[jillybean]

---

I have not included the hands, deliberately.

3nt -1
At the end of the hand North calls and tells you there was a failure to alert 2♥, which shows spades.

What do you do?

[smerriman]

Not a director, but I guess:

- North has UI from the lack of alert, so need to find out what 3♥ would mean had 2♥ been correctly alerted as spades, and then check if North's final pass or any of their defense was demonstrably suggested by knowing their partner had made a mistake, while having logical alternatives that would have led to a better outcome for E/W.

- South may also have UI if North noticeably reacted to the lack of alert, so need to find out if that were the case or not (guessing probably not).

- E/W have MI, so need to figure out what the likely auction and play would have been if they had the correct information, and how that would have scored. And I guess that's still with South interpreting the bid as non-alertable.

- I guess technically you also have to check if E/W made an extremely serious error somewhere along the way, which may affect the adjusted score, though probably not going to be too applicable here.

Did I miss anything? Sounds like a whole heap of fun.

[mycroft]

Throw all four of them into the pool :-). But remember that "every MI case is a UI case" - that's important here.

But seriously:

• Well, technically, it's Announceable, not Alertable (unless it shows spades and). But an Announcement is a type of Alert, so not a worry.
  
• Why did east Lebensohl (I assume that's what 2NT! is)? Would she have made a different call if she knew spades?
  
• Not worried about South, he doesn't have any UI (I assume, if North is properly not going to say anything until after the hand)
  
• West - well, we'll get back to west.
  
• I assume North is okay with passing 3NT after partner shows lotsa hearts (as she *does* have UI), because 4♥ over a voluntarily bid 3NT (which is, well, we'll get back to that) requires A Hand.
  
• I also assume North led a spade rather than a heart, and it goes down on a spade lead no matter what.

So, start at the beginning.

• If East's call is different over spades, then almost nothing else matters. She doesn't know that South is going to pass/raise hearts, so doesn't get to "pre-pass", but if she was, say, "stayman with a heart stopper", then, well.
  
• Assuming East's 2NT is "get out in my suit" (which is a minor), then they'll do the same over spades as hearts (again, I assume. They might pass and bid over 2♠, but I'd really have to be convinced this shows something different than a direct 2NT and East has that, because "don't get to pre-pass").
  
• West, who is entitled to know that North has spades and South bid 3♥ over 2NT anyway, may have a better call over 3♥.
  
• If it's pass, then is it reasonable for North to pass absent the UI? East? Might there be a double here? If so, is it reasonable for North to sit for that?

So I'm looking at several potential contracts, from 2♥, 3♥ doubled or not, 3♠ doubled or not, 3NT or even 4♦. Investigate the play, including the play to 3NT on a spade lead (or a heart lead, if that's a LA). Note that if West would have made 9 tricks if he knew the spade layout, but went down because he didn't, then there you are. But let's assume not.

So you work out the potential contracts and their results, weight them according to probabilities, throw in a bit of help to E/W as the NOS, and assign the score.

But let's get back to West. Assuming he Alerted 2NT, and assuming it's "usually a weak hand", then 3NT is - an odd choice. Does it rise to the level of "serious error"? Well, depends on the hand and the player, but it would be a "serious error" if my partner did it, and I'd expect them to take all the blame (or the credit, it might make, maybe partner did find that other Ace) for the result. I'd certainly look at it. If it is judged so, then you need to work out whether the Serious Error was unrelated to the infraction (maybe they thought that ♥AT98 was a surprise and enough to make 9 tricks if partner even had one entry with their minor, but not for spades?) and if so, then apply 12C1e2.

I know you don't want to show the hands, but you can see that there are *so many* things to look at here, and most of them depend on the hand. And the system. And the level of player. And I'm probably missing something.

[a_user]

 jillybean, on 2025-April-07, 17:05, said:

---

I have not included the hands, deliberately.

