Failure to announce 1NT 10-12

[dfm]

West deals and opens 1NT, which is passed out. North leads face down and South asks about West's range, which is 10-12. North calls the director. East says she announced the range, and West agrees with her. North and South say she didn't. How should the director rule?

At the table, the director told us to play on and call him back if NS believed they were harmed. The table result was down 2, -100. At every other table, NS were in a partscore for at least +110. NS do not have a special agreement about defense against weak 1NT, which is rare in their circle. North had a 15 count 5332 with 5 spades. Double would not have been penalty. North stated that if he'd known West was weak, he would have bid either 2D, ostensibly a 6+ major, or 2S, ostensibly 5 spades and a 4+ minor. How should the director have ruled now?

The actual ruling was result stands for EW, not played for NS.

[Co Wiersma]

Post by dfm
West deals and opens 1NT, which is passed out. North leads face down and South asks about West's range, which is 10-12. North calls the director. East says she announced the range, and West agrees with her. North and South say she didn't. How should the director rule?
At the table, the director told us to play on and call him back if NS believed they were harmed. The table result was down 2, -100. At every other table, NS were in a partscore for at least +110. NS do not have a special agreement about defense against weak 1NT, which is rare in their circle. North had a 15 count 5332 with 5 spades. Double would not have been penalty. North stated that if he'd known West was weak, he would have bid either 2D, ostensibly a 6+ major, or 2S, ostensibly 5 spades and a 4+ minor. How should the director have ruled now?
The actual ruling was result stands for EW, not played for NS.

I don't know about rulings sorry

But I did notice , North was so confused about the situation that forgot
their agreements
Should be double of cause

Co Wiersma

[Barry Margolin]

Post by dfm
West deals and opens 1NT, which is passed out. North leads face down and
South asks about West's range, which is 10-12. North calls the director. East
says she announced the range, and West agrees with her. North and South say
she didn't. How should the director rule?

What jurisdiction was this? In ACBL, players are required to make be
sure that the opponents notice the alert/announcement, although no
guidance is given on how one is expected to do this (I've noticed that
many people say "thank you" after announcements, maybe this should be
enshrined in regulation).

Post by dfm
At the table, the director told us to play on and call him back if NS
believed they were harmed. The table result was down 2, -100. At every other
table, NS were in a partscore for at least +110. NS do not have a special
agreement about defense against weak 1NT, which is rare in their circle.

What's rare? Weak NT, or not having an agreement about defense to it? I
assume you mean the former, since it's a likely excuse for the latter
(although it still seems irresponsible, as rare is not the same as
nonexistent).

Post by dfm
North had a 15 count 5332 with 5 spades. Double would not have been penalty.
North stated that if he'd known West was weak, he would have bid either 2D,
ostensibly a 6+ major, or 2S, ostensibly 5 spades and a 4+ minor. How should
the director have ruled now?
The actual ruling was result stands for EW, not played for NS.

There's absolutely no justification in the Laws for assigning "not
played" when the board was actually played. Nor is there a good reason
for a split score here; that's only done when the non-offending side
contributes to its own damage through actions unrelated to the
infraction. I don't see why EW were allowed to keep their good result
when they were entirely at fault.

The director should try to assertain what the likely result would have
been if the announcement had been made. If both of North's possible
overcalls would have resulted in them finding their major fit, that's
probably the contract that should be assigned. Without seeing the actual
hands, it's hard to be more precise.

Maybe the director didn't believe North's self-serving statement that he
would have made either of those bids, since neither of them accurately
describes the hand? But in that case he should just rule that score
stands, because the irregularity didn't actually cause the damage.

EW could also be giving a Procedural Penalty for failing to disclose
properly.

[Travis Crump]

Post by dfm
West deals and opens 1NT, which is passed out. North leads face down and South asks about West's range, which is 10-12. North calls the director. East says she announced the range, and West agrees with her. North and South say she didn't. How should the director rule?
At the table, the director told us to play on and call him back if NS believed they were harmed. The table result was down 2, -100. At every other table, NS were in a partscore for at least +110. NS do not have a special agreement about defense against weak 1NT, which is rare in their circle. North had a 15 count 5332 with 5 spades. Double would not have been penalty. North stated that if he'd known West was weak, he would have bid either 2D, ostensibly a 6+ major, or 2S, ostensibly 5 spades and a 4+ minor. How should the director have ruled now?
The actual ruling was result stands for EW, not played for NS.

I'm curious why South asked about the range when the lead was face down
if they assumed it was 15-17 or whatever. In the ACBL, every range is
announceable so I'd think if NS don't hear the announcement they should
ask as a matter of course. And people do ask even when everyone knows
what the range is when an announcement is missed.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by dfm
West deals and opens 1NT, which is passed out. North leads face
down and South asks about West's range, which is 10-12. North
calls the director. East says she announced the range, and
West agrees with her. North and South say she didn't. How
should the director rule?

If it is mandatory to announce the range, I rule misinformation.
EW must make sure that the announcement is heard.

Next I would explain to South that he can change his last call
since it is based om MI, and North hasn't made a successive call.

Then I instruct them to play on and to call me if NS feel that
they have been damaged by the MI.

As for handling the situation after having been called again to
the table, I think that Barry Margolin has given a pretty good
answer - except that I wouldn't consider a PP (unless special
circumstances made it relevant). I might give them a warning. It
depends on the level of experience and the tournament setup.

Travis Crump has brought up a good point.

