What would be your ruling

Post by Mark
We have a club appeal for this hand. However, too many of the club appeal committee are involved in the hand to make an unbiased decision.
The bidding goes
S W N E
1N P 2C 2N 1N Announced as 12-14. 2C Stayman.
P 3N 4C AP
No questions were asked during the auction
N had plenty of opportunities to consult the CC and did not.
The problem we have is that the 2N bid was not alerted.
W took the 2N bid as natural and bid a reasonable 3N.
4C goes 4 off for a bottom for NS.
N complains to the director who rule that the infraction disadvantaged NS and awards 60% NS, 40% EW
So, EW Are appealing on the basis that the 4C bid was the bid that did the damage (probable SEWOG?)
Thanks in advance.
M.
Full hands
NS vul, S dealer
S K83 A7 T73 KQ743
W A72 QJ82 KQJ 985
N QJT65 KT964 984 void
E 94 53 A652 AJT62

What jurisdiction? I'm guessing this was not ACBL-land. It seems that North understood 2NT to show the minors, while South did not. Whether or not N/S were damaged or should have protected themselves, if an alert is clearly required, E/W should suffer a poor result or penalty. But I'm inclined to think North made a too cute bid which his partner failed to decipher. Just out of curiosity, was he planning to pass a 2D reply to 2C? Or would the sequence 1NT-2C; 2D-2H have shown a weak hand with both majors?

Mark

2016-11-24 12:55:35 UTC

EBU so alerts are required. Nobody denies the infraction. The 3n bid would have been made no matter what s did. So the appeal revolves around the strange 4c bid.
Was the 4c bid a serious error. I think so. NS had never played before so the 4C bid was risky.
Had N doubled they would have a top.
Had N or S bid 4H/S then they would be doubled for a bottom.

Mark

2016-11-24 14:18:28 UTC

An interesting point that you say EW _should_ suffer a poor result or penalty. Should all infractions suffer a poor result or penalty, in which case, NS are effectively free to bid anything that they want after an obvious infraction. If N was aware that the 2N was the minors (and not a 15 point hand) then surely a double is called for. I' not sure, but I think EW had the 2N as Unusual on the card but N failed to check.

BTW as an update N is now demanding that they be given 80% and EW 20%

I'm inclined at the moment to run under 12C1b, but i'm open to ideas.

M.

Lorne Anderson

2016-11-24 14:28:14 UTC

Post by Mark
BTW as an update N is now demanding that they be given 80% and EW 20%

I think you should tell N that the appeals process is required to follow
the rules of the game rather than enact some fantasy idea by an
interested party.

Post by Mark
I'm inclined at the moment to run under 12C1b, but i'm open to ideas.

I do not agree with this as 4C is not a wild and gambling action if you
know that 2N shows the minors. With 6 points it is very possible that
the oppo can make 3N with 2 long suits known to be in the E hand, and
with 5-5 majors 10 tricks might be quite close or even make if partner
has values in diamonds and the oppo no defensive tricks from AKQJ in clubs.

See my other post for what I think is correct for an EBU ruling.

p***@infi.net

2016-11-24 15:08:51 UTC

An interesting point that you say EW _should_ suffer a poor result or penalty. Should all infractions suffer a poor result or penalty, in which case, NS are effectively free to bid anything that they want after an obvious infraction. If N was aware that the 2N was the minors (and not a 15 point hand) then surely a double is called for. I' not sure, but I think EW had the 2N as Unusual on the card but N failed to check.
BTW as an update N is now demanding that they be given 80% and EW 20%
I'm inclined at the moment to run under 12C1b, but i'm open to ideas.
M.

You can, and I believe should, penalize the offending side whether or not you give any adjustment in favor of the non-offending side. So a percentage of 4C, 4S, and 4Sx for N/S would be reasonable, along with a penalty point for E/W unless the adjusted score was already unfavorable to them. Perhaps allowing for some percentage of 4S undoubled would be unfavorable enough, i.e., you could guess they would've had a top at 4Sx but not at 4S undoubled. So North takes the consequences of his action while E/W learn they need to know their system and alert properly.

Mark

2016-11-24 15:35:27 UTC

An interesting point that you say EW _should_ suffer a poor result or penalty. Should all infractions suffer a poor result or penalty, in which case, NS are effectively free to bid anything that they want after an obvious infraction. If N was aware that the 2N was the minors (and not a 15 point hand) then surely a double is called for. I' not sure, but I think EW had the 2N as Unusual on the card but N failed to check.
BTW as an update N is now demanding that they be given 80% and EW 20%
I'm inclined at the moment to run under 12C1b, but i'm open to ideas.
M.

As Lorne states in another thread, just because you _believe_ you should penalize is not relevant. What we have to do is follow the rules, and they do not say to penalize EW (penalties are for much more serious infractions). However, the rules do allow for an adjusted score.

So, assuming that most would get to 4S, does this seem reasonable.

40% 4C-4 (-400)
30% 4SX-2/3 (-500/800)
30% 4S-2/3 (-200/300)

All these results, apart from 4S-2 result in a bottom for NS as most stopped in 2S or 3S

Lorne Anderson

2016-11-24 15:56:25 UTC

An interesting point that you say EW _should_ suffer a poor result or penalty. Should all infractions suffer a poor result or penalty, in which case, NS are effectively free to bid anything that they want after an obvious infraction. If N was aware that the 2N was the minors (and not a 15 point hand) then surely a double is called for. I' not sure, but I think EW had the 2N as Unusual on the card but N failed to check.
BTW as an update N is now demanding that they be given 80% and EW 20%
I'm inclined at the moment to run under 12C1b, but i'm open to ideas.
M.

