ruling #1

[david_c]

I've now run two tourneys on BBO (many thanks to mr1303 for co-directing the first one). There has only been one ruling of any interest, and I'd appreciate comments on how it should have gone:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=st852hak853dajt8c&w=sj64htdq9762ct987&e=sak973hq6dcakqj64&s=sqhj9742dk543c532]399|300|Scoring: MP

W . N . E . S

P - 1♥ - 2♥ - 2♠

P - 3♦ - 4♣ - 4♥

5♣ - P - P - 5♥

P - P - X - all pass[/hv]

 

The 2♥ bid was alerted and explained as Michaels. 2♠ was not alerted. E/W called about half-way through the play, to point out that 2♠ had been bid on a singleton. 5♥X made an overtrick.

 

East asks for an adjustment, making the following points:

• 2♠ must be alerted.
  
• N/S bid incorrectly. South was too weak for 2♠.
  
• West would have supported spades if 2♠ had been alerted.
  
• 2♠ should show at least a stopper.
  

OK, whether or not you agree with those points, should there be an adjustment?

[jillybean]

fwiw

2♠ = cue raise of ♥ should be alerted though Im sure some will just argue that this is just bridge, common knowledge.

 

I guess the question then is would EW bid 5♠, I think they would for -1

 

So, adjusted board and warning for NS, note on profile.

[inquiry]

LIST]

[*]2♠ must be alerted.

[*]N/S bid incorrectly. South was too weak for 2♠.

[*]West would have supported spades if 2♠ had been alerted.

[*]2♠ should show at least a stopper.

First, 2♠ must be alerted. This much is clear. So there is a chance that EW were damaged. So continue the inquiry.

 

Second, on the fact that NS "misbid", so what. First, they didn't alert what 2♠ was suppose to be, so the fact he had less than he was suppose to hardly caused damage. But even so, people are allowed to misbid. Throw this part of the complaint away. Feel free to laugh about it while you do.

 

Third, West would have supported spades if 2♠ had been alerted. I am not sure I agree with this. For one thing, WEST's hand wasn't very good. For another, partner PROMISED spades and WEST had three spades. Did it not occur to him to ask what 2♠ meant. This isn't a matter of common knowledge, this is a matter of, omg, they are bidding our promised suit. I wonder what it is?

 

Fourth, who ever said 2♠ should show at least a stopper. I have never heard such a thing. Either it shows spades (silly in this context), or it is forcing showing something else. EW could simply have asked if they were confused.

 

If you ruled for EW, that is your right (and Jilly's), but here the "cue-bid" of our suit is odd enough I think EW have a responsibility to protect themselves and ask if they were confused. Ideally, I would allow the result to stand for EW, and issue a procedural penalty to NS. Since that is not possible, I would issue a warning to NS and let the result stand. I would add NS to my record of warned non-alerters, and next time, not be so light upon them for failure to alert.

 

Ben

[Limey_p]

Alas, there's no good ruling for this one, since it depends on whose alert regulations you subscribe to.

 

Some say "alert any conventional bid"

 

ACBL-style, a bid in a suit shown by the opponents, isn't alertable.

 

Since you're directing, it's your call. All I can suggest is to try to make the ground rules clear in your conditions of contest.

 

I would have little sympathy for either side here. e-w seem to be experienced enough to expect some sort of redress, so perhaps they should be experienced enough to *ask* south about his bid. And in the spirit of full disclosure, south should volunteer an explanation of his call.

 

My suggestion is to rule against both sides:

e-w get to keep their bad result

n-s get (one of) a warning, a procedural penalty, or an adjusted score, depending on your reading of their methods, experience, etc. (South's call may be that of a new player, so education might be more effective than punishment.)

 

Also, you might post in your conditions of contest "if you call the director, he may rule against *both* sides"

 

A

[DrTodd13]

You haven't said what the relevant alert rules were for your tournament. If you don't decide this information beforehand and post it, how are people supposed to know what they should alert and what they shouldn't. This is unfortunately, no widely accepted default alerting policy. Many people default to whatever alert system they are familiar with while others alert all artificial bids.

