[jillybean]

TylerE, on 2023-April-24, 03:31, said:

When your're making the argument that the alert, or lack thereof, affected your bidding, you greatly damage your case by not asking before passing.

Make your bid as if there were no alerts. If it turns out there was a missed alert, and you suffered damage, this is much easier to argue when you *actually make the bid*, instead of going for what reeks, frankly, of a double shot (not to mention the UI to partner) by declaring what you would have bid....after seeing dummy.

I'm still not quite sure how to respond to this but it can't be left without a response.

I am sure there are players who would do this, there's also foot tapping and finger positioning. I also sure that the Director's will know who these players are, or soon will. To suggest that a player who has potentially been damaged by an infraction, has created the situation to gain an advantage is , (here I am struggling to come up with an appropriate and acceptable word) libelous.

[TylerE]

When your argument is "I would have bid if they were playing SAYC", when you had no way from the auction to know that they weren't playing SAYC, and then calling after dummy hits, is the definition of a double shot. Sorry if you don't like it.

[smerriman]

TylerE, on 2023-April-24, 21:15, said:

When your argument is "I would have bid if they were playing SAYC", when you had no way from the auction to know that they weren't playing SAYC, and then calling after dummy hits, is the definition of a double shot. Sorry if you don't like it.

You have it backwards; jillybean would have bid if she knew they were playing 2/1, with the lack of alert seemingly implying that. Though the reasoning in the first post was also backwards, so it was a bit confusing all around.

[jillybean]

TylerE, on 2023-April-24, 21:15, said:

When your argument is "I would have bid if they were playing SAYC", when you had no way from the auction to know that they weren't playing SAYC, and then calling after dummy hits, is the definition of a double shot. Sorry if you don't like it.

jillybean, on 2023-April-22, 21:56, said:

In a 2/1 scenario,
1. I want to compete in my 6 card heart suit
2. I want to compete, if they have a strong raise they will bid it over my 3H
3. I want to compete, their weak suit is most often a minor, especially true with my heart holding

In a SAYC auction North's hand is less defined, I won't compete with this hand.

jillybean, on 2023-April-22, 22:20, said:

Ok, I think we are playing with words - I want to bid 3♥ in a 2/1 auction, not in a SAYC auction

jillybean, on 2023-April-23, 13:39, said:

I was damaged in so far as I was not told this was a 2/1 auction. My understanding, or misunderstanding of a 1nt bid in a "standard" auction is surely irrelevant?

[the hog]

Jilly, we play that our 2/1 bids are game forcing. Our 1NT response to 1M is certainly not a force - like many play today it is semi forcing and can certainly have 3 card support in a weak hand. I would not bid 2H with your hand regardless of what the opponents play.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 The oppoenents should alert their bids.
Saying 1NT is not forcing and playing 2/1 gf is not contraditory, it is quite common to play 1NT as semi forcing,
No idea, if a semi forcing response requires an alert.
But the later exchange seems to clarify that the opponents play 1NT as forcing.

#2 The next question is, are you damaged?
Without the alert the 1NT has less than inv. strength, and you know, that you have to act now, or never - unless partner
finds a reopening bid, which wont be X, due to your heart length.
But it is somewhat less likely, that the opponents have a 8 card fit, and they wont have a 9 card fit, the absence of the
9 card fit makes action more risky.

I find it hard to judge, if a 3H bid over 2S was discouraged by the failure to alert, ..., I would say No, but I would most
likely not be there, I would either have bid 3H direct over 1S, or having passed over 1S, I would have passed over
2S in either scenario as well, but this is a case, to be solved by polls (if the director has the time).
The problem with a poll: Some will bid 3H now, because they would have bid 3H earlier.

So I would rule no damage, but make a note, that a specific pair is quite sloppy with their alerts.

[jillybean]

Of course when I am comparing STD to a 2/1 auction here I am doing so in a forcing 1nt context, please read the thread title
Whether a 3♥ bid is advised or not is irrelevant, the OS gained an advantage from their infraction.
(read Ed's response upthread)

It appears that I can freely gain advantage by not alerting bids and in failing to do so, only risk being labeled as "quite sloppy with our alerts".