3nt -1
At the end of the hand North calls and tells you there was a failure to alert 2♥, which shows spades.

What do you do?

At the end of the bidding or play? And does it matter?

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2025-April-07, 17:05, said:

---

I have not included the hands, deliberately.

3nt -1
At the end of the hand North calls and tells you there was a failure to alert 2♥, which shows spades.

What do you do?

a_user, on 2025-April-08, 00:57, said:

At the end of the bidding or play? And does it matter?

North is only permitted to advise at the end of the hand, so they have done the right thing.

[jillybean]

A few more things before we get to the hand.
East (leb - no alert) at end of auction reminded partner "Slow shows"
North led a spade

Board complete, -1, North calls the Director and explains the auction and failure to announce 2H.

Director asks West, would you have played the hand any differently given the correct information?
West blinks, and says uuh, I'm not sure, I don't think so.
Result stands.

This same question is often asked in cases of MI, it seems to be standard practice. I think it is unreasonable to expect players to instantly recreate the play of the hand in their head.
Is this lazy Directing or the best we can do?

[sanst]

 jillybean, on 2025-April-08, 05:47, said:

Director asks West, would you have played the hand any differently given the correct information?
West blinks, and says uuh, I'm not sure, I don't think so.
Result stands.

This same question is often asked in cases of MI, it seems to be standard practice. I think it is unreasonable to expect players to instantly recreate the play of the hand in their head.
Is this lazy Directing or the best we can do?

It's definitely a question you should ask, if only to establish the level of the player. But it doesn't stop there. You still should look at least at the hands and ideally at the line of play - now that can be difficult to impossible with not so good players - to establish whether EW have been damaged and there's a line of play that a player of this level could have chosen given the right explanation. Never forget that the NOS is 'considered innocent unless proven guilty '.
But we need far more information, as mycroft wrote, to give an opinion on this one.

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2025-April-09, 02:15, said:

It's definitely a question you should ask, if only to establish the level of the player. But it doesn't stop there. You still should look at least at the hands and ideally at the line of play - now that can be difficult to impossible with not so good players - to establish whether EW have been damaged and there's a line of play that a player of this level could have chosen given the right explanation. Never forget that the NOS is 'considered innocent unless proven guilty '.
But we need far more information, as mycroft wrote, to give an opinion on this one.

Unfortunately, we are not going to see the mycroft level of Directing at the Club and dare I say, perhaps not even in higher events.

The auction is not the same, if 2♥ had been announced as spades, East would bid a direct 3nt*, denying a spade stopper.
West would pass 3nt.

As I said above, I think it is unreasonable to expect all players to recreate the play, based on the correct information.

Does 12C1 Artificial Adjusted Score now apply, or does the Director attempt to recreate best line of play ?

[blackshoe]

If a table result was obtained, the director must try for an Assigned Adjusted Score (AssAS) unless 12C1c (too many possibilities for or too hard to figure out a weighted score) comes into play.

[pescetom]

I am undoubtedly a simple minded Director, but when things get complicated my first thought is to look at the ancillary information (diagram, convention cards, reporting history) and see how it fits with the various actions and explanations. It seems to me masochistic not to do so.
(My instinct is that if wise Directors once convened otherwise it was because such information was rarely available in those days, not that it was often superfluous or a major source of bias).

[jillybean]

This is a Club game. The Director does not have access to any reporting history, the pair may or may not have a fully completed CC.
Here, NS had a card that if looked at, would confirm that (1N) 2H was a transfer to spades. South forgot their agreement.

I doubt that a CD is going to have the knowledge, time or incentive to complete AssAS. Is the next best an Artificial Adjusted Score?

[sanst]

 jillybean, on 2025-April-09, 19:14, said:

This is a Club game. The Director does not have access to any reporting history, the pair may or may not have a fully completed CC.
Here, NS had a card that if looked at, would confirm that (1N) 2H was a transfer to spades. South forgot their agreement.