 

With respect to the claim "N/S bid incorrectly," please consult Law 40A. A player is entitled to make any bid they want even if it widely diverges from their agreements or from standard practice. There is never a penalty because someone chooses a bid that others might not have made.

 

With respect to the claim "2♠ should at least have a stopper," who are you to dictate what 2♠ should mean to this pair?

 

With respect to the claim "2♠ should have been alerted," like I said, it all depends on what your alerting rules are. In the ACBL, cue-bids of implied suits are rarely alertable. Under ACBL rules, I don't believe this bid is alertable. If you are operating under "alert all artificial bids" then yes this bid should have been alerted.

However, my main point here is that the lack of an alert is irrelevant because E/W failed to protect themselves so there is no adjustment. If an opponent is bidding the suit that your partner has said he has and he hasn't alerted his bid and you need to know what that bid means in order to make a call then ASK A QUESTION! I don't find a raise of spades from the west hand to be clear even had they asked the appropriate question. Moreover, even if E/W land in 4♠, south has demonstrated his intent to bid 5♥ anyway. Is 5♠ crystal clear after 5♥? Anyway, this latter question is irrelevant because the main problem here is that E/W did not protect themselves by asking about an obviously unusual bid so I do not award an adjustment. If E/W appealed, I think I'd even give an AWMW (appeal without merit warning).

[jillybean]

"failure to protect youself" is very subjective.

 

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair? In an open tournament this does seem to create an unfair advantage.

 

Failure to alert 2♠ bid could create confusion for some players - did my partner bid correctly, did I understand my partners bid correctly, should I pass for penalty?

 

 

 

jb

[david_c]

Thanks for the comments. The good news is I ruled that the result should stand, and my replies to East were almost exactly what Ben says above.

 

As for the alerting regs, I'm still in the process of trying to decide what the best thing to say is. I'm considering phrasing it like this:

 

Please alert anything which your opponents might not understand, and explain in English. You definitely MUST alert:

- ALL artificial bids;

- opening bids which are not the same as in SAYC.

 

Any comments on this? (For today's tourney, I only wrote the first sentence.)

[Walddk]

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair?

Absolutely, since I follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The laws do not distinguish between experts and beginners, so a TD is not allowed to rule differently just because an offender is a beginner.

 

Follow the rules, or don't follow them. You can't stop in the middle of everything.

 

Roland

[DrTodd13]

If E/W are experts then I laugh at them for not protecting themselves and award no adjustment.

 

If E/W are novices then I explain to them that if a bid sounds strange (like bidding the suit your partner claims to have) and their bid depends on what the strange bid means then they should ask what it means, whether it was alerted or not. N/S don't deserve more punishment because their opps were novices. How are you supposed to know what skill your opps are anyway? If the pre-posted alert rules were violated by N/S, then I give them a warning. If they are habitual violators, then I give them a procedural penalty. I still don't award an adjustment because E/W have to learn the rules sometime and now is as good a time as any.

[jillybean]

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair?

Absolutely, since I follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The laws do not distinguish between experts and beginners, so a TD is not allowed to rule differently just because an offender is a beginner.

 

Follow the rules, or don't follow them. You can't stop in the middle of everything.

 

Roland

Say the offender (non alert) here is WC and the non offending side is Beginner.

 

Failure to protect yourself is dependant on knowledge & experience not an "exact" law?

[david_c]

One other point: I didn't think it was completely clear that 2♠ was intended as a cue-bid. Maybe South bid it as some sort of psyche (that would explain why he had a weak hand for the bid). But South didn't want to say very much, and so I wasn't able to determine what it was.

[Walddk]

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair?

Absolutely, since I follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The laws do not distinguish between experts and beginners, so a TD is not allowed to rule differently just because an offender is a beginner.

 

Follow the rules, or don't follow them. You can't stop in the middle of everything.

 

Roland

Say the offender (non alert) here is WC and the non offending side is Beginner.

It doesn't change anything. The bottom line is that the laws do not allow you to distinguish. You may disagree of course, but then you need to change the laws first, explicitly stating that there are certain rules for beginners and other rules for world class players.