Post by dfm
The actual ruling was result stands for EW, not played for NS.

This makes no sense at all.

[Steve Willner]

Post by dfm
West deals and opens 1NT, which is passed out. North leads face down
and South asks about West's range, which is 10-12. North calls the
director. East says she announced the range, and West agrees with
her. North and South say she didn't. How should the director rule?

As Barry and Bertel wrote, in most jurisdictions players who alert or
announce are responsible for making sure the other side are aware of it.
In the ACBL, one is supposed to say the required words out loud and
also tap the alert strip or wave the alert card. Unless the actual
jurisdiction has different rules, EW have given misinformation.

As Bertel wrote, South can change his final pass. If the pass stands,
North can change his opening lead. (If I were directing, I'd first
instruct North to put his original lead back in his hand, then let South
change his call or not, then tell North to lead whatever he wants but
not make it obvious whether he was leading the same or a different card.
I'm not sure whether this is the official procedure or not.)

If South does change his pass, Law 16C spells out what is AI and what is
UI for each side.

Post by dfm
North had a 15 count 5332 with 5 spades. Double would not have been
penalty. North stated that if he'd known West was weak, he would have
bid either 2D, ostensibly a 6+ major, or 2S, ostensibly 5 spades and
a 4+ minor.

This is a judgment ruling depending on whether you believe North would
really overcall or not. If North is aggressive in this position, he
might do it. Vulnerability also matters. Depending on the results, the
Director can give a weighted score of some fraction of 1NT-2 and some
result(s) after 2D and/or 2S overcalls.

Evidently EW were non-vul. If NS were non-vul, and North is known to be
aggressive, I'd be inclined to give 50% or so weight to an overcall and
50% to pass. If NS were vul, I'd tend give at most a small percentage
to overcall and most to pass. I might be influenced by more details of
methods and seeing the exact hand, and of course I'd want to see the
full deal before deciding on results after an overcall. If some of
those are unfavorable to NS, I'd lower the weight of overcall
accordingly. As with all judgment rulings, the Director should consult
if at all possible. Ideally he would show the hand to players
equivalent to North and see what they do. (He wouldn't tell them about
the MI, only that 1NT showed 10-12 and they are playing the NS methods,
i.e., the situation with no irregularity.) This could be a difficult
ruling, but it's nothing out of the ordinary as far as procedure goes.

[KWSchneider]

I rule against NS. They are responsible for understanding their opponents bidding, and if they didn’t inquire as to the nature of the 1N opening (whether EW announced or not), they should face the consequences.

As a rule, I insist on asking the opponents notrump range when unannounced.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by KWSchneider
I rule against NS. They are responsible for understanding their opponents
bidding, and if they didn’t inquire as to the nature of the 1N opening
(whether EW announced or not), they should face the consequences.
As a rule, I insist on asking the opponents notrump range when unannounced.

NT range announcements were created precisely so that players wouldn't
have to ask every time. There's no rule that says that players are
responsible for finding out their opponents' agreements. OTOH, there
*is* a rule saying that you're supposed to disclose your agreements,
using the methods specified by your RA.

Why are you blaming the victim?

[KWSchneider]

My point is simply this - an announcement can be forgotten (or unheard). IMO this doesn’t excuse NS from inquiring. This smacks of sour grapes...

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by KWSchneider
My point is simply this - an announcement can be forgotten (or
unheard).

Forgotten = misinformation
Unheard = too low/discreet

EW are at fault in both these cases.

Post by KWSchneider
IMO this doesn’t excuse NS from inquiring.

They don't need an excuse. There is no obligation to ask. There
is, however, an obligation to make sure that announcements and
alerts are heard/noticed by the opponents.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by KWSchneider
My point is simply this - an announcement can be forgotten (or unheard). IMO
this doesn’t excuse NS from inquiring. This smacks of sour grapes...

You may be right, at least in the case of experienced players.

The ACBL Alert Procedure says:

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

Since all NT ranges are supposed to be announced, any failure to
announce constitutes "neglecting to Alert a special agreement". So
experienced players should protect themselves by inquiring.

[David Goldfarb]

Post by Barry Margolin
"Players who, by experience of expertise, recognize that their opponents
have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect
themselves."

I remember one time my partner opened 1NT. My RHO bid 2C, not alerted.
I bid 4H, which my partner neglected to announce as a transfer. After
we bid and made 4S, my LHO called the director, claiming that if the
transfer had been announced, he would have sacrificed in 5C.

Well, 4H as a Texas transfer is an agreement that any experienced
player ought to know about...especially when the game is in Houston!
The TD ultimately ruled that the table result stood. Although, it
did take me looking at the hand record and noticing that my LHO held
six hearts in his own hand.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by David Goldfarb

Post by Barry Margolin
"Players who, by experience of expertise, recognize that their opponents
have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect
themselves."

I remember one time my partner opened 1NT. My RHO bid 2C, not alerted.
I bid 4H, which my partner neglected to announce as a transfer. After
we bid and made 4S, my LHO called the director, claiming that if the
transfer had been announced, he would have sacrificed in 5C.
Well, 4H as a Texas transfer is an agreement that any experienced
player ought to know about...especially when the game is in Houston!
The TD ultimately ruled that the table result stood. Although, it
did take me looking at the hand record and noticing that my LHO held
six hearts in his own hand.

Even if he didn't know it was a transfer when you originally bid 4H, it
should have become obvious when opener bid 4S and it was passed around
to him, and he could have bid 5C then.