bid differently.

We do.

 

A TD should not be forced to decide, if a claim by a participant is true / false / self serfing.

If I got it right, the exchange with your opponents occurred after you saw the complete deal.

Did the knowledge of the complete deal influence you? I have no idea, how should I know.

 

The poll is the tool to have an objective assesement of the situation in question, it tries to

eliminate / reduce the problem:. Do I like / dislike you due to things, that have nothing to do with

the concrete problem.

It also helps the TD to check, if the judgement of the TD, which actions are (not) reasonable,

is spot on or not.

 

I do believe, that failure to alert is a serious issue and TDs are often not hard enough in enforcing the rule,

but I also know, that the famous Secretary Bid is a common presence at the table, harassing weaker players,

i.e. the rule "failure to alert, shoot them" is also exploited a lot.

[jillybean]

We do.

 

A TD should not be forced to decide, if a claim by a participant is true / false / self serfing.

If I got it right, the exchange with your opponents occurred after you saw the complete deal.

Did the knowledge of the complete deal influence you? I have no idea, how should I know

 

NO I drew attention to the infraction when dummy came down.

[jillybean]

The poll is the tool to have an objective assesement of the situation in question, it tries to

eliminate / reduce the problem:. Do I like / dislike you due to things, that have nothing to do with

the concrete problem.

It also helps the TD to check, if the judgement of the TD, which actions are (not) reasonable,

is spot on or not.

 

So the poll is to test to see if my bidding capabilities/judgement/system/style is similar to others?

Please quote the law that gives you this power?

[smerriman]

NO I drew attention to the infraction when dummy came down.

Out of interest, why *did* you wait until you saw dummy? There is nothing about dummy that suggests the opponents misinformed you.

 

Or was this a consequence of your misunderstanding about what 1NT shows in SAYC - you thought dummy would have bid differently in SAYC, implying a mistake that wasn't actually there (well, it was, but only by coincidence)?

[jillybean]

Out of interest, why *did* you wait until you saw dummy? There is nothing about dummy that suggests the opponents misinformed you.

 

Or was this a consequence of your misunderstanding about what 1NT shows in SAYC - you thought dummy would have bid differently in SAYC, implying a mistake that wasn't actually there (well, it was, but only by coincidence)?

Why should I ask about the auction? 1♠ 1NT 2♠, there was nothing unusual about the auction.

I asked for clarification because I considered dummy's 2146 5 count a classic hand to bid a forcing 1NT, no doubt also influenced by my lack of understanding of a SAYC auction.

 

What bearing does all this have on a ruling?

[sfi]

I asked for clarification because I considered dummy's 2146 5 count a classic hand to bid a forcing 1NT, no doubt also influenced by my lack of understanding of a SAYC auction.

 

What bearing does all this have on a ruling?

Because dummy is also a classic hand to bid a non-forcing 1NT in Standard American. This is considered part of "general bridge knowledge" (at least in most places) and a player who makes a decision based on not knowing that is unlikely to receive an adjustment even if there was an infraction.

 

You appear to be saying that the set of hands that would bid 1NT in 2/1 and in Standard American are significantly different. They're just not.

[smerriman]

Exactly. Even if it *shouldn't* affect the ruling, it definitely makes it a lot harder to convince someone that you were wanting to bid based on the system, as opposed to wanting to bid based on seeing dummy was short in hearts. If you had seen dummy had more hearts, you probably would have kept quiet..

 

But now that you know what 1NT means in SAYC, this situation will never reoccur. Maybe your opponents won't be punished for their failing to alert, but it's not actually going to affect you, so perhaps it's best to take this as a positive and move on.. if in the future there is a hand where it affects you, perhaps it will be a much clearer situation.

 

(For reference, I ran a poll - early days but currently 100% for passing regardless of system. Not that this affects the ruling, just potentially the best decision).

[blackshoe]

I don't think a poll is going to tell us much about how to rule this. There was an infraction of Law 21B. The infraction was brought to light when the dummy came down. 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." Did the OS gain an advantage? I believe so, as I said earlier. Does that mean we adjust the score? 21B3 says "yes", but it's not that simple -- again, as I said before.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to tear holes in my argument. :-)

[jillybean]

I don't think a poll is going to tell us much about how to rule this. There was an infraction of Law 21B. The infraction was brought to light when the dummy came down. 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." Did the OS gain an advantage? I believe so, as I said earlier. Does that mean we adjust the score? 21B3 says "yes", but it's not that simple -- again, as I said before.

 

Maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to tear holes in my argument. :-)

 

For my understanding, why do you get the table to play the hand when you are going to award an adjusted score?

The OS have gained advantage from the infraction in the auction, will the play have any relevance?

[pescetom]

Did you really intend to say that I should protect myself from my opponents infractions by asking about a bid which, when required, is announced with a simple one word, "forcing" and in the process of asking, I will give UI to my partner?

