[jillybean]

Hi,
I was called by South re 2♥ opening. I asked East to explain the 2♥ bid - no reply.

I asked West about their agreement, his reply "6♠, x♥, weak" (whats this?)

Failure to alert, damage to N/S - what adjustment do you make?
I adjusted Avg for N/S, Avg- E/W
5♣ likely contract does not make, what is the correct adjustment here?

tyia
jillybean2

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     2♥    3♣
 Pass  3NT   Pass  Pass
 Pass  

[hotShot]

This is a transfer preempt. Assume that North will pass, since he does stop ♥ but not ♠. If pass by west is not forcing, than east has hardly any reason to bid on. In fact i think he is forced to pass, since he has the UI that partner might have forget the agreement.

So adjust to 3♣=.

[david_c]

hotShot, on May 19 2005, 11:47 AM, said:

This is a transfer preempt. Assume that North will pass, since he does stop ♥ but not ♠. If pass by west is not forcing, than east has hardly any reason to bid on. In fact i think he is forced to pass, since he has the UI that partner might have forget the agreement.

Surely not - East doesn't have any UI at all. He can do whatever he likes. (If this was a face-to-face game and West had not alerted 2♥, then there would be UI.)

[DrTodd13]

Here's my take on the situation. Let's say you got an immediate alert and an accurate description from east. What will NS likely do? South will still bid 3♣. Without the alert, 3N seems a natural bid. With an alert, N will downgrade the ♠K within the context of a ♣ game but might give it more value if he declares 3N. Without the alert we'll never know but a reasonable course of action is a simple raise to 4♣ given the downgraded ♠K. If there is an infraction and damage then NS get the best result that is likely to occur. So here is the litany.

1. Was there misinformation? You don't say when director was called but assuming it was after the 3N call then yes there was misinformation.
2. Was there damage? You would give the ♠K less value if east has spades and that may influence the final contract so yes I would say there is potential damage. N may well only bid 4♣ instead of 3N. NS get the benefit of the doubt so we'll assume that S makes the reasonable decision of passing 4♣.
3. If possible, I'd assign EW a procedural penalty.
4. I'd adjust to 4♣-1 for NS.

With respect to hotShot, I cannot see N not taking any action with this hand vulnerable at IMPs.

[cherdano]

I don't think ave- is hard enough punishment for EW. If you are playing such an unusual treatment as transfer preempt, you should be doubly responsible for alerting them as necessary.

Arend

[LH2650]

You either have to assign Average Plus / Average Minus or estimate probable results on the board (per 12C2), given the proper information. It seems to me that the overcall was an overbid, and that it leads to at least -200 for NS. Last time I mentioned that procedural penalties were possible after repeated failures to Alert, I got ripped, so I won't do that here!

[david_c]

LH2650, on May 19 2005, 01:02 PM, said:

You either have to assign Average Plus / Average Minus or estimate probable results on the board (per 12C2), given the proper information.

I believe this is wrong: the laws do not allow you to adjust to Ave+/Ave- in situations like this. (12C1 doesn't apply, because a result was obtained.) Can anyone either confirm this, or explain to me what the position really is?

[DrTodd13]

My understanding is that avg/avg+/avg- cannot be assigned unless it is impossible to determine a likely bridge result. Please see Law 12C1 and 12C2.

Todd

[LH2650]

david_c, on May 19 2005, 01:23 PM, said:

I believe this is wrong

Actually, I agree. My comment was intended to be in contrast with the actual assignment of Average / Average Minus. However, if the on-line director feels unable to assign actual results due to experience or time constraints, I would accept Average Plus / Average Minus as a practical solution.

[mike777]

jillybean2, on May 19 2005, 11:17 AM, said:

Hi,
I was called by South re 2♥ opening. I asked East to explain the 2♥ bid - no reply.

I asked West about their agreement, his reply "6♠, x♥, weak" (whats this?)

Failure to alert, damage to N/S - what adjustment do you make?
I adjusted Avg for N/S,  Avg- E/W    
5♣ likely contract does not make, what is the correct adjustment here?

tyia
jillybean2


<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> East </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> NS </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> K8 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AJ93 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> K8 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> 97632 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> QT </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> K764 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 9763 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> KT8 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AJ9742 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> QT5 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> JT54 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td>  </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 653 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> 82 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AQ2 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AQJ54 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->

West  North East  South

 -     -     2♥    3♣
 Pass  3NT   Pass  Pass
 Pass  

I am lost.

East has failed to alert and to respond to any questions from director? Are there not multiple bridge laws broken here? I could even understand some kind of player ban. Can anyone list the potential laws broken and the choices of remedies allowed by director in middle of tourney and after tourney? Was this even legal bid, if so, was it clear on cc, failure to respond to director for any reason, player responsibilty for demeanor and active ethics, best interest of the game, etc etc, etc.

[pigpenz]

if the auction had gone 2♠ 3♣ 3NT/4♠ the roads most likely leads to down 1 or 2. I would think that you could have the score has 3nt-1/2 or 4♠-1/2 and then give the offenders a procedural penalty on top of that.