As Lorne states in another thread, just because you _believe_ you should penalize is not relevant. What we have to do is follow the rules, and they do not say to penalize EW (penalties are for much more serious infractions). However, the rules do allow for an adjusted score.
So, assuming that most would get to 4S, does this seem reasonable.
40% 4C-4 (-400)
30% 4SX-2/3 (-500/800)
30% 4S-2/3 (-200/300)
All these results, apart from 4S-2 result in a bottom for NS as most stopped in 2S or 3S

I do not think you should include 4C as I doubt S would ever pass it if
he knew his RHO had shown 5-5 in minors. So 50% 4S*-2 and 50% 4S-2
would look right to me since you should give the benefit of doubt in
playing skill or defense to the non-offending side.

Note however all my comments have assumed EW do have an agreement that
2N is the minors which I think is your opinion but if not true then
there is no adjustment if one went out on an undiscussed whim and the
other misread it.

p***@infi.net

2016-11-24 17:43:16 UTC

An interesting point that you say EW _should_ suffer a poor result or penalty. Should all infractions suffer a poor result or penalty, in which case, NS are effectively free to bid anything that they want after an obvious infraction. If N was aware that the 2N was the minors (and not a 15 point hand) then surely a double is called for. I' not sure, but I think EW had the 2N as Unusual on the card but N failed to check.
BTW as an update N is now demanding that they be given 80% and EW 20%
I'm inclined at the moment to run under 12C1b, but i'm open to ideas.
M.

As Lorne states in another thread, just because you _believe_ you should penalize is not relevant. What we have to do is follow the rules, and they do not say to penalize EW (penalties are for much more serious infractions). However, the rules do allow for an adjusted score.
So, assuming that most would get to 4S, does this seem reasonable.
40% 4C-4 (-400)
30% 4SX-2/3 (-500/800)
30% 4S-2/3 (-200/300)
All these results, apart from 4S-2 result in a bottom for NS as most stopped in 2S or 3S

I do not think you should include 4C as I doubt S would ever pass it if
he knew his RHO had shown 5-5 in minors. So 50% 4S*-2 and 50% 4S-2
would look right to me since you should give the benefit of doubt in
playing skill or defense to the non-offending side.
Note however all my comments have assumed EW do have an agreement that
2N is the minors which I think is your opinion but if not true then
there is no adjustment if one went out on an undiscussed whim and the
other misread it.

I suggested 4C because, as you can see, East was NOT 5-5 in the minors. But all that appears to matter is that by including some percentage of 4S-2, E/W do not score a complete top.

Lorne Anderson

2016-11-24 14:20:52 UTC

Had 2N been alerted I do not believe it would affect any calls in the
auction up to the final pass by E as N was clearly aware of its meaning
when he bid 4C with a void, so the only thing to decide is what would
happen if S had been aware of the meaning of 2N after 4C was bid.

It is obvious he would bid 4S and that contract would fail. If doubled
they still get a bottom. If not doubled we can't tell without the other
scores to look at but I would give a weighted ruling between 4S doubled
and undoubled which is how the EBU deal with these uncertain issues in
my experience. I do not understand the initial ruling of 60:40 - where
in the rule book does it say you can do that for a failure to alert when
it is easy to construct likely auctions with an alert? As to the
weighting, if W was an expert it would be 100% for double but for weaker
players maybe as low as 25%.

Mark

2016-11-24 14:30:09 UTC

Had 2N been alerted I do not believe it would affect any calls in the
auction up to the final pass by E as N was clearly aware of its meaning
when he bid 4C with a void, so the only thing to decide is what would
happen if S had been aware of the meaning of 2N after 4C was bid.
It is obvious he would bid 4S and that contract would fail. If doubled
they still get a bottom. If not doubled we can't tell without the other
scores to look at but I would give a weighted ruling between 4S doubled
and undoubled which is how the EBU deal with these uncertain issues in
my experience. I do not understand the initial ruling of 60:40 - where
in the rule book does it say you can do that for a failure to alert when
it is easy to construct likely auctions with an alert? As to the
weighting, if W was an expert it would be 100% for double but for weaker
players maybe as low as 25%.

In the short discussion after the event, these were my exact thoughts.
W is a good club player so I thought would likely double
S & E have both won county level events. E might double (after all W has shown several points and he has 2 aces), but I think this might be taking advantage of the lack of alert.

So, along with my initial thoughts and your thoughts, I'd happily rule a split 4S/4SX (down 2/3)

Thanks

Lorne Anderson

2016-11-24 14:41:58 UTC

Had 2N been alerted I do not believe it would affect any calls in the
auction up to the final pass by E as N was clearly aware of its meaning
when he bid 4C with a void, so the only thing to decide is what would
happen if S had been aware of the meaning of 2N after 4C was bid.
It is obvious he would bid 4S and that contract would fail. If doubled
they still get a bottom. If not doubled we can't tell without the other
scores to look at but I would give a weighted ruling between 4S doubled
and undoubled which is how the EBU deal with these uncertain issues in
my experience. I do not understand the initial ruling of 60:40 - where
in the rule book does it say you can do that for a failure to alert when
it is easy to construct likely auctions with an alert? As to the
weighting, if W was an expert it would be 100% for double but for weaker
players maybe as low as 25%.

In the short discussion after the event, these were my exact thoughts.
W is a good club player so I thought would likely double
S & E have both won county level events. E might double (after all W has shown several points and he has 2 aces), but I think this might be taking advantage of the lack of alert.
So, along with my initial thoughts and your thoughts, I'd happily rule a split 4S/4SX (down 2/3)
Thanks

In my experience players get upset when they think the oppo have got
away with something regardless of what the rule book says so given
comments made by N I advise you give a written ruling that starts with a
paragraph similar to my first para so they understand better why the
ruling was made. N probably believes he is entitled to a good board
just because there was an infraction but he needs to understand that is
not what the rules say.

