[jillybean]

Dealer: North Vul: NS Scoring: IMP

♠ T872 ♥ 87 ♦ KQ5 ♣ A942

West North East South

 -     1NT   2♦    2NT
 Pass  3NT   Dbl   Pass
 Pass  Pass  

Hi,

East 2♦ alert (majors) was late south claimed damage, was pass a logical alternative?


tyia
jb

[LH2650]

Pass by who? If South, I don't believe it. South must make a plausible argument that he would have done something different with the proper information. I would accept the claim that a double is reasonable, rather than 2 Notrump, and that this might avoid being in 3N with no stopper in one major. However, if South requests an adjustment without stating exactly how the auction would have been different and more successful, I would deny it.

[hrothgar]

this one is complicated qnd depends a lot on documented agrements...

I think that N/S can make a valid claim that they were damaged by the later alert.
The South hand looks like its woerth driving to 3NT after aq natural 2♦ overcall. If 2♦ is properly alerted, South will most likely chose to double, showing cards and a willingness to penalize at least one of East's suits.

an auction like

1N - (2♦) - X - (2♥)
X - all pass

or

1N - (2♦) - X - (2♥)
P - (P) - 2N - (P)
3m

look most likely

[inquiry]

This is a difficult situation. When did the alert come. Maybe north wouldn't have bid 3NT if the alert had been timely. I would tend to rule damage, because if 2D had been alerted, south would not have bid 2NT, but instead would have doubled, 2D. Quite a few different auctions are then possible.

[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     1NT   2♦    2NT
 Pass  3NT   Dbl   Pass
 Pass  Pass  

Thanks,

I didn’t get time to ask any intelligent questions, I only know the 2♦ alert came after the 2nt bid.

My initial reaction on seeing the board was no damage, North had bid on with minimum hand. South then said “OK, but I don't agree -they'll play a doubled contract in major if I understand the bid.

I had another look at the board and saw that was a LA, (I thought S would pass initially, now see X is correct).

I adjusted board A+-

jb

[pclayton]

Perhaps South should upgrade the ♦KQx and drive to game. But doesn't looking for a 4-4 spade fit seem normal? - but this pair doesn't seem to have a lot of firm agreements anyway. Anyway, South chose to simply invite.

If 2♦ was alerted, South would certainly double and North would hit 2♥ which looks like +300 or 500. Thats what I'd adjust to - why would u give A- (+) in a situation like this? Seems damage isn't that hard to calculate - although 500 is probably an A+ anyway - 3N looks doomed on the spade lead - although the defense has a chance to lose its way.

[FrancesHinden]

Maybe I don't know enough about the technicalities of online bridge, but if the sequence of events was

1NT
2D
2NT
late alert of 2D

then the TD should have been called at once, and South can change his 2NT bid if he wants. Then you don't have to adjust later.

[jillybean]

Phil,
I didnt adjust the board to 2♥X-? because I dont have the skills needed to see results immediately. It would take me several minutes to work out a result, time I don't have during a tournament.
I could have left the adjustment until after the tournament but people want instant results.

Frances - a correction is the best option, I'll try to remember this for next time.
I joined the table after 3nt was doubled, is it still correct to allow south to take back his bid now?

[FrancesHinden]

No, South can only take back his bid before his partner has next called.
(Law 21B1).

There is in England a tendency not to give an adjusted score if:
- a player was given misinformation (e.g. a late alert, changed explanation)
- he found out before his partner next called
- he didn't call the TD at the time
- he says later he would have done something different

i.e., if the circumstances were such that he could have changed his call had he called the TD at the time, but he didn't call the TD (Law 11A). Effectively, we are saying that it's much, much more convincing when you say you want to do something different _before_ you find out the full hand rather than afterwards.

For a while the guidance was definitely not to permit an adjusted score in those circumstances, but it's been relaxed slightly recently, and now it's simply that you are much less likely to get an adjustment in your favour. You almost certainly won't get an adjustment if you knew that your call could be changed and still didn't call the TD. So if I'd been the South player I would not have got an adjustment.

[jillybean]

Thanks. I see I have to read up some more on the laws.

This is where it is difficult to apply the laws to online bridge.
The play does not necessarily stop when a TD call is made, the other players won’t be aware of the call until the TD arrives at the table. Even if the person making the call takes the time to type a message a few bids or plays could easily be made in this time.

[paulg]

jillybean2, on Jan 2 2006, 12:57 AM, said:

This is where it is difficult to apply the laws to online bridge.
The play does not necessarily stop when a TD call is made, the other players won’t be aware of the call until the TD arrives at the table. Even if the person making the call takes the time to type a message a few bids or plays could easily be made in this time.

It is only more difficult in the sense that there are far more people playing that have no idea about the Laws of the game - in general, a player calling the TD should not make a call or play, so play should cease.

