[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     -     -     Pass
 1♦    Pass  2♣!   Pass
 2NT   Pass  3♣    Pass
 3♦    Pass  4♣    Pass
 4♠    Pass  6NT   Pass
 Pass  Pass  

2♣ forcing 0/+ C


N/S call after board is complete saying they would have found a ♣ lead had e/w alerted their artificial bids. N thought E was showing ♣'s.

1. How do you rule?
2. If you rule there was damage how do you adjust the board?

My answer:

Spoiler

There was damage I adjusted 6N-1

ty
jb

[Walddk]

I need more info. What is

2♣ forcing 0/+ C

Do you mean 0+ clubs and just a game forcing relay?

Also, did East not alert either of his club bids? 2♣, 3♣, 4♣?

Roland

[jillybean]

2♣ was alerted and explained as "forcing 0/+ C"
this was the only bid that was alerted

When I asked about the bidding:
3♣ stayman
3♦ no 4M
4♣ ace asking
4♠ 2A

[hrothgar]

Comment 1:

For a change, it appears that there might be damage...
On any lead but a club E/W have either 12 or 13 tricks.

In theory, a low club lead could hold E/W to 9 tricks if declarer doesn't roll up the Diamond suit. In practice, North might have some trouble arguing that leading 4th best from his longest and strongest is going to help his cause...

Once North follows to 4 rounds of Spades and 3 rounds of Hearts, hooking South for the Diamond Queen starts to look pretty damn reasonable...

Comment 2:

If you accept that North South was damaged (I don't), then the case revolves on whether you believe the decision not lead Clubs was consequent or subsequent to the failure to alert the 3♣ bid. Personally, I think that N/S have the responsibility to apply a minimal amount of effort to protect themselves during the auction.

I wouldn't give N/S an adjustment

[LH2650]

A club lead is clearly more reasonable given the REQUIRED explanation of the auction, and Law 12 doesn't allow the offending side to get a 2-way finesse right. A competent declarer would probably read the cards correctly and make 12 tricks, but too bad. Adjust the score.

[paulg]

LH2650, on Dec 2 2005, 01:08 AM, said:

A club lead is clearly more reasonable given the REQUIRED explanation of the auction, and Law 12 doesn't allow the offending side to get a 2-way finesse right.  A competent declarer would probably read the cards correctly and make 12 tricks, but too bad.  Adjust the score.

I agree. Although not possible in BBO, it would be nice to give a weighted adjustment (66% of 6NT making, 34% of 6NT-1) and then we could argue about the weights

I disagree with Richard about N/S's duty to protect themselves. East has alerted one conventional bid and then, for some reason only known to East, stopped alerting. It is reasonable to assume that these bids are not alertable. Clearly North does not wish to ask about the club bids during the auction, as East could be declarer and believe that North has a reason to ask. Perhaps North could ask East prior to the lead, but time pressure is often a problem in the tourneys and it is East who is at fault, not North.

Paul

[coyot]

Clearly the failure to alert the 3♣ bid caused a ton of damage.
Especially in this case, the missing alert made the subsequent auction LOOK very natural - so much that I don't think you can blame the defense for not asking what the bids meant. (After all, this is what alerts are for - to keep defenders from asking about EVERY bid just to protect themselves).


As for the question of a club lead, alert or not... I would hardly ever lead a club after a natural auction, because East is showing a slam-headed hand based on long clubs. What would his holding be in that case? AKJxxx or AKJxxxx is quite likely - and he might well decide to hold up the first round of clubs, holding 8x against either of the holdings...

With no alerts, I would definitely lead a heart as it seems that the opener holds diamonds and spades, therefore my partner is likely to have any missing heart honors.

The trickiest part of the decision would be the adjust itself:
Given the contract level, one might argue that it does not really matter which side to play for the diamond queen, as if the finesse loses, the contract fails... but given the club position, the percentage play would still be to play south for the queen, going only down one no matter what happens.

I'm not really sure what would I do at the table - but I think that to protect the innocent, I would award 6NT -1 to declarer and ave+ to defense if that is possible... or ave -+ not to be too harsh on them.
(Declaring line certainly needs to be punished for the failure to alert - and after the club lead there might be sufficient doubt about the outcome, because apart from the finesse decision in previous paragraph, there probably might be other combinations involving a squeeze or whatever that could allow the declarer to make the contract (or go down).