Bruce Evans

2016-11-24 22:32:51 UTC

Post by Mark
We have a club appeal for this hand. However, too many of the club

appeal committee are involved in the hand to make an unbiased decision.

Post by Mark
The bidding goes
S W N E
1N P 2C 2N 1N Announced as 12-14. 2C Stayman.
P 3N 4C AP
No questions were asked during the auction
N had plenty of opportunities to consult the CC and did not.
The problem we have is that the 2N bid was not alerted.
W took the 2N bid as natural and bid a reasonable 3N.
4C goes 4 off for a bottom for NS.
N complains to the director who rule that the infraction

disadvantaged NS and awards 60% NS, 40% EW

Post by Mark
So, EW Are appealing on the basis that the 4C bid was the bid that

did the damage (probable SEWOG?)

Post by Mark
Thanks in advance.
M.
Full hands
NS vul, S dealer
S K83 A7 T73 KQ743
W A72 QJ82 KQJ 985
N QJT65 KT964 984 void
E 94 53 A652 AJT62

I would award closer to 100% NS, 0% E/W.

Without the infraction, E/W might bid to the normal contract of 3S
via ... (2NT) P (3D) X (P) 3S (P) P (P) P and make it. I think 3S
is beatable on a diamond lead, but the defense is not very easy so
3S making would score nearly 100%. With the infraction and with
the 3NT tactical overbid, E/W were headed for 3NT or higher down a
few, possibly doubled. Perhaps down only 2 singled in 3NT, which
scores better than 3S making, but North might double at matchpoints
since he expected to make 3 of a major.

Post by Lorne Anderson
Had 2N been alerted I do not believe it would affect any calls in the
auction up to the final pass by E as N was clearly aware of its meaning
when he bid 4C with a void, so the only thing to decide is what would
happen if S had been aware of the meaning of 2N after 4C was bid.

No, it affects everything. 3NT after an unusual 2NT is also unusual.
It might be a conventional bid, a tactical bid, an overbid or a psyche.
Some of these are alertable. Since it wasn't alerted, it seems to
have been one of the last 3, and an error. Whatever it was, it adds
to the confusion created by the missing alert, but this should have
helped N/S further.

North might not have been in this position if 2NT had been alerted.
If 2NT had been alerted, then West would have known his system and
might not have bid 3NT. N/S were damaged twice by West's actions.
First he failed to alert, and then he made a bid which accidentally
increased N/S's and the appeals committee's problems.

North's 4C bid is not egregious (when I first read this, I thought
that it was). South might not even have noticed the missing alert.
He just overvalued his void for playing 4M. The non-alert makes 4C
even better. Now 2NT is quite likely to be based on AKQxxx(x) of
clubs so that 3NT is cold and so is 4M.

Post by Lorne Anderson
It is obvious he would bid 4S and that contract would fail. If doubled
they still get a bottom. If not doubled we can't tell without the other
scores to look at but I would give a weighted ruling between 4S doubled
and undoubled which is how the EBU deal with these uncertain issues in
my experience.

4S contracts are irrelevant since they are unlikely without the infraction.

Post by Lorne Anderson
I do not understand the initial ruling of 60:40 - where
in the rule book does it say you can do that for a failure to alert when
it is easy to construct likely auctions with an alert? As to the

It is not easy to construct likely actions, but if you do then they end
up in 3S, and it turns out that 60:40 might be about right for 3S making,
depending on how well the field defends it). If 3S was easy to make, then
it would be merely 60:40 (average plus).

Post by Lorne Anderson
weighting, if W was an expert it would be 100% for double but for weaker
players maybe as low as 25%.

This is unclear. I think you mean in the given auction modified by North
not passing 4C. Then partner's pass of 4C was forcing and West must double
to show the extras and flat shape. If 2NT had been alerted, West barely
has a double of 7S since he has only 1 defensive trick in spades. Anyway,
the auction modified by only fixing the alert is not worth considering,
since that leaves the unusual 3NT bid in the auction, and it is hard enough
to consider all usual auctions.

Post by Mark
In the short discussion after the event, these were my exact thoughts.

Not good, since they are mostly backwards.

Post by Mark
W is a good club player so I thought would likely double
S & E have both won county level events. E might double (after all W

has shown several points and he has 2 aces), but I think this might be
taking advantage of the lack of alert.

Apparently everyone except the weaker player who made the large mistake
(North who passed 4C) understood the auction and might not even have
noticed the falure to alert. North was then damaged by the failure to
alert.

East has large UI problems, and I think he got them backwards. West's
3NT bid should have woken up East if he missed the alert. It might
have required another alert immediately, or later when exposed as a
psych or tactical by West's final pass. East must also disclose
West's failure to alert at some point before the other side calls the
director. I don't know exactly when. Perhaps on West's final pass.
I think the tactical 3NT should get East back into the auction and
require him to double with the defensive hand and aces, and not doing
that is taking advantage of the UI. But perhaps E/W have the opposite
agreement over 3NT.

Post by Mark
So, along with my initial thoughts and your thoughts, I'd happily rule

a split 4S/4SX (down 2/3)

That is rewarding the infraction. To punish it, rule 3S making for N/S
and 3NTX down 2/3 for E/W. I think it shouldn't be punished that much
-- the stronger South player guessed wrong and took 3NT out to 4C.

Post by Mark
In my experience players get upset when they think the oppo have got
away with something regardless of what the rule book says so given
comments made by N I advise you give a written ruling that starts with a
paragraph similar to my first para so they understand better why the
ruling was made. N probably believes he is entitled to a good board
just because there was an infraction but he needs to understand that is
not what the rules say.

Here they should get upset about the rulers not understanding the bidding
on the second appeal.