 

Roland

[DrTodd13]

Thanks for the comments. The good news is I ruled that the result should stand, and my replies to East were almost exactly what Ben says above.

 

As for the alerting regs, I'm still in the process of trying to decide what the best thing to say is. I'm condering phrasing it like this:

 

Please alert anything which your opponents might not understand, and explain in English. You definitely MUST alert:

- ALL artificial bids;

- opening bids which are not the same as in SAYC.

 

Any comments on this? (For today's tourney, I only wrote the first sentence.)

In my opinion, asking people to alert based on what they think their opponents might not understand has loopholes that a congressman would be proud of. I really believe you want an objective standard of what is alertable and not a subjective standard. Also, the first part of your statement seems to conflict with the second part. I fully expect almost everyone to understand stayman and blackwood. Are those alertable? They certainly are artificial. Is the first part of your statement only meant to refer to natural bids that have unusual meanings...like non-forcing or showing/denying a certain number of cards in a side suit?

[DrTodd13]

One other point: I didn't think it was completely clear that 2♠ was intended as a cue-bid. Maybe South bid it as some sort of psyche (that would explain why he had a weak hand for the bid). But South didn't want to say very much, and so I wasn't able to determine what it was.

Normally, 2♠ would be invite+ with ♥ support. In this case, the guy appears to be psyching that bid hoping to be able to play 4♥ undoubled.

[olegru]

First, 2♠ must be alerted.

Agree and disagree at the same time. ;)

 

First, 2♠ must be alerted if NS is expirienced partnership and they have agreement (explicit or implicit) about meaning of 2♠ bid in such of auction.

But what if they just a picked up partnership and 2♠ was based on a common sence? I would probably alert anyway and explain as a "no agreement" but not sure it is the best way to handle.

[jillybean]

One other point: I didn't think it was completely clear that 2♠ was intended as a cue-bid. Maybe South bid it as some sort of psyche (that would explain why he had a weak hand for the bid). But South didn't want to say very much, and so I wasn't able to determine what it was.

Normally, 2♠ would be invite+ with ♥ support. In this case, the guy appears to be psyching that bid hoping to be able to play 4♥ undoubled.

This isn't exactly a gross misrepresentation of your hand, should NS be penalized for an illegal psyche? ;)

[DrTodd13]

One other point: I didn't think it was completely clear that 2♠ was intended as a cue-bid. Maybe South bid it as some sort of psyche (that would explain why he had a weak hand for the bid). But South didn't want to say very much, and so I wasn't able to determine what it was.

Normally, 2♠ would be invite+ with ♥ support. In this case, the guy appears to be psyching that bid hoping to be able to play 4♥ undoubled.

This isn't exactly a gross misrepresentation of your hand, should NS be penalized for am illegal psyche? ;)

It isn't a gross misrepresentation of length but it is a gross misrepresentation of strength. Whether it is a psyche or not doesn't matter. I still don't penalize them. I don't even agree that there is anything called an "illegal psyche." I call any rule that attempts to prohibit certain psyches as illegal itself.

[Elianna]

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair?

Absolutely, since I follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The laws do not distinguish between experts and beginners, so a TD is not allowed to rule differently just because an offender is a beginner.

 

Follow the rules, or don't follow them. You can't stop in the middle of everything.

And yet, I've SEEN rulings that are based on the (usually non-offender's) skill-level. Usually they are in the aspect of "Did they do something egregious enough to cancel the offense?". (Usually worded as "Did they fail to play bridge?"). But they put these questions in context of skill level. (In ACBL bridge)

 

Also, there is one aspect where ACBL makes it a policy to look at player's levels: In polling people to ask logical alternatives. When they're trying to find out what a world class player would have done without a hesitation by pard (for example) it makes no sense to ask a beginner what they would have done. Unfortunately, ACBL makes this determination of skill level by masterpoints, which aren't quite accurate necessarily, but that's a discussion for another thread.

[mycroft]

1. If this is an ACBL tourney, E/W are out of luck. "Most cuebids [including bids of suits shown, but not yet bid] are not Alertable." Who knows what 2S means - who cares. If it's important, ask.