 

I'm damned if I do, I'm damned if I don't, remember that I'm not the one who has made the infraction. :lol:

Some RAs, including mine and IIRC ACBL, do insist that experienced players are expected to protect themselves if it looks like they may be receiving MI and they need to know. I share your concerns about this.

[P_Marlowe]

For my understanding, why do you get the table to play the hand when you are going to award an adjusted score?

The OS have gained advantage from the infraction in the auction, will the play have any relevance?

Sure, ... it happens, that the finally achieved score at the table is good for the non offending side, in this case the score

stands, this means less work for the TD, and the no non offending side is happy.

[axman]

[hv=pc=n&w=s53hkjt642d74ck76&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp1np2sppp]133|200[/hv]

 

ACBL. Here's the auction, no alerts.

 

When dummy comes down;

[hv=pc=n&w=s53hkjt642d74ck76&n=s42h3dkt96cqt9432&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp1np2sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

.... I look at their card and under general approach; 2/1 gf. ...

"Director please"

 

 

How do you rule?

 

This is my take:

 

Voting that failure to alert to be MI does not make it so. First of all, Alerts are proven to be busy work. Busy work that players and TDs get wrong time and again. You have the opponents' CC: you have been informed. No MI therefore no damage from MI.

[pescetom]

3. Jillybean told the Director that had she known that 1NT was forcing, she would have bid 3♥ over 2♠. The advisability of doing so is not relevant to the ruling, only the possible outcome(s) are relevant.

 

I respectfully take issue (like others in the early discussion, it would seem) with your point 3 that advisability is no issue. I don't have to take for gold every argument a player presents. It seems to me that in these cases the argument of the complainant must have some credibility, deriving either from clear inherent merit or from available documentation of agreements. If in doubt TD should give the benefit or poll, but just like paulg and sfi I am not convinced there is doubt here.

[pilowsky]

Does the question "Is 1NT forcing" asked OTB after the dummy has landed result in unfair transmission of information to the partner of person asking?

Partner might now consider that opener has a type of hand that they had not considered before hearing the question.

 

My understanding was that questions about the bidding should happen after the lead is placed face down but before dummy is exposed and should be of the form "please explain the bidding".

Leading questions such as "was that a transfer" etc could imply information transfer to partner.

It seems that by asking a "specific" question at this point could lead to partner considering possibilities that may not have occurred to them otherwise (eg implying that RHO has a specific holding, or that Declarer has a particular hand - a five card holding rather than six).

 

Suppose in the auction 1NT - P - 2D (not alerted) - P - 2H -PPP

Dummy comes down and RHO asks - "Was 2D a transfer to H?", might not Declarer ask if the question asked at this point isn't suggesting something about RHO's hand that LHO might not otherwise consider.

 

Should Director calls in these situations come after the play of the hand to avoid muddying the water?

[blackshoe]

Voting that failure to alert to be MI does not make it so.

That's not what the law says.

 

First of all, Alerts are proven to be busy work. Busy work that players and TDs get wrong time and again.

Uh, huh. I'm from Missouri. Show me.

 

You have the opponents' CC: you have been informed. No MI therefore no damage from MI.

Nope. The opponent has his CC. Maybe. Besides, this goes back to my first comment in this post. That's not what the law says.

[Gilithin]

Voting that failure to alert to be MI does not make it so. First of all, Alerts are proven to be busy work. Busy work that players and TDs get wrong time and again. You have the opponents' CC: you have been informed. No MI therefore no damage from MI.

With this attitude to alerting, I can guarantee that you would get kicked from our BBO table within 10 hands. If alerting your agreements properly is too much work, perhaps bridge is the wrong game for you. Your opponents are entitled to the information so when you withhold it you are committing the bridge equivalent of a yellow card offence. Doing it deliberately is simply cheating. Are you a cheat axman?

[axman]

That's not what the law says.

 

 

Uh, huh. I'm from Missouri. Show me.

 

 

Nope. The opponent has his CC. Maybe. Besides, this goes back to my first comment in this post. That's not what the law says.

Some clarification is in order:

 

The query was ' How do you rule?'

 

When I run a game I post and make these announcements prior to the session:

 

1. partnership's completed CCs must be presented to receive entry

2. exchange CCs for the round (to minimize the need to ask questions)

3. ALERTS ARE FORBIDDEN

as provided by L81C2 & L80B2f I find that L16B1 specifies Alerts are a system of communication other than by call or play and thereby conflict with L73B1 in contravention of L80B2e and thus are forbidden in face to face contests, and, that their use is subject to PP.

[Gilithin]

The query was ' How do you rule?'

So you make up your own rules/regulations and just assume they are valid even when providing rulings for other jurisdictions? Just perfect for this forum. Well done.

[jillybean]

So the poll is to test to see if my bidding capabilities/judgement/system/style is similar to others?

Please quote the law that gives you this power?

Could someone answer this please, I can't find the law that would be applied here.