Bruce

Mark

2016-11-25 11:43:01 UTC

In article
Lorne Anderson

Post by Mark
We have a club appeal for this hand. However, too many of the club

appeal committee are involved in the hand to make an unbiased decision.

disadvantaged NS and awards 60% NS, 40% EW

Post by Mark
So, EW Are appealing on the basis that the 4C bid was the bid that

did the damage (probable SEWOG?)

Post by Mark
Thanks in advance.
M.
Full hands
NS vul, S dealer
S K83 A7 T73 KQ743
W A72 QJ82 KQJ 985
N QJT65 KT964 984 void
E 94 53 A652 AJT62

I would award closer to 100% NS, 0% E/W.
Without the infraction, E/W might bid to the normal contract of 3S
via ... (2NT) P (3D) X (P) 3S (P) P (P) P and make it. I think 3S
is beatable on a diamond lead, but the defense is not very easy so
3S making would score nearly 100%. With the infraction and with
the 3NT tactical overbid, E/W were headed for 3NT or higher down a
few, possibly doubled. Perhaps down only 2 singled in 3NT, which
scores better than 3S making, but North might double at matchpoints
since he expected to make 3 of a major.

No, it affects everything. 3NT after an unusual 2NT is also unusual.
It might be a conventional bid, a tactical bid, an overbid or a psyche.
Some of these are alertable. Since it wasn't alerted, it seems to
have been one of the last 3, and an error. Whatever it was, it adds
to the confusion created by the missing alert, but this should have
helped N/S further.
North might not have been in this position if 2NT had been alerted.
If 2NT had been alerted, then West would have known his system and
might not have bid 3NT. N/S were damaged twice by West's actions.
First he failed to alert, and then he made a bid which accidentally
increased N/S's and the appeals committee's problems.
North's 4C bid is not egregious (when I first read this, I thought
that it was). South might not even have noticed the missing alert.
He just overvalued his void for playing 4M. The non-alert makes 4C
even better. Now 2NT is quite likely to be based on AKQxxx(x) of
clubs so that 3NT is cold and so is 4M.

4S contracts are irrelevant since they are unlikely without the infraction.

Post by Lorne Anderson
weighting, if W was an expert it would be 100% for double but for weaker
players maybe as low as 25%.

Post by Mark
In the short discussion after the event, these were my exact thoughts.

Not good, since they are mostly backwards.

Post by Mark
W is a good club player so I thought would likely double
S & E have both won county level events. E might double (after all W

has shown several points and he has 2 aces), but I think this might be
taking advantage of the lack of alert.

Apparently everyone except the weaker player who made the large mistake
(North who passed 4C) understood the auction and might not even have
noticed the falure to alert. North was then damaged by the failure to
alert.
East has large UI problems, and I think he got them backwards. West's
3NT bid should have woken up East if he missed the alert. It might
have required another alert immediately, or later when exposed as a
psych or tactical by West's final pass. East must also disclose
West's failure to alert at some point before the other side calls the
director. I don't know exactly when. Perhaps on West's final pass.
I think the tactical 3NT should get East back into the auction and
require him to double with the defensive hand and aces, and not doing
that is taking advantage of the UI. But perhaps E/W have the opposite
agreement over 3NT.

Post by Mark
So, along with my initial thoughts and your thoughts, I'd happily rule

a split 4S/4SX (down 2/3)

Here they should get upset about the rulers not understanding the bidding
on the second appeal.
Bruce

The 2N bid was made - infraction or not.
NS were red, EW were white.
So, consider the case where it was alerted. W would probably pass and even a beginner would bid 3/4 of a Major. (it would be funny if N bid 3C)
Also, even if W did bid 3N, it's still difficult for N to pass. 3N has some chance to make and down 3X doesn't beat 4M making.
So, if you like, you can have a small portion of 3N down 1/2, and 2N down 1/making. However, against the actual results, even a large percentage of 3N down does still gives EW a top.
In either case, NS still get a bottom as most pairs were/would be in 4S.
The 2N bid (like or not) is always going to get NS a top or joint top.

Again, there is no "Rewarding the infraction" or "Punishing the infraction". There is only the rule book, and that's what you have to follow.
People nowadays always want automatic restitution. Hey, this is a game and sometimes you make a mistake and get away with it.

Also, it was the weaker player (N) who made the 4C bid. South had never played with N before and so, there was the possibility the N had intended the 4C bid as natural. In fact, in old-fashioned Acol, it could be.

Mark

2016-11-25 11:45:24 UTC

In article
Lorne Anderson

Post by Mark
We have a club appeal for this hand. However, too many of the club

appeal committee are involved in the hand to make an unbiased decision.

disadvantaged NS and awards 60% NS, 40% EW

Post by Mark
So, EW Are appealing on the basis that the 4C bid was the bid that

did the damage (probable SEWOG?)

Post by Mark
Thanks in advance.
M.
Full hands
NS vul, S dealer
S K83 A7 T73 KQ743
W A72 QJ82 KQJ 985
N QJT65 KT964 984 void
E 94 53 A652 AJT62

I would award closer to 100% NS, 0% E/W.
Without the infraction, E/W might bid to the normal contract of 3S
via ... (2NT) P (3D) X (P) 3S (P) P (P) P and make it. I think 3S
is beatable on a diamond lead, but the defense is not very easy so
3S making would score nearly 100%. With the infraction and with
the 3NT tactical overbid, E/W were headed for 3NT or higher down a
few, possibly doubled. Perhaps down only 2 singled in 3NT, which
scores better than 3S making, but North might double at matchpoints
since he expected to make 3 of a major.