 

2. If this is most BBO tourneys, then there's *probably* a failure to Alert ("standard" BBO alerting tradition is "Alert anything artificial and anything opponents might not expect". But it's just a tradition, and anyone is free to set their own rules for their own tournaments). So, you do the investigation.

 

"N/S, what is your agreement of 2S after 1H-2H Michaels?" If it's an Alertable meaning, then there's been a failure to Alert. if "No idea, never came up", well, that's different.

 

"South, what did you think your agreement was, or what did you expect partner to take it as, and why did you expect it?" - note, not *hope*. If there's an expectation, and a reason why the expectation is valid, then they likely have an implied partnership understanding, which is just as disclosable as the express agreements.

 

"South, why did you bid 2S?" Law 40A says this is irrelevant to this hand, but it could be a psych, could be "generic force", could be misclick, could be...and it starts to create partnership experience.

 

3. If there was a failure to Alert, did the misinformation damage E/W? Usually I'm lenient here - possibly too lenient. But what was west hoping for - that N/S would play 2 spades in the 5-card fit? And if he's too weak to bid 3S or double 2S (whatever that would mean) the previous round, surely after East shows a moose with 4C, and South clarifies her intentions with 4H, he can bid 4S instead of 5C.

 

Unfortunately, the bad lie of the black suits dooms both 5S and 6C. Still better than 5Hx, but I don't believe the fact that west wasn't told that 2S wasn't natural contributed to not finding the sacrifice.

 

4. As for "he didn't have the hand for 2S anyway" and the rest of that guff, N/S don't have to play the same system E/W do (and in fact I don't), and Law 40A says that 2S can mean whatever they want it to mean, subject to the tournament's convention regulations. Usually when the opponents do something "stupid" (i.e. "not what I play") they get a bad score. This time they didn't and it isn't anybody's fault.

 

Michael.

[mycroft]

Would you rule the same with an expert vs expert pair and a beginner vs expert pair?

Absolutely, since I follow the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The laws do not distinguish between experts and beginners, so a TD is not allowed to rule differently just because an offender is a beginner.

And yet, I've SEEN rulings that are based on the (usually non-offender's) skill-level. Usually they are in the aspect of "Did they do something egregious enough to cancel the offense?". (Usually worded as "Did they fail to play bridge?"). But they put these questions in context of skill level. (In ACBL bridge)

 

Yes. And that is in accordance with the Laws of Bridge.

 

There are three places where "class of player" - world class, beginner, anywhere in the middle, even "known coffeehouser" - matters:

 

1) Claims and concessions. The footnote to Laws 69, 70, and 71 makes clear that "normal play" includes "careless or inferior for the class of player, but not irrational".

 

2) Logical Alternatives (mentioned above). While the Laws do not define LA, most bridge organizations do so with relation to "class of player" or "player's peers". And frankly, that's the right thing to do - the expert is going to look for a play to get partner off the endplay as a matter of course in obvious situations; the beginner is going to say "why did you lead a heart, partner? You gave them the contract."

 

This bites both ways, and annoys both the experts playing against novices, and the novices playing against experts. The novices get upset when the experts "get away with" something, especially something they get ruled against for, because for them there is no LA, while for the novices, it is. The experts get upset because the novices' don't even know what their hesitations mean, so what becomes UI is less.

 

3) Protection from MI. Again, the Laws don't say anything specific here, they refer to disclosure "according to SO's regulations". Most SOs, however, put in something like "If you know that a call is likely Alertable, you have to protect yourself; no fair gaming technicalities of the Alert System" (the ACBL's quote is (fairly long):

 

- Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.

- Adjustments for violations are not automatic. There must have been misinformation.

- An adjustment will be made only when the misinformation was a direct cause of the damage.

- Note also that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.

 

).

 

Yes, it causes some problems (If I ask, they will snootily tell me that they don't play transfers, and I've just passed UI to partner. If I don't ask, and it was a transfer, the TD won't give me my chance to double 2H). But the gamesmanship that is avoided by these sorts of rules - players trying to win through the TD what they couldn't get at the table through exploiting trivial infractions of Alert Procedure - was prevalent, is still too prevalent, and seems to be gloriously free in the online world.

