[sanst]

This is getting far too personal.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2020-July-28, 10:29, said:

Maybe, but it’s the law. But you’re essentially wrong in not allowing a player to loose count or not to remember exactly who played what. Only the very best players are able to reproduce the play correctly and somebody can easily miss who played which card.
Even more important: it’s irrelevant. You should give a full and accurate description of your agreements and a failure to do so is a serious breach of the laws. If a player claims to have been damaged by this, and his claim is not completely unbelievable, he has a right to redress without being subject to an thorough examination of his line of play. Only when some stupidity, unrelated to the MI, is obvious you can decide otherwise but without favouring the OS.

Actually the issue with it being a self alert is complicated. They got the explanation of what the guy genuinely intended the bid to mean, whether that was their agreement or not which is not good enough. What if he said "undiscussed but I think/meant it as penalties" ? He clearly has actually made a penalty double with a stiff heart, so it's not as ludicrous as people are suggesting, he just thinks he has enough to beat this contract and no game.

[nige1]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-23, 11:21, said:

Is it so unreasonable for West to think their double is penalty here? If South didn't request an explanation and made an assumption, what assumption would they make? It could easily be the case that West thinks that, while they may not have an explicit agreement, they have an implicit agreement or meta-agreements that would dictate that this double is penalty. The bid was described as penalty, functioned as a penalty double, was intended as penalty, and has enough values to justify a penalty double. I'm not really sure how an accurate description of the intended meaning of the bid can cause harm here. I've read no law obligating that penalty doubles show length in the trump suit, when doubling a suit contract.

StevenG, on 2020-July-23, 15:11, said:

What if West had typed in "undiscussed, intended as penalty"?

KingCovert, on 2020-July-27, 10:08, said:

As I said earlier in the thread, there may be a distinction between describing your intended meaning of a bid instead of describing your agreement in a self-alerting situation. I could see an argument that if declarer was aware that the agreement was "No Agreement", and that East chose to leave it in under those pretenses, that they may have been more likely to suspect a different type of holding from both players. I don't agree with that argument, because, well, it's somewhat unclear if that's "misinformation". Also, I wouldn't trust South to make 10 tricks in a cold grand.

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-28, 02:33, said:

Penalty doubles are often made on the basis of "we have too many points for you to make this" rather than trumps.

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-28, 13:47, said:

Actually the issue with it being a self alert is complicated. They got the explanation of what the guy genuinely intended the bid to mean, whether that was their agreement or not which is not good enough. What if he said "undiscussed but I think/meant it as penalties" ? He clearly has actually made a penalty double with a stiff heart, so it's not as ludicrous as people are suggesting, he just thinks he has enough to beat this contract and no game.

With a small singleton trump, a player makes a low level-double, about which he has no partnership-agreement. After 3 passes, in response to a question by declarer, he annotates the double as Pen. IMO, these comments are interesting.

[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2020-July-29, 11:51, said:

With a small singleton trump, a player makes a low level-double, about which he has no partnership-agreement. After 3 passes, in response to a question by declarer, he annotates the double as Pen IMO, these comments are interesting.

I think I may have misunderstood slightly, when you said he "alerted" it as penalties rather than explained I assumed it was a self alert when he bid it, if he said that at the end of the auction then it's MUCH more dubious.

[blackshoe]

Part of the problem here may be that historically (i.e., in f2f bridge) the phrase "alerted as" has been used as shorthand for "alerted, and when asked explained as". In online bridge, of course, the bidder just puts the meaning in the alert box and makes the bid, at which point the opponents see his explanation. This is more like a f2f announcement than anything else, IMO. Maybe that's what we should call it.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2020-July-29, 15:04, said:

Part of the problem here may be that historically (i.e., in f2f bridge) the phrase "alerted as" has been used as shorthand for "alerted, and when asked explained as". In online bridge, of course, the bidder just puts the meaning in the alert box and makes the bid, at which point the opponents see his explanation. This is more like a f2f announcement than anything else, IMO. Maybe that's what we should call it.