However, as Frances implies, this specific case is one that even most regular tournament players are less aware of than most - essentially only those who were playing at Brighton (UK) when it came up a few years ago and those interested in the Appeals booklets would be aware of this

On-line bridge is a nightmare. It is full of players who have no understanding of the Laws; there are many amateur (unqualified) TDs, including myself, whose principal aim is to give people free and friendly tournaments to play in; it is a multi-cultural multi-lingual environment where everyone alerts to their own standards.

I'd like to commend jillybean on her regular postings in this forum as it can only help drive up the standard and consistency of everyone's directing, and help drag up the players to the place where we'd like to see them.

Paul

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

It is full of players who have no understanding of the Laws; there are many amateur (unqualified) TDs, including myself, whose principal aim is to give people free and friendly tournaments to play in

That's great - the more bridge that is available, the better.

The problem is when you get the culture clash between people who just want a free & friendly tournament, and those who want to follow the Laws strictly. Bad feelings arise when one pair think they are having a non-serious outing to have fun, and the other pair are upset because the detailed regulations have not been followed properly. I'm not sure exactly what the solution is: I think it would make sense for people to say

"Free tournament. TD present to make the event run smoothly but complex judgement rulings will not be given."

However, I don't know if that becomes a licence for cheats....

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 2 2006, 12:57 PM, said:

"Free tournament.  TD present to make the event run smoothly but complex judgement rulings will not be given."

I think this is the definition of a free tournament ... perhaps changing "will not" to "may not". But I will add this to the CoC that I load.

Another solution, used by a number of TDs, is posting "no adjustments" in their tournament descriptions - not that I like this but players know where they stand.

p

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

this specific case is one that even most regular tournament players are less aware of than most - essentially only those who were playing at Brighton (UK) when it came up a few years ago and those interested in the Appeals booklets would be aware of this

True.
But the general guidance to call the TD immediately as soon as there has been an irregularity, should be one that most tournament players are aware of.

If, as jilly says, it's common in online bridge to call the TD but carry on playing, then that's fine - it speeds the game up, and so on- but it's not in accordance with the Laws.

[Law 9B1(a): "The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity"
9B2: "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty. " ]

9B1 is broken frequently, but the fact remains that if you break either of these Laws you can't complain if you later don't get redress.

[pigpenz]

the reasonable alternatives calls for south are double and 2NT, in my opinion. North also didnt have his call when he bid 3NT. I would tend to let the result stand and give EW a procedural penalty.

[LH2650]

pigpenz, on Jan 3 2006, 04:09 PM, said:

I would tend to let the result stand and give EW a procedural penalty.

A slow alert doesn't come anywhere near the threshold for a procedural penalty. I recently asked a director (who works full time, including all ACBL Nationals) how many procedural penalties he had assessed in the last year. He thought he had been involved in two (not including Zero Tolerance and cell phones ringing). The one he could remember involved an egregious use of unauthorized information.

[pigpenz]

LH2650, on Jan 3 2006, 07:24 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Jan 3 2006, 04:09 PM, said:

I would tend to let the result stand and give EW a procedural penalty.

A slow alert doesn't come anywhere near the threshold for a procedural penalty. I recently asked a director (who works full time, including all ACBL Nationals) how many procedural penalties he had assessed in the last year. He thought he had been involved in two (not including Zero Tolerance and cell phones ringing). The one he could remember involved an egregious use of unauthorized information.

our problem here on BBO is that even if you call the TD, there isnt usually much they can do if the alert comes after you have made your call already. The TD's need a function button that allows them to roll back the auction or at least let a person take back his call. So in every case on BBO once it happens the TD's always say just procede cause thats about all they can do.

[jillybean]

pigpenz, on Jan 3 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

LH2650, on Jan 3 2006, 07:24 PM, said:

pigpenz, on Jan 3 2006, 04:09 PM, said:

I would tend to let the result stand and give EW a procedural penalty.

A slow alert doesn't come anywhere near the threshold for a procedural penalty. I recently asked a director (who works full time, including all ACBL Nationals) how many procedural penalties he had assessed in the last year. He thought he had been involved in two (not including Zero Tolerance and cell phones ringing). The one he could remember involved an egregious use of unauthorized information.

our problem here on BBO is that even if you call the TD, there isnt usually much they can do if the alert comes after you have made your call already. The TD's need a function button that allows them to roll back the auction or at least let a person take back his call. So in every case on BBO once it happens the TD's always say just procede cause thats about all they can do.

The undo button does this

[pigpenz]

unfortunatetly most tourneys dont allow undo's

[barmar]

TD's should be able to perform undos even when the players aren't allowed. This is how it works in OKbridge tourneys -- only the TD can perform an undo (players can click on the button and it will display the undo request, which can hopefully alert the next player not to bid while you call the TD).