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2023-April-23, 15:25, said:

3. Jillybean told the Director that had she known that 1NT was forcing, she would have bid 3♥ over 2♠. The advisability of doing so is not relevant to the ruling, only the possible outcome(s) are relevant.

Statements like this are hard to assess. It's self-serving, but that doesn't mean we automatically discount it. But we can't ignore the possibility that seeing dummy influenced her.

This is why we usually poll in cases like this. You give pollees her hand, and the auction with the announcement, and find out if they would have acted. If a significant number would have bid 3♥, we adjust.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2023-April-25, 08:36, said:

<snip>
It appears that I can freely gain advantage by not alerting bids and in failing to do so, only risk being labeled as "quite sloppy with our alerts".

...
If you encounter the TDs only once, this is risk free, but those habits tend to fester, and they will start to know you,
and in case of doubt rule against you, and maybe hand out procedural penalties.
And once cheating rumors appear (justified or not), they hardly go away, and those rumors can also be started by players,
that have met you at the table.
.

And see my reference to a poll.
If the poll indicates, that 3H is a valid bid, that became less attractive due to the failed alert, you will get an adjustment,
I doubt it, but the results of the poll may prove me wrong.

[blackshoe]

The question this incident brought to my mind has to do with whether "gained an advantage" requires that there must have been damage to adjust the score.

Quote

Law 21B3: When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score.
This law does not, in itself, say anything about "damage" as defined in Law 12.

One might ask "if there is no damage how can we adjust the score"? Maybe we can't. In the given scenario, where the actual final contract might well have been different absent the infraction, have we obtained "normal play of the board"? If we haven't, that's perhaps a path to an artificial adjusted score. If we have (I lean that way) I don't see a path, so if there was no damage (ie. there's no potential result which would result in a better score for the NOS) then I don't see adjusting. There's also the question of aggregate score vs matchpoints. We are taught to adjust on the basis of aggregate score, but in a MP event, it's possible (I think) that an aggregate score exists which would appear to provide no damage, but the corresponding MP score would indicate damage.

In any case, Law 73C is a "must" law; violation should incur a procedural penalty absent a very good reason not to give one -- and "we just don't do that" isn't even a barely good reason not to give one.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-April-25, 11:02, said:

...
If you encounter the TDs only once, this is risk free, but those habits tend to fester, and they will start to know you,
and in case of doubt rule against you, and maybe hand out procedural penalties.
And once cheating rumors appear (justified or not), they hardly go away, and those rumors can also be started by players,
that have met you at the table.
.

And see my reference to a poll.
If the poll indicates, that 3H is a valid bid, that became less attractive due to the failed alert, you will get an adjustment,
I doubt it, but the results of the poll may prove me wrong.

Are you sure we need a poll?

This isn't a situation where I may have been influenced by my partners BIT, MI, UI, this is not a test of logical alternatives.
My opponents committed an infraction by not announcing a forcing 1nt bid, had I been given that information I would have bid differently.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean, on 2023-April-25, 13:17, said:

Are you sure we need a poll?

This isn't a situation where I may have been influenced by my partners BIT, MI, UI, this is not a test of logical alternatives.
My opponents committed an infraction by not announcing a forcing 1nt bid, had I been given that information I would have bid differently.

We do.

A TD should not be forced to decide, if a claim by a participant is true / false / self serfing.
If I got it right, the exchange with your opponents occurred after you saw the complete deal.
Did the knowledge of the complete deal influence you? I have no idea, how should I know.

The poll is the tool to have an objective assesement of the situation in question, it tries to
eliminate / reduce the problem:. Do I like / dislike you due to things, that have nothing to do with
the concrete problem.
It also helps the TD to check, if the judgement of the TD, which actions are (not) reasonable,
is spot on or not.

I do believe, that failure to alert is a serious issue and TDs are often not hard enough in enforcing the rule,
but I also know, that the famous Secretary Bid is a common presence at the table, harassing weaker players,
i.e. the rule "failure to alert, shoot them" is also exploited a lot.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-April-25, 13:29, said:

We do.