I doubt that a CD is going to have the knowledge, time or incentive to complete AssAS. Is the next best an Artificial Adjusted Score?

There's certainly an infraction, but we can't decide whether there's damage or not. EW ended in 3NT and that would also have been the contract with the correct information. Did W choose a line of play based on the actual auction without the alert? If not, it's case over. Otherwise you decide if there's a logical line of play given the right information which makes 3NT. You need the hands for that, but these should be available if only from the board.
If there's a result, you're only allowed to award an articial asigned score if there are too many possible outcomes. It is maybe a difficult job, but any half decent director should be able to do it. It's a double dummy analysis, which is easier than to decide on a line of play when you're declarer. You don't have to do it immediately, actually you should do it after the session and at ease. Just tell the players that the published result is a provisional one and that the definitive results will be published afterwards.
You can look at the results obtained at this board. If 3NT doesn't make at all, the result stands.

[smerriman]

Can we see the hands yet?

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2025-April-09, 19:14, said:

This is a Club game. The Director does not have access to any reporting history

In a Club, the Director *is* reporting history (although I do maintain a spreadsheet of weird/suspect stuff, partly because we have multiple Directors and partly because I might need to cite the event as evidence some day).
She can hardly fail to know how often they forgot this transfer and how likely it was that they fell on their feet.

And she certainly has access to the hand diagram

[jillybean]

---

Is the Director now required to decide what would be a likely, the best, most favourable, line of play, given the correct information?

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2025-April-10, 06:00, said:

In a Club, the Director *is* reporting history (although I do maintain a spreadsheet of weird/suspect stuff, partly because we have multiple Directors and partly because I might need to cite the event as evidence some day).
She can hardly fail to know how often they forgot this transfer and how likely it was that they fell on their feet.

And she certainly has access to the hand diagram

So we are relying on a Directors motivation, memory and potential biases. A deviation recording system, available online to all Directors would be ideal, but we are nowhere near having the ability or desire to implement that.

[smerriman]

If North leads a heart, 3nt seems pretty trivial to make as declarer just sets up diamonds with plenty of entries to dummy.

If North actually led a spade, and declarer went down due to their line assuming North wasn't going to have spade length and was more likely to have the heart queen, this should be a very easy adjustment. Not because you're looking for the most favorable line, but for decisions influenced by the UI and MI.

[blackshoe]

1. Keep a notebook. Or a spreadsheet. It's not hard, it takes a few minutes to enter data, and maybe a few to look it up. If you have multiple directors, make sure they all have access to it.
2. Don't make a ruling harder than it has to be.
3. Know what the rules are in your club.
4. If the rules are unwritten, as they are in the clubs around here, lobby to get them in writing. Even if it's a simple one-liner like "ACBL Alert regulations apply except that a 1NT opening with the range 15-17 HCP need not be announced." Make sure the players have access.
5. Make sure you have a law book with you when you're called to the table. Read your ruling from the book. Even if the players complain that "we don't have time for that". Make the time. If you need to delay the movement, delay it.

Are ACBL convention charts (which one) and alert procedures in effect in this club? If so, then there were apparently three infractions in the auction:

1. East failed to announce the range of West's 1NT opening. Probably because he heard a (false) rumor that the announcement is no longer required.
2. South failed to announce that North's 2♥ bid showed spades. Probably because he forgot that's what it showed.
3. West failed to alert East's artificial 2NT response. Probably because he forgot they were playing lebensohl.

The first thing the director should do when called after the play (as you were, right?) is to read and explain Laws 20F4 and 20F5 to the table. Make sure they understand that before correcting MI they must call the director to the table. In this case that means the declaring side should have called the director before the opening lead was chosen. The defending side has to wait until the play is over, but still must call the director before correcting the MI.

Now we get to Law 20F6: "If the Director judges that a player has based an action on misinformation given to him by an opponent see, as appropriate, Law 21 or Law 47E."