No, it affects everything. 3NT after an unusual 2NT is also unusual.
It might be a conventional bid, a tactical bid, an overbid or a psyche.
Some of these are alertable. Since it wasn't alerted, it seems to
have been one of the last 3, and an error. Whatever it was, it adds
to the confusion created by the missing alert, but this should have
helped N/S further.
North might not have been in this position if 2NT had been alerted.
If 2NT had been alerted, then West would have known his system and
might not have bid 3NT. N/S were damaged twice by West's actions.
First he failed to alert, and then he made a bid which accidentally
increased N/S's and the appeals committee's problems.
North's 4C bid is not egregious (when I first read this, I thought
that it was). South might not even have noticed the missing alert.
He just overvalued his void for playing 4M. The non-alert makes 4C
even better. Now 2NT is quite likely to be based on AKQxxx(x) of
clubs so that 3NT is cold and so is 4M.

4S contracts are irrelevant since they are unlikely without the infraction.

Post by Lorne Anderson
weighting, if W was an expert it would be 100% for double but for weaker
players maybe as low as 25%.

Post by Mark
In the short discussion after the event, these were my exact thoughts.

Not good, since they are mostly backwards.

Post by Mark
W is a good club player so I thought would likely double
S & E have both won county level events. E might double (after all W

has shown several points and he has 2 aces), but I think this might be
taking advantage of the lack of alert.

Apparently everyone except the weaker player who made the large mistake
(North who passed 4C) understood the auction and might not even have
noticed the falure to alert. North was then damaged by the failure to
alert.
East has large UI problems, and I think he got them backwards. West's
3NT bid should have woken up East if he missed the alert. It might
have required another alert immediately, or later when exposed as a
psych or tactical by West's final pass. East must also disclose
West's failure to alert at some point before the other side calls the
director. I don't know exactly when. Perhaps on West's final pass.
I think the tactical 3NT should get East back into the auction and
require him to double with the defensive hand and aces, and not doing
that is taking advantage of the UI. But perhaps E/W have the opposite
agreement over 3NT.

Post by Mark
So, along with my initial thoughts and your thoughts, I'd happily rule

a split 4S/4SX (down 2/3)

Here they should get upset about the rulers not understanding the bidding
on the second appeal.
Bruce

The 2N bid was made - infraction or not.
NS were red, EW were white.
So, consider the case where it was alerted. W would probably pass and even a beginner would bid 3/4 of a Major. (it would be funny if N bid 3C)
Also, even if W did bid 3N, it's still difficult for N to pass. 3N has some chance to make and down 3X doesn't beat 4M making.
So, if you like, you can have a small portion of 3N down 1/2, and 2N down 1/making. However, against the actual results, even a large percentage of 3N down does still gives EW a top.
In either case, NS still get a bottom as most pairs were/would be in 4S.
The 2N bid (like or not) is always going to get NS a top or joint top.
Again, there is no "Rewarding the infraction" or "Punishing the infraction". There is only the rule book, and that's what you have to follow.
People nowadays always want automatic restitution. Hey, this is a game and sometimes you make a mistake and get away with it.
Also, it was the weaker player (N) who made the 4C bid. South had never played with N before and so, there was the possibility the N had intended the 4C bid as natural. In fact, in old-fashioned Acol, it could be.

Sorry, meant
The 2N bid (like or not) is always going to get EW a top or joint top.

Bruce Evans

2016-11-25 16:20:36 UTC

In article
Lorne Anderson

Post by Mark
We have a club appeal for this hand. However, too many of the club

appeal committee are involved in the hand to make an unbiased decision.

disadvantaged NS and awards 60% NS, 40% EW

Post by Mark
So, EW Are appealing on the basis that the 4C bid was the bid that

did the damage (probable SEWOG?)

Post by Mark
Thanks in advance.
M.
Full hands
NS vul, S dealer
S K83 A7 T73 KQ743
W A72 QJ82 KQJ 985
N QJT65 KT964 984 void
E 94 53 A652 AJT62

I would award closer to 100% NS, 0% E/W.
Without the infraction, E/W might bid to the normal contract of 3S
via ... (2NT) P (3D) X (P) 3S (P) P (P) P and make it. I think 3S
is beatable on a diamond lead, but the defense is not very easy so
3S making would score nearly 100%. With the infraction and with
the 3NT tactical overbid, E/W were headed for 3NT or higher down a
few, possibly doubled. Perhaps down only 2 singled in 3NT, which
scores better than 3S making, but North might double at matchpoints
since he expected to make 3 of a major.

No, it affects everything. 3NT after an unusual 2NT is also unusual.
It might be a conventional bid, a tactical bid, an overbid or a psyche.
Some of these are alertable. Since it wasn't alerted, it seems to
have been one of the last 3, and an error. Whatever it was, it adds
to the confusion created by the missing alert, but this should have
helped N/S further.
North might not have been in this position if 2NT had been alerted.
If 2NT had been alerted, then West would have known his system and
might not have bid 3NT. N/S were damaged twice by West's actions.
First he failed to alert, and then he made a bid which accidentally
increased N/S's and the appeals committee's problems.
North's 4C bid is not egregious (when I first read this, I thought
that it was). South might not even have noticed the missing alert.
He just overvalued his void for playing 4M. The non-alert makes 4C
even better. Now 2NT is quite likely to be based on AKQxxx(x) of
clubs so that 3NT is cold and so is 4M.

Post by Lorne Anderson
It is obvious he would bid 4S and that contract would fail. If doubled
they still get a bottom. If not doubled we can't tell without

the other

Post by Lorne Anderson
scores to look at but I would give a weighted ruling between 4S doubled
and undoubled which is how the EBU deal with these uncertain issues in
my experience.

4S contracts are irrelevant since they are unlikely without the infraction.