 

Note that "class of player" or "player's peers" involves both experience and system style; I'd be annoyed if several players at my MP level passing 1C-1S; 2C with a barren 8-count meant that I had to pass partner's Asking Bid in Clubs in a game-forcing auction because it took him 15 seconds to decide what order to ask the questions in (to make a ludicrously extravagant example; much more common are the 250 MP players (or their British equivalent) who play weak NT. Even if you explain the inferences to yer average 250 MP American, they aren't going to grok weak NT 1m auctions. Heaven help me when there's a question of LAs when I'm playing EHAA!)

 

Michael.

[McBruce]

My first decision on this hand would be to ensure that play continues and a result is recorded. "Please continue playing and I will look at the board and adjust if I feel there has been damage." Especially in a clocked tournament, that always has to be the first consideration.

 

However, it wouldn't take me too long to decide as others have: no adjustment. East's reasons are heavily tinged with the self-interest bug, that curious bridge-player's disease that makes it impossible for us to see logic once we sense that we might have been damaged. In fact, if we look at East's reasons in reverse order we can see how clearly he is grasping at straws...

 

2♠ should show at least a stopper. Maybe for you, but there is no law that tells the opponents to play your way.

 

West would have supported spades if 2♠ had been alerted. Perhaps, but this assumes that 2♠ requires an alert.

 

N/S bid incorrectly. South was too weak for 2♠. We're adjusting because the opponents bid incorrectly now? We'll need one TD for every table!

 

2♠ must be alerted. This is the only reason that some have found to consider an adjustment, but it is still completely wrong. Whatever alert rules you play under, an alert should only be made when there is a partnership agreement about a bid. There is no evidence that N-S had an agreement about the cue-bid other than the obvious one that it is forcing. Note that North did not assume heart support; he bid 3♦. North did not assume any kind of strength; after bidding the forced 3♦, he passed throughout. There is no evidence of an agreement here at all, at all, at all. Therefore, there is no need to alert.

 

The problem that a TD has to envision is that the East player is not going to be happy with the decision. That is why my method would be to explain to everyone involved that my initial decision is no adjustment, but that I will look at it later and make a final decision then, perhaps after the tournament ends--but no further arguments will be considered. Now the players will continue and you can postpone the predictable argument with East until the end, when you can handle a frank exchange of views without Director calls and other nuisances getting in the way.

[mink]

Is the 2♠ bid alertable? The problem with this bid is, that it is alertable no matter what it means. It would only be not alertable if it really showed spades, but not even a beginner would bid something like this if properly educated. This way, the alert carrys no information; if you are interested you have to ask anyway. As a matter of fact, if I sit in the West seat and see the 2♠ bid without alert, and I know that partner bid Michaels, I cannot reasonalbly expect that South just shows spades with this bid. Therefore, EW are never damaged by the failure to alert.

 

A good solution of this kind of "problems" would be that a bid in a suit where an opp showed at least 5 cards is only to be alerted if it is natural, and not alerted if it has any artificial meaning (but still should be explained). But of course I am not suggesting this, as it would be almost impossible to communictate such a rule to all the bridge players worldwide.

 

About the tourney rules concerning alerts: I would clearly not require the players to alert all artificial bids, as we can see that some artificial bids are nearly never alerted:

• various kinds of doubles
  
• stayman
  
• transfer to major
  
• blackwood or rkcb
  
• responses to the above
  

If you really insist that all this has to be alerted, you create a lot of cases as a lot of people do not alert this, but the others really should be used to this. Of course it would be better if there was an alert policy that is followed by everybody, and personally, I alert and explain all this except for the normal non-penalty doubles. But it is not reasonable to expect that when you state that these things are to be alerted in your tourney, that a significant number of players will change their habit not to alert.

 

So rather, if an opp bids 2♦ responding to 1nt and I like to double in order to show my diamonds, I shall ask the meaning of the bid first, if it was not explained.

 

Karl

[helene_t]

2♠ should have been alerted? Maybe, but West should know that it wasn't natural. At least he could ask.

 

South was too weak for 2♠? 2♠ should show at least a stopper? Never heard of. Unless the tournament had a specific defense against Michael's that everybody was supposed to play. But even then, South is allowed to misbid.