Now the director should investigate why North bid 2♥ and whether not getting the NT range made any difference to his choice. Assuming it didn't, we continue. Why did East bid 2NT? Looks like his plan was to bid 3NT later to show a game raise with a heart stopper. So the question is, would he have bid 2NT if he'd known North had spades? Or, does he consider the stiff king to be a stopper? I would guess not, so he might have bid 3NT directly. Would West have passed this? Sure, because he does have a spade stopper. So they'd have ended in the same contract.

Now we get to the hard part. What was West's line of play? Apparently nobody at the table can remember how the play went, except that North led a spade, presumably the Queen. Still, assuming the players haven't mixed their cards, you can reconstruct this. Have them put their hands back in the board, carefully preserving the order of the cards. Then tell them to get on with their game; you'll give the final ruling later.

If it looks like West took a line of play that assumed North had hearts and not spades, then the MI affected the play. Law 47E says the director "may adjust the score". This means you look at law 12, and ask "was there damage?" if you judge that West could have made 3NT with correct information, you have to ask how many overtricks he might have made. In this case you should probably end up with a weighted ruling. Let's say it looks like there's about a 40% chance that West would still have gone down 1 with correct information, a 50% chance he'd have made 3NT, and a 10% chance he'd make an overtrick. There's your weighting. You should look at the matchpoints for each of those scores to be sure. It may be that all three results would give the same matchpoint score, though that's unlikely. If it so happens, though, then the final ruling is "violation of the Alert regulations not resulting in consequent damage to the declaring side per Law 12C1; result stands". Or "violation of the Alert regulations resulting in consequent damage to the declaring side per Law 12C1; score adjusted to M matchpoints for EW, N matchpoints for NS" (where M+N=the total possible matchpoints on the board). Or you can tell them how you weighted the raw scores to come up with the adjustment.

Is all this time consuming? Yes. Does that matter? It shouldn't. The director should, of course, try to minimize the time impact on the players, e.g. by instructing them to get on with the next board while you do the time-consuming part of the ruling.

NB: you may need to consult with West (and possibly North and South) as to how the play might have gone with the correct info. If time is tight (in club games here, time is almost always tight) you'll have to delay that until after the session.

This is a judgement ruling, so you need to keep Law 83 in mind: "If the Director believes that a review of his decision on a point of fact or exercise of his discretionary power could well be in order, he shall advise a contestant of his right to appeal or may refer the matter to an appropriate committee." There are almost certainly directors who will not believe that this law could ever apply to one of their rulings. They're wrong.

If the players have mixed their cards you're not going to be able to reconstruct much. In this case I'd remind the players of Law 9B2: "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification." Assuming the director call came immediately at the end of play, that includes mixing their cards. And then do the best you can without that information.

I don't think I'd issue any matchpoint procedural penalties, but I might warn them that particularly violation of a "must" law is a serious matter, and make a note to give them a PP if they repeat that particular offense.

[smerriman]

blackshoe, on 2025-April-10, 13:30, said:

If it looks like West took a line of play that assumed North had hearts and not spades, then the MI affected the play. Law 47E says the director "may adjust the score". This means you look at law 12, and ask "was there damage?" if you judge that West could have made 3NT with correct information, you have to ask how many overtricks he might have made. In this case you should probably end up with a weighted ruling. Let's say it looks like there's about a 40% chance that West would still have gone down 1 with correct information, a 50% chance he'd have made 3NT, and a 10% chance he'd make an overtrick. There's your weighting.

This is the MI side, but you still need to also deal with the UI, correct? If South's bid freely showed hearts, despite North leading spades, a heart lead would be a logical alternative, and avoiding it demonstrably suggested by the lack of alert. Though I realised I missed the fact that South passed originally, so perhaps 3♥ would be some form of fit bid in their system, which would negate this.

[sanst]

Deleted, see next post