Post by Lorne Anderson
I do not understand the initial ruling of 60:40 - where
in the rule book does it say you can do that for a failure to

alert when

Post by Lorne Anderson
it is easy to construct likely auctions with an alert? As to the

Post by Lorne Anderson
weighting, if W was an expert it would be 100% for double but

for weaker

Post by Lorne Anderson
players maybe as low as 25%.

Post by Mark
In the short discussion after the event, these were my exact thoughts.

Not good, since they are mostly backwards.

Post by Mark
W is a good club player so I thought would likely double
S & E have both won county level events. E might double (after all W

has shown several points and he has 2 aces), but I think this might be
taking advantage of the lack of alert.

Apparently everyone except the weaker player who made the large mistake
(North who passed 4C) understood the auction and might not even have
noticed the falure to alert. North was then damaged by the failure to
alert.
East has large UI problems, and I think he got them backwards. West's
3NT bid should have woken up East if he missed the alert. It might
have required another alert immediately, or later when exposed as a
psych or tactical by West's final pass. East must also disclose
West's failure to alert at some point before the other side calls the
director. I don't know exactly when. Perhaps on West's final pass.
I think the tactical 3NT should get East back into the auction and
require him to double with the defensive hand and aces, and not doing
that is taking advantage of the UI. But perhaps E/W have the opposite
agreement over 3NT.

Post by Mark
So, along with my initial thoughts and your thoughts, I'd happily rule

a split 4S/4SX (down 2/3)

Here they should get upset about the rulers not understanding the bidding
on the second appeal.

The 2N bid was made - infraction or not.
NS were red, EW were white.
So, consider the case where it was alerted. W would probably pass and

even a beginner would bid 3/4 of a Major. (it would be funny if N bid
3C)

No, only beginners and operators would pass the unusual 2NT. This is
trying to go down in 2NT when 3 or 4 of either minor is cold or to make
2NT when 3NT and 5 or 6 of either minor is cold. Only a beginner or a pair
handicapped by not playing takeout doubles would bid 3/4 of a major.
Others would double for takeout. It isn't clear if 3/4 of a major is
forcing, but I think it should be without special agreements. If it is
not forcing, then N doesn't want to bid 3H since S will pass it with
poor support, and if it is forcing then N doesn't want to bid it since
N will raise with any support.

Post by Mark
Also, even if W did bid 3N, it's still difficult for N to pass. 3N has

some chance to make and down 3X doesn't beat 4M making.

No, it is difficult for N to bid. N has 6 HCP opposited 12-14 and is
vulnerable. 4M exceeds the LOTT level by between 1 and 3. I already
explained why this bid (via 4C) is not so bad if 2NT was natural. Then
2NT is probably on 1 long minor. An unusual NT is on 2 not so long minors.
3NT with the opponents' marked 20-22 HCP probably only makes if one of
the minors 6 cards or both of the minors run. It is unlikely to make.
The unusual 2NT and unusual 3NT also make it unlikely that your major
fit is very long. 3NT might be a joke, but you know that it isn't on
0 HCP. It probably has stoppers and length in the majors.

N's correct bid at matchpoints is probably to double, to get a large
enough plus score when 3M makes but 3N is down only 2. Pass would work
2 since 3NT is actually down 3 on careful defense (set up 4 spade tricks
to go with 2 heart tricks, and later get a club).

Post by Mark
So, if you like, you can have a small portion of 3N down 1/2, and 2N

down 1/making.

No, if the field is good then a large portion is 3NT or 3NTX down 3, but
3NT shouldn't even be considered because the field won't bid it over an
unusual 2NT.

Post by Lorne Anderson
However, against the actual results, even a large
percentage of 3N down does still gives EW a top.

You haven't given the results, but surely 3NT down 3 is not a top for
E/W even when it is not doubled.

I don't see how 3N down can be good for East unless the field is weak
and allowed N/S to play 2S making or +1. E/W have to balance over 2S
and this might push N/S to 3S down.

N's hand is difficult to bid. If 2M is to play as it probably should be
over a weak NT, then bidding it risks finding the wrong major and missing
game in the right major. Playing transfers, showing both majors is
normally played as game forcing and ofter even 3M will be too high. So
Stayman to try to find the right major is reasonable.

Post by Mark
In either case, NS still get a bottom as most pairs were/would be in 4S.
The 2N bid (like or not) is always going to get NS a top or joint top.

You corrected this later. You mean (like you said above) above that 2NT
is always going to give E/W a top.

No, when misinterpreted as natural, it gives N/S the gift of 3NT down 3
for a bottom. N/S were not good enough to take the gift. Without the
infraction, it should give about average results for 3S (average+ N/S
for 3S making and average- for 3S down 1; top and bottom for 3SX making
and down 1).

Post by Mark
Again, there is no "Rewarding the infraction" or "Punishing the

infraction". There is only the rule book, and that's what you have to
follow.

Post by Mark
People nowadays always want automatic restitution. Hey, this is a game

and sometimes you make a mistake and get away with it.

Post by Mark
Also, it was the weaker player (N) who made the 4C bid. South had

Oops. Now passing it is egregious. It gives a double shot.

Post by Lorne Anderson
never played with N before and so, there was the possibility the N had
intended the 4C bid as natural. In fact, in old-fashioned Acol, it could
be.

This is impossible since S has 5 card support. It needs about an 8 card
but the NT bidders probably have 2 or each, leaving 4 for partner.

What about the second infraction of East not calling the director to
correct the missing alert? East's 2NT is clearly unusual, so East knew
what it meant and should have noticed that it was not alerted. Not
calling the director before N/S do (perhaps at the end of the hand)
has the appearance of covering up the first infraction.

I would have alerted 3NT to try to help North. 3NT over unusual 2NT
is unusual whatever it means. Some jurisdictions require it to be
alerted even if it is natural if it is often done with the intention
of rarely making (I don't like this, or even having to alert 2NT).
Describing what it means after the missing alert is not easy without
saying that 2NT was unusual. I would say that it was unusual, and
that 2NT was undiscussed but is often preemptive. This is now UI to
partner and should wake up North.