 

No adjustment.

[coyot]

Bruce, I think you're not right! In fact, I know you're wrong on this.

 

The alerting rules require alerting ALL artificial bids AND all bids that carry specific partnership agreement (explicit or implicit) or partnership experience.

 

But, the AND here comes in the adding sense, not in the computer-logic sense... In computer logic it should say OR...

 

That is, alert bit is positive if either condition is fulfilled. In self-alerting environment, when you're bidding opps suit, you HAVE to alert it if it is conventional, even though the further bidding analysis shows that partner had no idea what this bid promises or not.

 

My favourite example would be

1♣-x-1♠-2♠.

 

What would you expect this bid to mean? It obviously is a cue-bid, isn't it? No need to alert it if you don't have an agreement... BUT, in this particular situation, I have played it as natural - with several partners WITHOUT prior agreement - and they all got the message that I had good spades.

 

Given this possibility, and given the suit quality that is used for those 2suit overcalls these days, it might be well possible that 2♠ COULD be natural by partnership agreement, or even without it. It happened to me a quite a lot of times that opps overcalled (or showed) a suit in which I held something like AKJ9xx.

 

Now, would you expect a natural bid to be alerted? :))) Or would you automatically assume that it was a cue-bid and as such did not require an alert? Would you claim damages later when you discovered the natural spade holding behind your partner?

[coyot]

About the tourney rules concerning alerts: I would clearly not require the players to alert all artificial bids, as we can see that some artificial bids are nearly never alerted:

• various kinds of doubles
  
• stayman
  
• transfer to major
  
• blackwood or rkcb
  
• responses to the above
  

If you really insist that all this has to be alerted, you create a lot of cases as a lot of people do not alert this, but the others really should be used to this. Of course it would be better if there was an alert policy that is followed by everybody, and personally, I alert and explain all this except for the normal non-penalty doubles. But it is not reasonable to expect that when you state that these things are to be alerted in your tourney, that a significant number of players will change their habit not to alert.

I think it is quite reasonable to expect people to follow rules or carry the punishment if they don't :-)

 

Most of the non-alerting business comes from the "I am the centre of universe" mentality. Many Polish players have never heard about any other system than WJ and their 1♣ opening seems obvious to them. Many American players have never met anyone who does NOT play transfers after their (weak) NT opening.

 

There are subtler differences. For example, Stayman:

- some play that it guarantees major 4card

- some play that it guarantees major 4card or 3card in both majors if weak...

- some play that is is just asking partner about majors and does not guarantee anything.

 

An unalerted Stayman may cause you to misdefend easily if the responder becomes declarer. Somebody bid unalerted stayman with 1-2-4-6 shape... Now, should I spend eternity investigating what does the bid really mean or should I be notified by opps that it has a non-standard meaning?

(For example, alerting rules in CZ say that Stayman does not have to be alerted when it guarantees 4card major).

 

As for the various other bids:

Blackwood, rkcb, responses: You should know that bids above 3NT are not alerted with the exception of conventional openings, no matter what they promise.

 

Transfers to major:

I will happily argue that you deserve no adjust when I bid a 2♦ stopper after 1NT opening and you miss your heart partscore :). And, no matter where we play, even if the rules say that transfers are not alerted, I will be right (unless the rules explicitly say that NON-transfers have to be alerted - and I am sure that the day to alert natural bids will never come).

 

Various doubles:

As far as I know, all non-penalty doubles should be alerted, especially in self-alerting environment (maybe with the expection of first bid by unpassed hand).

 

I know that in f2f bridge, this policy has been changed and no doubles are alerted, but this has been done to prevent passing of UI (when partner alerts your penalty double or vice versa) - the alerts have not been cancelled because the officials would think the opps don't need the information.

 

Simply put, if we want to make this game enjoyable and fair, there must be a UNIFIED alerting policy that will be enforced as strictly as possible. Sure, in the first months a lot of people will find it annoying, having suddenly to alert things they consider natural, but in the long term, everyone will be better off. Until such a policy is accepted, there will always be ill feelings about damages and adjusts.