[the_dude]

Thanks for the feedback all .. the ruling seems as clear as possible and had the TD made it this clear on the spot I would not have made a fuss.

sfi, on 2013-January-04, 14:45, said:

The question of the alert seems to have been dealt with fairly thoroughly, but nobody has questioned the adjustment itself. Is it likely that the opening leader would have led a spade had they known that dummy will not have four? This seems a common enough situation that if it mattered that much then the opponents could have done something to protect themselves.

Although we don't have the hand, I would like to see good reasons why the misinformation materially affected the lead before making an adjustment. And I would certainly like to be able to apply weighted scores here.

You up an interesting point. Opening leader had K10xx of spades and A10xx of clubs. Under those circumstances, I don't know a single player who wouldn't ask about the possibility of dummy's having / not having spades - and we were in a high enough bracket that they should have wanted to know. They certainly knew enough to call the TD the moment the play of the hand ended.

That makes me wonder ... once I failed to alert did he deliberately not ask, to game the system? Lead a club and if it beats the contract, great. But if a spade lead would have beaten it call the TD to get it via ruling. Best of both worlds?

I have no idea if this is what was happening, and furthermore if such gamesmanship is unethical or not. It just makes me say hmmmmmm

[blackshoe]

Weighted scores would be nice, but of course they're not available in the ACBL, even to ACs.

I want to see all four hands, and hear the legal basis for the TD's table ruling, including your "why the MI materially affected the lead".

[aguahombre]

Dude, your observations about free shots/double shots are valid, as is your question about whether they are ethical. I personally wouldn't be happy with myself or with my partner deliberately going for two bites of the apple. But, I have been on both sides of the accusation. The only way to avoid a double-dip by the opps is to not commit the irregularity ---easier said than done on occasion.

[nige1]

IMO:

• The director should adjust to 3N-2 for the offenders.
• It's hard to understand why victims should be expected to protect themselves against infractions like the failure to alert a call that the rules explicitly specify as requiring an alert. Under current rules, however, the director might rule that the actual 3N+1 score stands for the victims. One effect of such rulings is that they reduce the incentive for victims to call the director and hence reward and encourage law-breakers, in the long-term. And SEWOG rules exacerbate that effect.

[Antrax]

the_dude, on 2013-January-04, 18:11, said:

You up an interesting point. Opening leader had K10xx of spades and A10xx of clubs. Under those circumstances, I don't know a single player who wouldn't ask about the possibility of dummy's having / not having spades - and we were in a high enough bracket that they should have wanted to know.

Maybe he wanted to avoid giving his partner UI that might prevent him from switching to spades later on?

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2013-January-04, 19:48, said:

IMO:

• The director should adjust to 3N-2 for the offenders.
• It's hard to understand why victims should be expected to protect themselves against infractions like the failure to alert a call that the rules explicitly specify as requiring an alert. Under current rules, however, the director might rule that the actual 3N+1 score stands for the victims. One effect of such rulings is that they reduce the incentive for victims to call the director and hence reward and encourage law-breakers, in the long-term. And SEWOG rules exacerbate that effect.

yes, and there are so many SEWoG rulings.

[gordontd]

nige1, on 2013-January-04, 19:48, said:

Under current rules, however, the director might rule that the actual 3N+1 score stands for the victims.

On what basis might that ruling be made?

[mgoetze]

gordontd, on 2013-January-05, 03:51, said:

On what basis might that ruling be made?

I suspect Nigel is referring to the ACBL Alert Procedures which state,

Quote

Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.

I would say that the fact that it says "have neglected" rather than "may have neglected" makes this inapplicable but as we all know ACBL Regulations are not meant to be used literally.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-05, 00:22, said:

yes, and there are so many SEWoG rulings.

No "Protect yourself" and "SEWOG" rules are effective
For example. ordinary players sometimes make serious errors, especially when flustered by opponents' suspected infractions. And SEWOG rulings are often suggested in these fora. In practice, however, SEWOG rulings are rare, because we are unlikely to call the director, just to be humiliated and deprived of much of our redress.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2013-January-04, 19:48, said:

IMO:

• The director should adjust to 3N-2 for the offenders.
• It's hard to understand why victims should be expected to protect themselves against infractions like the failure to alert a call that the rules explicitly specify as requiring an alert. Under current rules, however, the director might rule that the actual 3N+1 score stands for the victims. One effect of such rulings is that they reduce the incentive for victims to call the director and hence reward and encourage law-breakers, in the long-term. And SEWOG rules exacerbate that effect.

gordontd, on 2013-January-05, 03:51, said:

On what basis might that ruling be made?