[Walddk]

Facts:
1. 2♣ was alerted and explained as forcing. Didn't promise a suit.

2. 3♣ and 4♣ were not alerted.

3. 6NT made 12 tricks on a non-club lead (declarer misguessed diamonds).

Considerations:
1. Were NS damaged by the missing alerts?

Yes, North had every reason to believe that East had a club suit. Accordingly, a club lead was out of the question.

.....

Ruling:
An adjustment is called for. If 3♣ and 4♣ had been alerted and subsequently explained on request, North would have found the club lead some of the times. In f2f bridge I would have given a weighted score. X% 6NT-1, X% 6NT= (I haven't made up my mind regarding the percentages).

However, there is a problem on the internet, because the software doesn't allow you to give a weighted score. I am not sure what a fair adjustment would be under the circumstances, now that you only have Ave (50%), Ave+ (60%) and Ave- (40%) available.

Once I determine what the weighted score should be, I will get an adjusted score, and only then can I compare it to the datum score across the field. This would be much too complicated and time consuming, apart from the fact that I wouldn't be able to give a weighted score anyway.

Given that EW are the offending side and NS the non offending side, I think the only option I have is to award 60-40 in favour of NS (Ave+ .. Ave-).

Adjusting to 6NT-1 is wrong in my opinion. North would not always have found the club lead, even if he had been alerted properly and got the correct explanations of 3♣ and 4♣.

Roland

[pclayton]

Its hard to see a nexus between damage and the result. If you KNEW about the alerts, would you REALLY lead a club against 6N? Looks like a good hand to go passive with 2 seemingly balanced hands, although as the director I'd poll a few peers of N/S.

I'd hit E/W with a procedural penalty for the failure to alert however, with a stern slap on the wrist. I personally believe practiced partnerships have a higher level of scrutiny than pick-up partnerships, and failing to alert a sequence like this is inexcusable.

[inquiry]

Average Plus NS, Average Minus EW.

EW can make 6NT on club lead if quess D (5D. 4S. 3H. 1C for 13 tricks). But they had no chance to go wrong without a club lead. There was misinfomation. On a club lead, the contract would make 1/2 time with overtrick, and be down 1/2 time with misgusess. That looks like top 1/2 and bottom 1/2. But both averages doesn't penalize EW for failures to alert which caused the problem.

Awarding 6NT down one is too much however. as they had a chance to make if the alerts had been properly given.

[Echognome]

I agree with the others. To me this is a clear 12C3 ruling (% of 6NT making and % of 6NT down 1). I would have to think more about what percentages I would give in offline bridge. Online I just don't have a good alternative. I think Avg+/Avg- is the closest I can come.

[david_c]

I think I agree with Richard on this one. It certainly would be nice if the software could cope with weighted scores. But here I would only give a very small weighting to 6NT going off, maybe 20% taking into account the benefit of the doubt given to the non-offending side. It could be even less. I think the best approximation to this on BBO is to let the result stand. That is, I would rule that 6NT going off is not a likely result.

I don't like giving Ave+/Ave- on principle. Even more so here because it seems too generous.

[rigour6]

No doubt I am wrong about this, but when faced with a true poser like this one, and given time constraints, my default is to average the board.

I think in this case the auction clearly suggests a long club suit. I agree that it's the 3 clubs that's the problem. 2 clubs was ambiguous, but 3 clubs to me removed the ambiguity of 2 clubs. 4 clubs as an ace ask wouldn't normally be alerted, but in this sequence hmmmm. Bottom line: the auction looks like something to defenders where declarer and p clearly see it as meaning something else because the normal meaning of the club bids is not the meaning they understand.

In that situation the damage is speculative yes, and the software is limited. Averaging the board in effect takes the board away and says we aren't going to count it. It's very rough justice, but I can't see how you can go +/- on this one. Not in the time you have. It would take me about 10 minutes to figure this one out and find inquiry's answer.

[han]

Giving averages to both sides seems absurd.. it is after all only one pair that made an offense, not both pairs. An average score is bad if you want to win a tournament, especially a short one.

I agree with Roland, Ben and others: Av+/Av- seems best for this difficult situation.