Bruce

Lorne Anderson

2016-11-26 16:47:43 UTC

Post by Bruce Evans
I would have alerted 3NT to try to help North. 3NT over unusual 2NT
is unusual whatever it means.

3N is to play unless it is impossible for partner to want to play there
but in this auction he could have anything up to a balanced 15 count
that decided not to double.

In the UK stayman promises nothing - a 5-4 yarborough would routinely
bid 2C leaving the others with up to 28 points.

Lorne Anderson

2016-11-25 12:12:02 UTC

Post by Bruce Evans
I would award closer to 100% NS, 0% E/W.
Without the infraction, E/W might bid to the normal contract of 3S
via ... (2NT) P (3D) X (P) 3S (P) P (P) P and make it.

The laws do not allow you to do this. West bid 3N without any UI and
you are required to rule on what would happen after 3N if 2N was alerted
(unless you think opener would bid over an alerted 2N wich clearly would
not happen here). When making a ruling you are not allowed to infer
what the offending side might have done had they known the system unless
there is UI.

Since it is obvious that N knew what 2N meant when he bid 4C (why else
bid a void?) you have to accept that bid as well.

The only thing the laws allow you to change is therefore the
continuation over 4C.

Bruce Evans

2016-11-25 19:39:40 UTC

Post by Bruce Evans
I would award closer to 100% NS, 0% E/W.
Without the infraction, E/W might bid to the normal contract of 3S
via ... (2NT) P (3D) X (P) 3S (P) P (P) P and make it.

The laws do not allow you to do this. West bid 3N without any UI and

Yes, 3N wasn't even an infraction. It was just a misbid. (I checked
the EBU whitebook.)

Post by Lorne Anderson
you are required to rule on what would happen after 3N if 2N was alerted
(unless you think opener would bid over an alerted 2N wich clearly would
not happen here).

No, the missing alert is irrelevant except for determining if East used
the UI that the alert was was missing for his actions over 3NT. Whether
he did was unclear:
- he didn't alert 3NT or bid over it. Apparently it was natural.
- he didn't double 4C. Why not double with 2 aces to show good defense?
East doesn't expect 4C to be passed out, but should double to show the
defense where he might have x x QJxxx QJxxxx or lighter. The UI tells
him that West is going to double everything, so East doesn't need to
possibly-overstate his hand by doubling. West then double-crosses this
by not doubling.
West's passout of 4C is also suspicious. If 3NT was only a misbid and
2NT was actually natural, then West has negative reasons to prefer 4C
undoubled to anything doubled. However, if West's error was failing to
alert, then passing 4C is clear.

Post by Lorne Anderson
When making a ruling you are not allowed to infer
what the offending side might have done had they known the system unless
there is UI.
Since it is obvious that N knew what 2N meant when he bid 4C (why else
bid a void?) you have to accept that bid as well.

No, it is not obvious. Bidding is more attractive if 2NT was natural,
since then it was "clearly" on a long running minor (probably clubs)
and not on 15-20 HCP since that would have doubled (note that West
already used HCP counting to see that he shouldn't make a slam try with
13 schmoints; 20 + 13 leaves 7 for opener so someone must have psysched
then. East should have used the same HCP counting and not UI to determine
his actions over 3NT). Bidding is less attractive if 2NT was unusual,
since 3NT then indicates major stoppers and not such good or long minor
fits.

I doubt that North reasoned like this. He just overbid. There has been
no infraction yet, unless not alerting and passing 3NT by East was one.

Post by Lorne Anderson
The only thing the laws allow you to change is therefore the
continuation over 4C.

Not even that, unless East's inaction over 3NT was an infraction.

Then over 4C:

- not alerting 4C is correct in the EBU (no alerts above 3N). If an alert
were required, it would help E/W too much. S is taking 4C as natural so
will not alert and will probably pass or raise.

- not doubling 4C by East may to be using the UI.

- not doubling 4C by West may be from a missing alert and not a misbid.

Bruce

Robert Chance

2016-11-26 15:00:14 UTC

Post by Lorne Anderson
As to the
weighting, if W was an expert it would be 100% for double but for weaker
players maybe as low as 25%.

Clearly the OP should follow Frances' advice to get a professional opinion on this one. However, treating the problem as a "How would you rule" situation, I would have asked West at the table why he did not double 4C, given that he supposedly thinks partner has a strong flat hand. This gives the opportunity to West to talk himself into a red psyche/misbid ruling.

If West blusters in response, I think you have good enough evidence to rule that West would double 4S 0% of the time. West has a similar amount of defence to a 4C contract as he does to a 4S contract, and we know for certain that he did not double 4C.

Bruce Evans

2016-11-27 20:13:34 UTC

Post by Robert Chance

Post by Lorne Anderson
As to the
weighting, if W was an expert it would be 100% for double but for weaker
players maybe as low as 25%.

There seems to have been a lot of non-asking by the director at the table.
I count about 20, starting with what E/W actual agreement for 2NT is (3-5
sub-questions).

The strong flat hand is impossible unless opener psyched since 12 HCP
for opener and 13 HCP for West least only 15 HCP for East. That isn't
strong if it is flat. Also, it is common to play that a double of
Stayman over a weak NT shows the same as a penalty double of 1NT. The
questions failed to determine if E/W are playing that or forgot it.

Post by Robert Chance
If West blusters in response, I think you have good enough evidence to
rule that West would double 4S 0% of the time. West has a similar amount
of defence to a 4C contract as he does to a 4S contract, and we know for
certain that he did not double 4C.

