[ochinko]

Scoring: MP

Uncontested bidding:
1Sp - 2C
2D - 4Sp

West leads H2

---

In the middle of the play E/W call the director, and complain about the 2C bid from North. The TD adjusts the score to Ave-/Ave+, and says he firmly believes (capital letters) that the defenders were harmed by that bid.

There are no rules specific to the tourney, so we assume BBO rules.

Now, the tourney is unpaid, so kudos to the TD for being there for all the players, but I suspect he was wrong, so please share your opinion.

Many thanks.

Petko

---Edited---
Sorry, meant to say that defenders were harmed by North not alerting the 2C bid, not by the bid itself.

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: Theres very little that annoys me as much as players who bitch to the director because they think that it might somehow improve their score. Regardless of whether or not the 2♣ bid required an alert, its hard to see how this bid damaged the non-offending side. With this said and East/West seem to think that they were somehow cheated out of playing a club contract, so I'll give em adjustment. 5♣X -3 looks like it should get the message across.

Comment 2: I can't see how the opponents were damaged... Be interesting to see the Director's line of reasoning.

[barmar]

What is NS's agreement about the 2♣ bid? If their agreement is that it's natural, then North simply psyched, and no alert was required.

I think I see what the damage was, though. The 2♣ bid probably inhibited West from leading a ♣. Assuming he led a ♥, the unbid suit, this allows declarer to discard his ♣ loser, making 5 instead of 4.

I don't see how EW were cheated out of playing a contract their way. A more normal response by North would be Jacoby 2NT, and East would have to be quite bold (I'm being very charitable) to bid 3♣ with that suit.

[inquiry]

There is not enough information to even decide if the bid was inappropriate. NS may have no agreement about 2♣'s in which case no alert would be necessary.

On top of that, I see no damage to EW by failure to alert. NS have 10 tricks against any defense (4S, 2D, 1D ruff, 1C, 2H), and EW if they bid 5♣ are sure to lose five tricks (down 3) which when doubled is worse than the -420 they got for defending 4♥ (lose 1♣, 2♥, 1♠, 1♦).

I see no grounds for the adjustment. If the director believes NS intentionally hid information from EW, then a disciplinary (procedural) penalty might be needed, but there is nothing here to even support that theory.

The director made a mistake i think.

[candybar]

inquiry, on Oct 31 2005, 06:32 PM, said:

I see no grounds for the adjustment. If the director believes NS intentionally hid information from EW, then a disciplinary (procedural) penalty might be needed, but there is nothing here to even support that theory.

The director made a mistake i think.

I agree, but unfortunately, it's the TD that needs to be told this, not the poor player who got ripped off by a would-be TD who doesn't understand the Laws or the Alert rules. We desperately need a way to get back to this type of TD with some education!

[mr1303]

If NS don't have a Jacoby 2NT available, then a 2C response isn't unreasonable, since North intends to keep bidding spades no matter how much South bids clubs.

I also imagine that NS had no agreement that 2C could be artificial anyway. Unless I had firm evidence to the contrary I would tell EW not to waste my time.

[Echognome]

We just need to ask one simple question of North. What did you intend 2♣ to show?

If the answer was natural, then no adjustment needed. EW can then go on their merry way as I don't want to hear from them.

If the answer was artificial showing spade support or artificial forcing etc, then East has lost his right to get a lead directional double in.* Herein lies the possibility for an adjustment.

* I would quickly ask East what he planned to do over 2♣ if it was alerted as artificial. I would then ask West what he would do over 4♠ if East chose double. Yes this gives time for EW to collect themselves for their answers, but they are non-offenders.

And even with all of the above contingencies I am still hesitant because we do not have a clear SO dictating the alerting procedures.

[ochinko]

Echognome, on Nov 1 2005, 12:10 PM, said:

We just need to ask one simple question of North. What did you intend 2♣ to show? 

If the answer was natural, then no adjustment needed.  EW can then go on their merry way as I don't want to hear from them.

If the answer was artificial showing spade support or artificial forcing etc, then East has lost his right to get a lead directional double in.*  Herein lies the possibility for an adjustment.

* I would quickly ask East what he planned to do over 2♣ if it was alerted as artificial.  I would then ask West what he would do over 4♠ if East chose double.  Yes this gives time for EW to collect themselves for their answers, but they are non-offenders. 

And even with all of the above contingencies I am still hesitant because we do not have a clear SO dictating the alerting procedures.

I was sitting South. We were playing SAYC, so I assumed 2C to be most likely 3+ clubs. Since it was a sure round forcing, I proceeded to describe my hand. It's not like I had 5 clubs, and didn't give a fit because I knew partner was short there.

I guess partner preferred a diamond lead, that's why he bid clubs instead. Since he's not likely to become a declarer, the lead won't matter in most hands. Or he was afraid that 2D would show more than 3 diamonds. Or he was really psyching to avoid a club sacrifice. I can't say.

All I can say is that we didn't have a special agreement here. I don't know if there is a way to prove that unless someone analyses the history of our partnership bidding. Since it was pointless to try to convince the TD that we didn't have such agreement, I asked whether he believed that opps were in any way damaged by the missing alert, and he said 'YES'. Maybe his shift key was stuck, I don't know.

At the point where the TD stopped the play by adjusting it wasn't even clear whether opps would be denied of a club trick which they would make for sure with a club lead.

Petko

---Added---
To mr1303: No, we don't play Jacoby 2NT with that partner.

To all: Thank you for your answers. I'll try to find the TD and give him a link to this thread. He may have something to add. It's not my intention to rub anyone's nose. I am really grateful to all the TDs because I find tourneys more exciting than table play. But as we all strive to become better players, why not try to improve the directing too.

[Echognome]

Petko,

That's fine. If your partner intended it as natural (for say as a lead inhibitor), then it's a clear no adjustment. Move on to the next board.

Gnome

[mycroft]

I have a problem with A+/A-. Unless the failure to Alert makes the board unplayable - which is usually only done when things like "can't find card", "have seen scores", and the like, or when someone plays something not allowed and totally unrecoverable, then an Assigned Adjusted score needs to be applied, not an Artificial one.

So, yes, find out what 2C meant. Deal with the "tactical bid" as a psych - usually by saying "well, yes, unfortunately that's legal." Deal with the unalerted random GF by finding the best result likely (4S=) and the worst result possible (4S=) and assigning them.

I've been known, if people complain after that, to say that I can give you 5Cx-3 if you like...Some people just think that when the opponents do something wrong (or even something unusual), they are entitled to a good score. It's rulings like these that reinforce that impression.

If North or South have a habit of failing to Alert, and this was a failure to Alert, then my warning will probably have some teeth to it. Otherwise, "game on, folks".

Michael.