3NT wold go down2....the question is what would your partner do over 3NT bid and 4♠ bids. I think one has to error on the nonoffending side, since they are the ones who did not create the infraction

[the hog]

Todd is spot on here. Looking at this objectively, I would not be surprised if there is a language issue here as well. The reason I say this is that I would not be surprised if E-W were playing Tutti Frutti, where 2H is a weak 2 in S or H & a minor. This is a Polish convention and hence I draw the conclusion of a language problem. This will always happen on a site like bbo.

The likely result if Nth Sth were aware of the bid's meaning is that Sth will bid 3C, (a very poor bid by the way), Nth will bid 3S angling for 3NT on the basis of a C fit, and Sth would then bid 4C which is 1 down. This is to what I would adjust. Talk of a procedural penalty here is just silly and likely to lead ill feeling. Lets not over react! South did contribute to his own result by making a poor overcall.

Ron

[mike777]

Todd is spot on here. Looking at this objectively, I would not be surprised if there is a language issue here as well. The reason I say this is that I would not be surprised if E-W were playing Tutti Frutti, where 2H is a weak 2 in S or H & a minor. This is a Polish convention and hence I draw the conclusion of a language problem. This will always happen on a site like bbo.

I strongly disagree that this a language issue. If I am playing in Polish tourney and speak only English and I get a private msg from TD in polish and I do not respond in some manner this is just being rude and abusive. I would expect to be kicked out and banned.

Also was Tutti Frutti explained on CC in language of site, if not I would expect to be banned. Is it legal, if I played it without bothering to find out, that is just rude and again abusive. This is much more an issue of manners and active ethics than determing what might or might not be the correct contract.

It is one issue to say I do not understand in any language, it is another to not reply and expect to continue to play in the tourney.

[helene_t]

Agree with Todd. But maybe a warning is better than a procedural penalty, depends on the policy of your tournament.

[the hog]

Mike, seriously what does it matter? Are you playing for National representation? No, I guess not. Not everyone speaks English, so a little tolerance does not hurt. Anyway, the 3C bid was stupid.

[Echognome]

As a practical point, I can't imagine split score weighting being very practical. Suppose HYPOTHETICALLY that this were f2f bridge and the TD ruled that that score should be:

50% of 3NT - 1 AND
50% of 4♠ - 1

How is that implementable on BBO? My guess is that some of the laws need to be curtailed for the sake of practical matters and that Ave+/Ave- rulings might need to be used in their stead simply because it's easier for the TD's to assign such scores.

That doesn't excuse any bad rulings nor, in particular, bad behaviour. Just thinking that we shouldn't always rely on the letter of the law, particular on a site such as this.

[helene_t]

A little tollerance, well ..... I think there must be limits. The failure to alert a Jacoby transfer by someone from a country where transfers are not alertable ... a friendly hint will suffice. But this is extreme. At the very least, someone who isn't able to explain artificial preempts in English must not play such conventions.

It is possible that South, given the correct explanation, would not have overcalled. After all, the presure to bid immediately is less after an artificial preempt because he may get the chance to bid 3♣ in the next round. So 3♣= is not even an unrealistic result.

[david_c]

Echognome, on May 20 2005, 04:55 AM, said:

As a practical point, I can't imagine split score weighting being very practical.  Suppose HYPOTHETICALLY that this were f2f bridge and the TD ruled that that score should be:

50% of 3NT - 1 AND
50% of 4♣ - 1

How is that implementable on BBO?  My guess is that some of the laws need to be curtailed for the sake of practical matters and that Ave+/Ave- rulings might need to be used in their stead simply because it's easier for the TD's to assign such scores.

I agree that if a director is running short of time, then giving A+/A- might be a reasonable solution. But still, I would hope that this is only used as a last resort. It seems to me that many TDs routinely give out A+/A- even when there is enough time to decide on a proper score assigment.

Put yourself in the position of the player who has forgotten to alert his bid. Which of these would you rather hear:

1. "You should have alerted 2♥, so I am going to adjust the score to 4♣-1, because that would be the likely result if N/S had known what your bid meant."

2. "You should have alerted 2♥, so I am going to give you average minus and give N/S average plus."

I think that the second type of ruling is much more likely to lead to ill feeling than the first. If you give out A+/A-, you are likely to get complaints from people who don't know the rules (they think it is arbitrary and unfair, particularly if the MI was an honest mistake), and also from people who do know the rules (because the ruling is technically incorrect).

[FrancesHinden]

Whether or not 2H was alerted, I find it hard to believe North would not bid 3NT over partner's 3C call. Bidding 3S will get to a non-making 5C contract too often with the SK being led through when you had 9 tricks in 3NT (xx xx Axx AKxxxx is a sub-minimum 3C overcall but 3NT by us is the only making game).

So I would leave the table result as 3NT going however many off it went, as I don't believe NS have been damaged.

But East/West have clearly behaved badly, in particular not alerting 2H and not explaining when asked. If this were a face-to-face event I would give them a procedural penalty.

[Echognome]

David - I think you are 100% correct in F2F bridge (where I've seen local directors give out Ave+/Ave- illegally). Then I think the TD's should give the proper ruling. Online, I just don't know how easy it is to assign scores. Perhaps it's a cinch. I've just seen some more complicated rulings that I imagine would be very difficult to assign using the software. As such I will make the broad general statement that sticking as close to the laws as possible taking into account the practicalities of the TD software. I hope it's not too controversial.