West's 3NT might be just a misbid, from being sure that there is no agreement
over 2NT and then misbidding without counting HCP to see that it cannot
be natural. There is no adjustment/penalty for that. But the subsequent
actions are only consistent with it being a missing alert, and possibly
there may have been further missing alerts and use of UI.

A missing alert with everyone except South not noticing combined with a
bad tactical 3NT bid is the most likely explanation:
- 2NT was unusual and everyone except South knew/assumed this
- West forgot to alert 2NT. South assumed from this that it was natural,
and failed to protect himself
- West bid 3NT which is a bad tactical bid over the assumed unsual 2NT
- East has AI that 3NT was a tactical bid since West is limited to about
14 HCP by not doubling 1NT. This indicates that 3NT was a bad tactical
bid with nearly 14 HCP or a not so bad tactical bid with nearly 0 HCP.
- East also has UI from 2NT not being alerted. This indicates that 3NT
was not a tactical bid, but is just a few HCP with closer to 14 HCP than
0.
- it is difficult for East to determine how the UI restricts his choices,
and he failed to protect himself by calling the director. Perhaps the
neglected to alert 3NT as being tactical by agreement. But since both
the AI and the UI indicate that it was on closer to 0 HCP than 14, I
think East didn't commit an infraction later by failing to double 4C.
- North misjudged and bid 4C
- South didn't protect himself and passed 4C
- West didn't commit an infraction later by not doubling 4C. He just
always knew that 2NT was unusual but failed to alert it. When East
fails to double 4C, that must be weakish with something like
xx x xxxxx QJxxx. West should realise at this point that his 3NT
was only tactical even it it was serious originally. It has worked
as a tactic, to get the opponents to a very bad contract which should
not be taken out by doubling it.

If this is the explanation, and E/W really had no agreements for the
tactical 3NT, then there was only a misbid and no adjustment to the
score for 4C.

Bruce

Ronald

2016-11-24 18:04:25 UTC

In the good old days, before this silliness called "alert" was invented,
people used to ASK. If you don't ask, your problem! Nowadays people can
bid like a palooka and get away with it by claiming they would have bid
differently after an alert.

--
Ronald

Dave Flower

2016-11-24 18:20:07 UTC

This is the EBU, where one is forbidden to ask unless one needs to know the answer; thus asking, or not asking, gives UI to partner

Dave Flower

Ronald

2016-11-25 08:10:32 UTC

Post by Dave Flower

This is the EBU, where one is forbidden to ask unless one needs to know
the answer; thus asking, or not asking, gives UI to partner
Dave Flower

Well, obviously N needs to know the answer. If not, how can she claim MI?

--
Ronald

f***@googlemail.com

2016-11-25 14:59:24 UTC

Post by Dave Flower

This is the EBU, where one is forbidden to ask unless one needs to know the answer; thus asking, or not asking, gives UI to partner
Dave Flower

That is not true. Good luck trying to find any EBU regulation that says what you have just quoted

Mark

2016-11-26 10:22:00 UTC

Emailing the ebu might be our next step. From our club rules, we have to hold a local appeal. I posted this to get some views.
Thank you for the ebu references though.
M.

Travis Crump

2016-11-25 05:50:00 UTC

Not sure what difference an alert or asking with/without an alert would
make. West would still have told NS that 2N was natural.

Is there really somewhere on the CC that would describe this auction? I
ask because there isn't on the ACBL convention card. Is this an auction
where many pairs have different agreements and tend to discuss the
auction? I would say no in the ACBL, but it is possible that EBU is
different. My presumption would be that in fact EW had no agreement on
this sequence unless they volunteered information to the contrary.

Mark

2016-11-25 11:50:03 UTC

Post by Travis Crump

Post by Ronald
Mark

Not sure what difference an alert or asking with/without an alert would
make. West would still have told NS that 2N was natural.
Is there really somewhere on the CC that would describe this auction? I
ask because there isn't on the ACBL convention card. Is this an auction
where many pairs have different agreements and tend to discuss the
auction? I would say no in the ACBL, but it is possible that EBU is
different. My presumption would be that in fact EW had no agreement on
this sequence unless they volunteered information to the contrary.

We have UNT on our card, but I'm not sure that it is clear that it is UNT in this sequence.

f***@googlemail.com

2016-11-25 15:02:17 UTC

If you want real advice on how to rule on a potential appeal, don't ask a random selection of people on the internet who may or may not know the rules.

On the EBU website is a list of Referees with phone numbers. They are all suitably qualified and any of them would be happy to give you an expert opinion. (They might not all give you the same opinion, I admit)

Or you can email any of the secretary to the Laws & Ethics Committee (address on the EBU website) or the EBU Chief TD any of whom would also be happy to give you advice.

KWSchneider

2016-11-27 00:58:11 UTC

I'm confused - where do you say that the 2N was on their card as alertable? If it was not conventional and on their card as such, there is no reason to grant an appeal. They simply had a bidding misunderstanding. No failure to alert. Rub of the green...

Kurt

--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

Lorne Anderson

2016-11-27 12:50:57 UTC

Post by KWSchneider
I'm confused - where do you say that the 2N was on their card as alertable? If it was not conventional and on their card as such, there is no reason to grant an appeal. They simply had a bidding misunderstanding. No failure to alert. Rub of the green...
Kurt

UK advice to directors is that if the two players interpret a call
differently and there is no way to prove what their agreement is then
you should generally rule on the basis that they do have the agreement
that would lead to misinformation. 2N for the minors is alertable in
the UK.

Obviously there is some leeway so only something reasonbly likely can be
considered - if for example 2N was alerted as showing a solid minor then
that agreement would be so unlikely without discussion that I would
ignore it unless the other player made some comment suggesting he forgot.

Douglas Newlands

2016-11-27 23:48:01 UTC