I tried to explain why -- because of "Protect yourself" regulations -- but, of course, I would be delighted were my conclusion mistaken

[barmar]

the_dude, on 2013-January-04, 18:11, said:

You up an interesting point. Opening leader had K10xx of spades and A10xx of clubs. Under those circumstances, I don't know a single player who wouldn't ask about the possibility of dummy's having / not having spades - and we were in a high enough bracket that they should have wanted to know. They certainly knew enough to call the TD the moment the play of the hand ended.

I have exactly the opposite opinion.

Most players who play 4-way transfers, which necessitate this style of bidding, are fairly experienced. They tend to know which of their bids are alertable.

The "protect yourself" clause in the alert procedures is intended for experienced players to protect themselves against the alerting mistakes that novices are likely to make. If you're playing in a high bracket, you don't expect to be playing against many novices, so this expectation is not usually applicable.

You can't have it both ways: if it's a high enough bracket that they should have wanted to know, then it's also a high enough bracket that you should alert properly.

[Phil]

the_dude, on 2013-January-04, 18:11, said:

You up an interesting point. Opening leader had K10xx of spades and A10xx of clubs. Under those circumstances, I don't know a single player who wouldn't ask about the possibility of dummy's having / not having spades - and we were in a high enough bracket that they should have wanted to know. They certainly knew enough to call the TD the moment the play of the hand ended.

Of course you can say the same thing about dummy's deportment.

Dummy is required to provide the alert that declarer didn't make when the auction is over. If the dummy is looking at, say, ♠xx or xxx, you might not make the post-alert, in fears of getting a spade lead. And if the director rolls it back to 3N going down, you haven't lost a thing.

[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2013-January-06, 11:20, said:

Dummy is required to provide the alert that declarer didn't make when the auction is over. If the dummy is looking at, say, ♠xx or xxx, you might not make the post-alert, in fears of getting a spade lead. And if the director rolls it back to 3N going down, you haven't lost a thing.

Quote

Law 20F5{b}: The player [dummy in this case - ER] must [emphasis mine - ER] call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

Quote

Introduction to the laws: Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (es- tablishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed).

Dummy loses however many match points are in the PP he gets. If dummy is a clueless newbie, that might be zero, but if he has any experience at all, it will be more than zero.

[Vampyr]

Antrax, on 2013-January-04, 22:16, said:

Maybe he wanted to avoid giving his partner UI that might prevent him from switching to spades later on?

Right. I find it slightly depressing that this does not appear to be a problem by a player in a "high-enough bracket". I guess defending this way makes it a lot easier to advance to the higher brackets.

[Zelandakh]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-03, 09:40, said:

Where I come from, 2♣ itself is alertable if it does not promise a 4-card major. That seems reasonable enough to me.

Eeeeps, I just checked the alert regs and you are correct. I guess this means that my partner and I should alert our Stayman since in theory Responder could have a 5 card minor and no 4 card major (we are playing SA-like rather than my method) although it has not actually happened yet. Out of interest, what is the standard meaning for Stayman followed by bidding 3m in Germany? I suspect that many of the other pairs playing Stayman should theoretically be alerting their 2♣ response too!

As for it being reasonable, I am skeptical. Every original form of Stayman included a weak take-out of clubs. Many popular versions include slammy hands with a minor. And what if I decide to bid 2♣ with a weak 3=3=5=2 hand? On the other hand, there is only one version where 2♣ absolutely promises a 4 card major and this is extremely rarely played in my experience.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-22, 08:54, said:

Every original form of Stayman included a weak take-out of clubs.

Interesting assertion. AFAIK, there were two original forms of Stayman, Rapee's and Marx's, and neither of them included this option. I think it was an addition, albeit perhaps a very early one. But I'm from Missouri — show me the evidence.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 09:38, said:

Interesting assertion. AFAIK, there were two original forms of Stayman, Rapee's and Marx's, and neither of them included this option. I think it was an addition, albeit perhaps a very early one. But I'm from Missouri — show me the evidence.

I don't know if it was the "original" Stayman when I learned it in the late forties, but the signoff bids in minor after 1NT opening was then
(1NT - 2♣ - 2?? - ) 3♣/♦

[blackshoe]

I don't think that's what Zel was talking about. I read his post as referring to "Garbage Stayman", where you bid 2♣ with club shortage, planning to pass whatever partner bids.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2013-January-22, 08:54, said:

Out of interest, what is the standard meaning for Stayman followed by bidding 3m in Germany?

I believe it is the same as everywhere else, a GF+ hand with 5+m4M.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-22, 09:52, said:

I don't think that's what Zel was talking about. I read his post as referring to "Garbage Stayman", where you bid 2♣ with club shortage, planning to pass whatever partner bids.

That usually has at least one 4-card major, although I suppose one could do it with 3=3=6=1 as well (instead of transfering to 3♦).