A TD should not be forced to decide, if a claim by a participant is true / false / self serfing.
If I got it right, the exchange with your opponents occurred after you saw the complete deal.
Did the knowledge of the complete deal influence you? I have no idea, how should I know

NO I drew attention to the infraction when dummy came down.

[jillybean]

P_Marlowe, on 2023-April-25, 13:29, said:

The poll is the tool to have an objective assesement of the situation in question, it tries to
eliminate / reduce the problem:. Do I like / dislike you due to things, that have nothing to do with
the concrete problem.
It also helps the TD to check, if the judgement of the TD, which actions are (not) reasonable,
is spot on or not.

So the poll is to test to see if my bidding capabilities/judgement/system/style is similar to others?
Please quote the law that gives you this power?

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2023-April-25, 13:49, said:

NO I drew attention to the infraction when dummy came down.

Out of interest, why *did* you wait until you saw dummy? There is nothing about dummy that suggests the opponents misinformed you.

Or was this a consequence of your misunderstanding about what 1NT shows in SAYC - you thought dummy would have bid differently in SAYC, implying a mistake that wasn't actually there (well, it was, but only by coincidence)?

[jillybean]

smerriman, on 2023-April-25, 14:57, said:

Out of interest, why *did* you wait until you saw dummy? There is nothing about dummy that suggests the opponents misinformed you.

Or was this a consequence of your misunderstanding about what 1NT shows in SAYC - you thought dummy would have bid differently in SAYC, implying a mistake that wasn't actually there (well, it was, but only by coincidence)?

Why should I ask about the auction? 1♠ 1NT 2♠, there was nothing unusual about the auction.
I asked for clarification because I considered dummy's 2146 5 count a classic hand to bid a forcing 1NT, no doubt also influenced by my lack of understanding of a SAYC auction.

What bearing does all this have on a ruling?

[sfi]

jillybean, on 2023-April-25, 17:27, said:

I asked for clarification because I considered dummy's 2146 5 count a classic hand to bid a forcing 1NT, no doubt also influenced by my lack of understanding of a SAYC auction.

What bearing does all this have on a ruling?

Because dummy is also a classic hand to bid a non-forcing 1NT in Standard American. This is considered part of "general bridge knowledge" (at least in most places) and a player who makes a decision based on not knowing that is unlikely to receive an adjustment even if there was an infraction.

You appear to be saying that the set of hands that would bid 1NT in 2/1 and in Standard American are significantly different. They're just not.

[smerriman]

Exactly. Even if it *shouldn't* affect the ruling, it definitely makes it a lot harder to convince someone that you were wanting to bid based on the system, as opposed to wanting to bid based on seeing dummy was short in hearts. If you had seen dummy had more hearts, you probably would have kept quiet..

But now that you know what 1NT means in SAYC, this situation will never reoccur. Maybe your opponents won't be punished for their failing to alert, but it's not actually going to affect you, so perhaps it's best to take this as a positive and move on.. if in the future there is a hand where it affects you, perhaps it will be a much clearer situation.

(For reference, I ran a poll - early days but currently 100% for passing regardless of system. Not that this affects the ruling, just potentially the best decision).

[blackshoe]

I don't think a poll is going to tell us much about how to rule this. There was an infraction of Law 21B. The infraction was brought to light when the dummy came down. 21B3 says "When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score." Did the OS gain an advantage? I believe so, as I said earlier. Does that mean we adjust the score? 21B3 says "yes", but it's not that simple -- again, as I said before.

Maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to tear holes in my argument. :-)

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2023-April-25, 19:44, said:

I don't think a poll is going to tell us much about how to rule this. There was an infraction of Law 21B. The infraction was brought to light when the dummy came down. 21B3 says "When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score." Did the OS gain an advantage? I believe so, as I said earlier. Does that mean we adjust the score? 21B3 says "yes", but it's not that simple -- again, as I said before.

Maybe I'm wrong. Feel free to tear holes in my argument. :-)

For my understanding, why do you get the table to play the hand when you are going to award an adjusted score?
The OS have gained advantage from the infraction in the auction, will the play have any relevance?