[rigour6]

Auction:

pass - pass - 1 NT
pass - pass - 2 diamonds - Dbl
2 NT - pass - 3 hearts - Dbl
Rdl - all pass

Declarer's Card shows he is playing cappelletti.
His partner's card does not show capp.
The tourney is an Indy.

Questions:

1. should the 2 diamonds bid have been alerted?

2. 3 hearts redoubled makes +1. Should this board be adjusted? If so, how?


Declarer holds:
♠Axxxx
♥KT9x
♣Jxxx
♦-

In other words, heart and spades, just like he said.
I am not sure why his partner asks for minor suits, his shape is no spades and 5 hearts.

[hrothgar]

Having a plethora of conventions in one's profile does not constitute an agreement to play said conventions. This especially holds true when the profiles of two users are in conflict with one another.

In answer to you're specific questions:

1. If 2♦ showed the majors than 2♦ requires an alert

2. I'd like to see the doubler's hand before ruling rgearding any possible adjustment. With this said and done, the 1NT opener's bidding seems a bit strange. I could easily see where the second double consistuted a wild or gambling action.

Most likely decision:

No adjustment for the Non offending side
Proceedural penalty for the offending side

[rigour6]

Doubler's hand is

♥QJx
♠KQT3
♦AQ5
♣KQ9


What I ended up doing was averaging the board, then blacklisting the redoubler when he subsequently disagreed with my assertion that 2♦had to be alerted and stormed off. Ahhh, nothing like capricious and swift justice....

[candybar]

rigour6, on Nov 8 2005, 02:26 PM, said:

Declarer's Card shows he is playing cappelletti.
His partner's card does not show capp.
The tourney is an Indy.

Questions:

1.  should the 2 diamonds bid have been alerted?

2.  3 hearts redoubled makes +1.  Should this board be adjusted?  If so, how?

Unless they specifically discussed it or agreed to a system (such as SAYC) which includes Capp (which the opponents could tell you), they have no agreement. Therefore no alert is required, and no adjustment is permitted by the Laws.

If they did have an agreement, even by default of their overall system, then 2D should have been alerted. However it appears to me that partner did not bid as though he recognized it as Capp (would need to see the hands to be sure but playing Capp I would either choose a major or pass the dbl with no preference).

Surely the opponents can recognize this as an unusual auction and protect themselves, at the very least by asking privately for explanations. Even with a failure to alert, I see no damage and therefore no reason for adjustment.

[rigour6]

Ahh, this is where it gets even more interesting. When I asked the redoubler about the sequence, he indicated he took the 2♦ bid as Cappelletti.

So even though his reply is odd, his actions (and specifically his redouble) indicates he got what his p meant. Meanwhile the opps are in the dark. Which is what pushed me towards adjustment, rightly or wrongly.

[cherdano]

In my opinion, there is no case for an adjustment. Opener would have doubled a natural 2♥ as well, and 2♥XX+2 isn't an improvement over 3♥XX+1.

Still, I think 2♦ should have been alerted. It was bid in the expectation that partner would understand it (probably by expecting to look up his profile), and expecting the same from opponents is too much to ask for.

Arend

[hrothgar]

rigour6, on Nov 8 2005, 11:00 PM, said:

Ahh, this is where it gets even more interesting. When I asked the redoubler about the sequence, he indicated he took the 2♦ bid as Cappelletti.

So even though his reply is odd, his actions (and specifically his redouble) indicates he got what his p meant. Meanwhile the opps are in the dark. Which is what pushed me towards adjustment, rightly or wrongly.

The fact that the player who redoubled believed that his partner was playing Capelletti doesn't seem relevant. As Candybar pointed out, the entire auction SCREAMS that something weird is going on. Players can't be allowed to make risky/gambling doubles and than claim that the results should be rolled back based on an infraction. If you do something stupid, you pay the price.

BTW, its interesting to note that the 1NT bidder seemed a strong for opening bid. I really feel sorry for the partner. Seems like he was the only one who didn't screw things up...

[barmar]

When the 2♦ bidder later bid 3♥, I think that probably woke his partner up to what the 2♦ bid was; the only other reasonable explanation of the auction is that he has something like 6 ♦ and 5 ♥. The redouble suggests ♥ support, and if he'd realized what the 2♦ bid was immediately he presumably would have bid 2♥ then.

Since this was an indy, I don't think you can be so dogmatic when applying the Laws regarding partnership agreements, since there's rarely any time spent discussing them. I think the rule should be that if you use an alertable convention, and are hoping your partner will understand it, then you should alert as if you have that agreement.

[guggie]

As a rooky TD:
it is an indy so no agreements are made (almost nobody does). But internet bridge is different from f2f bridge, the 2♦bidder did an artificial bid, so agreement or no agreement, he had to self alert, just not to fool the opps.