In EBU regulations and conditions of contest (for BBO events), I have written "alerted/explained" - it is clumsy but rams home the point that all alerts should be accompanied by an explanation. But "alerted/explained as" is shorter than "alerted and simultaneously explained as". (Instead of "alerted as" or "alerted, and subsequently explained as"

[KingCovert]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-29, 13:25, said:

I think I may have misunderstood slightly, when you said he "alerted" it as penalties rather than explained I assumed it was a self alert when he bid it, if he said that at the end of the auction then it's MUCH more dubious.

Well, it's more dubious if we believe that they decided the meaning to be penalty because their partner passed. (In fact that's downright cheating) It's a lot less dubious if that was simply the intended meaning, and they explained it honestly.

I'd certainly agree with those that think that West could have done a better job conveying that they had no explicit agreement, but that their intention was penalty as StevenG suggested. But... Declarer has clearly made multiple serious errors and their complaint is far more dubious than the potential offense by East/West. They're not complaining because they felt mislead by the agreement, they're complaining because their interpretation of penalty did not match West's interpretation of penalty and they made a faulty assumption.

I think a good question is: Had East/West had an explicit agreement that this bid was penalty, do you think Declarer would have complained? Because, everyone here knows they would have. How? Well.... That was their understanding when they complained. What's the difference?

If Declarer had played the hand without making serious error, I'd be far more inclined to favour them, but, they absolutely butchered the hand.

(assume I'm restating all my comments about meta-agreements and implicit agreements)

[Zelandakh]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-29, 15:24, said:

(In fact that's downright cheating)

Perhaps one might even describe it as "wilfully and deliberately misleading"?

[msjennifer]

Sir,1) I am assuming that 1NT was known to be a regular 15/17 or 14/16 .2)If it was so then declarer erred in not counting the HCP holding of the 1NT opener at the three card end position.3)I,personally,would let the result stand.4)I have not studied the laws in details and hence have no idea if the opponents be awarded any "procedural "warning or penalty.5)The double of 2H bid ,in light of the bidding till then,certainly can not be a ‘penalty’ double but ,as per holding,may be considered an ‘optional ‘ double as some partnerships play.But then, West cheated by saying it was a penalty double ( after realising that the opener has converted it to a penalty double) after the auction was over.Thanks.

[KingCovert]

Zelandakh, on 2020-July-29, 17:25, said:

Perhaps one might even describe it as "wilfully and deliberately misleading"?

Well, if you'd like to hitch your wagon to the position that the player was trying to cheat. I welcome you to do so. I think that most reasonable people will agree that the player was possibly lazy in providing proper disclosure or uninformed as to their obligation to provide their agreement and not their intended meaning. Hence why I said you'd have an impossible time defending that statement.

But, I understand, this was simply an opportunity for you to be snarky. Classy.

[Zelandakh]

msjennifer, on 2020-July-29, 17:35, said:

Sir,1) I am assuming that 1NT was known to be a regular 15/17 or 14/16

It is a Scottish event so it is a decent assumption that "regular" would be 12-14...but I am sure Nigel will correct me if I am wrong on that point.

[nige1]

msjennifer, on 2020-July-29, 17:35, said:

... I am assuming that 1NT was known to be a regular 15/17 or 14/16 .2) If it was so then declarer erred in not counting the HCP holding of the 1NT opener at the three card end position.,,

Zelandakh, on 2020-July-29, 18:57, said:

It is a Scottish event so it is a decent assumption that "regular" would be 12-14...but I am sure Nigel will correct me if I am wrong on that point.

Zelandakh is right: 12-14 (some players upgrade a good 11 but the habits of this E-W are unknown).

[sanst]

This passage of the OP I find mysterious: “At the end of the auction, South, asked West the meaning of his double of 2♥. West alerted it as penalties.” AFAIK in online bridge W would have done that when he made the call. But in post #18 nige1 conforms that this was at the end of the auction, so not at the moment that W bid. If that was really the case, I get the feeling that W had something else in mind - maybe showing points and four spades - but decided it was penalties when E let the double stand. After the play he changed the explanation again when E answered ‘no agreement’. If that is the case, I can’t blame S for drawing a wrong conclusion.