His nonalert did fool the opps. However, they were apparently easy to fool. The double was risky, the doubler could almost be sure that his partner had absolutely nothing so he would be thrown in all the time. Furthermore, he opened 1NT with 19 hcp and sh have alerted too;-)

I think Rigours solution is quite practical

[Gerben42]

No adjustment for opener and his partner. Opener had no business doubling 3♥ or 2♦. He bid his hand like three times. Giving the other side a penalty for not alerting, they seemed to know that it was Capp. Besides, in BBO you self-alert your bid as Capp!

[han]

Agree with Gerben's final analysis.

[keylime]

ditto. ditto. ditto. ditto.

[McBruce]

What it all comes down to in this case is the simple question: what constitutes an agreement? A player who bids 2♦ without diamonds expects his partner to understand the meaning of his call. That's an agreement, in my opinion. I would adjust, although I might make the non-offenders eat their score.

[hrothgar]

McBruce, on Nov 11 2005, 02:57 AM, said:

What it all comes down to in this case is the simple question: what constitutes an agreement? A player who bids 2♦ without diamonds expects his partner to understand the meaning of his call. That's an agreement, in my opinion.

I'm having trouble understanding some of the ramifications of this theory:

The 2D bidded overcalled 2D showing both majors and indicating a partnership agreement that they are playing Capelletti.

The 2NT bidder advanced 2NT, natural and non-forcing, indicating a partnership agreement that that 2♦ was natural.

Which agreement takes precendence?

[candybar]

McBruce, on Nov 11 2005, 02:57 AM, said:

What it all comes down to in this case is the simple question: what constitutes an agreement?  A player who bids 2♦ without diamonds expects his partner to understand the meaning of his call.  That's an agreement, in my opinion.

hrothgar, on Nov 10 2005, 07:16 PM, said:

I'm having trouble understanding some of the ramifications of this theory:

The 2D bidded overcalled 2D showing both majors and indicating a partnership agreement that they are playing Capelletti.

The 2NT bidder advanced 2NT, natural and non-forcing, indicating a partnership agreement that that 2♦ was natural.

Which agreement takes precendence?

Perhaps you should look the word AGREEMENT up in the dictionary

NOUN: 1. The act of agreeing. 2. Harmony of opinion; accord. 3. An arrangement between parties regarding a course of action; a covenant.


McBruce, you can "expect" all you want, you can hope, you can pray, you can even shout it at the computer screen, but that does not make it an agreement. Hrothgar, by definition, it cannot be an agreement if the two parties think it means something entirely different.

The only way you can call the 2D bid an agreement on Capp is if the two players either discussed it, or agreed to a system that included Capp by default.

[jillybean]

Lol, come on this isn’t rocket science there was no agreement, I think Richard was saying this in a humorous way…

jb

[hrothgar]

candybar, on Nov 11 2005, 06:18 AM, said:

McBruce, on Nov 11 2005, 02:57 AM, said:

What it all comes down to in this case is the simple question: what constitutes an agreement?  A player who bids 2♦ without diamonds expects his partner to understand the meaning of his call.  That's an agreement, in my opinion.

hrothgar, on Nov 10 2005, 07:16 PM, said:

I'm having trouble understanding some of the ramifications of this theory:

The 2D bidded overcalled 2D showing both majors and indicating a partnership agreement that they are playing Capelletti.

The 2NT bidder advanced 2NT, natural and non-forcing, indicating a partnership agreement that that 2♦ was natural.

Which agreement takes precendence?

Perhaps you should look the word AGREEMENT up in the dictionary

Perfectly happy to do so, so long as you agree to look up: SARCASM

[McBruce]

The partner of the 2D bidder told the TD he assumed 2D was Capp. This is an agreement. If both partners think that 2D is Capp, it is an agreement whether they have discussed it or not. The opponents deserve an alert.

[david_c]

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that Law 40 refers mostly to "understandings" rather than "agreements".

(Or perhaps it's not. You decide. I just happened to notice that, and wondered whether it might be relevant.)

Ideally the alerting regulations ought to give the TD guidance on what to do here. In England there is a proposed new addition to the regs:

If you are not sure as to whether you and your partner have an alertable agreement, but are going to act as though you have, then you should alert, as you are likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if partner’s actions are also consistent with that agreement.

This rule is intended for face-to-face play, of course, but I think the situation it covers is analogous to the one we have here.

As you might have gathered from the above, I tend to agree with Bruce on this. But this is an indy, and North has been a lunatic, so I don't think I'd be adjusting the score on this hand. East gets a reminder that Capp is alertable.

[barmar]

They each presumably thought they had an agreement, but they were obviously mistaken because they didn't agree on the 2♦'s meaning. But you're supposed to alert based on your beliefs; if they turn out to be wrong, you deal with that later. In f2f bridge you'd have two problems: unauthorized information to the partner of the alerter (or player who was expected to alert and didn't), and misinformation to the opponents. In online bridge with self-alerting, you have the problem that the opponents know your hand better than your partner; I suspect this is considered an acceptable consequence of a partnership not discussing their agreements adequately, although it's unfortunate in indies.