[jillybean]

---

ACBL. Here's the auction, no alerts.

When dummy comes down;

---

I ask North, was 1NT forcing? They say, no, I look at their card and under general approach; 2/1 gf. I ask again, they say yes it was, I misunderstood your question.
"Director please"

Here is my interpretation of the 1NT bids in a SAYC and a 2/1 auction

In SAYC North is most likely to hold a heart stopper, could have length in hearts, 6-9 points.

In 2/1 1nt promises 6-11 and 1 of 3 hand types.
1. A weak raise in partners major
2. A 3 card limit raise
3. A weak suit of their own

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.


How do you rule?

[smerriman]

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

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

Will leave the ruling for people who know more about the laws, but I'm not sure I follow your logic. Literally every single hand that bids 1NT in SAYC will bid 1NT in 2/1; it's an exact subset. So that makes it *more* defined, doesn't it?

[jillybean]

 smerriman, on 2023-April-22, 22:01, said:

Will leave the ruling for people who know more about the laws, but I'm not sure I follow your logic. Literally every single hand that bids 1NT in SAYC will bid 1NT in 2/1; it's an exact subset. So that makes it *more* defined, doesn't it?

In SAYC, they won't have a weak or invitational raise of their partners major, the auction would have started 1M:2M or 1M:3M
They have a somewhat balanced hand. I'm not sure how many SAYC bidders would respond 1NT/1S with a 0256 hand

[smerriman]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-22, 22:07, said:

In SAYC, they won't have a weak or invitational raise of their partners major, the auction would have started 1M:2M or 1M:3M

Correct, but that's the other way around - that makes the 2/1 bid less defined (may or may not be a raise) than SAYC (absolutely does not include a raise).

 jillybean, on 2023-April-22, 22:07, said:

They have a somewhat balanced hand. I'm not sure how many SAYC bidders would respond 1NT/1S with a 0256 hand

In SAYC a 2 level response shows 10+ HCP - you have no option but to respond 1NT to 1S with any shape and 6-9 points. It's more of a denial bid than a 'showing' bid.

[jillybean]

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

[paulg]

 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

I think most directors would rule no damage as they would think your logic is too nuanced. Which is a polite director's way of saying that they think you should do the same against both methods.

[jillybean]

I don't understand why my methods, differing from the Director's or even the standard approach should affect the ruling.
It appears that failing to alert a forcing 1nt is risk free.

[sfi]

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

How do you rule?

I would rule no adjustment. I disagree your characterisation of 1NT in two important ways.

1. In SAYC, you need 10+ points to bid at the two-level, so there is no expectation that North has a heart stopper.
2. In 2/1 there are more hands that bid 1NT than the ones you list. In particular, all those 6-9 balanced-ish hands still bid 1NT.

All those hands with 4+ hearts and less than 10 points still bid 1NT over 1S, so I am really struggling to see a logical argument why having a forcing 1NT on your left means it is safer or more productive to bid 3H than if they had a non-forcing 1NT. Most hands that will double you will be bidding 1NT in either case, and if they have a fit you're not going to stop them from finding it by bidding 3H.

Sure, I could poll people before arriving at my ruling. But I'm confident enough of the outcome that I doubt I would even bother.

[smerriman]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-23, 03:41, said:

I don't understand why my methods, differing from the Director's or even the standard approach should effect the ruling.

Suppose they weren't taken into account. Now every single time the opponents get an alert wrong, you can simply make up a completely fake reason that you might have done something differently and thus claim a great score. (Not saying you were doing this!) The purpose of the laws is not to punish people severely for a mistake - it has to take into account the validity of whether it would reasonably cause damage.

[jillybean]

 smerriman, on 2023-April-23, 04:23, said:

Suppose they weren't taken into account. Now every single time the opponents get an alert wrong, you can simply make up a completely fake reason that you might have done something differently and thus claim a great score. (Not saying you were doing this!) The purpose of the laws is not to punish people severely for a mistake - it has to take into account the validity of whether it would reasonably cause damage.

The onus is obviously on the non offending side to prove that they would have done something differently given the correct information and if their methods are non expert, non standard, there will be no redress.
The announcement of a forcing 1nt is going in the same bin as my Convention Card.

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-23, 03:41, said:

I don't understand why my methods, differing from the Director's or even the standard approach should effect the ruling.
It appears that failing to alert a forcing 1nt is risk free.

Your methods may effect the ruling because of the way they are impacted (or not) by the infraction. In this case there is clearly no damage and to be honest I don't even see that your methods effect the ruling: you don't seem to have any unusual agreements, just confused reasoning about the implications of 1NT non forcing.

That doesn't mean the failure to alert is ignored. It's not important enough to merit punishment as a first time offence, but it incurs a warning and if repeated will be punished.

[jillybean]

I don't expect my opponents to be punished, I want my bid.
How does the repeat offenders aspect work, with no recording of infractions?

Do the Alert Regulations only apply to players who understand the opponent's apparent bidding system,leaving unprotected, those lacking in that knowledge and understanding?

[pescetom]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-23, 12:12, said:

I don't expect my opponents to be punished, I want my bid.
How does the repeat offenders aspect work, with no recording of infractions?

Do the Alert Regulations only apply to players who understand the opponent's apparent bidding system,leaving unprotected, those lacking in that knowledge and understanding?

My judgement based on the facts stated is that you had your bid.
You were not left unprotected, simply the infraction did not damage you.
The repeated offenders aspect works only insofar as TD knows who did what when and how often, except for serious or suspicious stuff which gets recorded and shared.

[jillybean]

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?

[blackshoe]

Quote

The purpose of the Laws remains unchanged. They are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. -- Introduction to the Laws

Quote

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. -- Law 12B1

Quote

1.(a) When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.
(b) The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred.
-- Law 12C

Quote

1. (a) Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17D) and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent. Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.
(b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
2. When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (as in 1 preceding), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, but Law 16C applies.
3. 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.
-- Law 21B

Quote

2.(a) The Regulating Authority:
…
(iii.) may prescribe alerting procedures and/ or other methods of disclosure of a partnership’s methods.
-- Law 40B

Quote

An Announcement is a word or a short phrase that describes the meaning of partner’s call. Announcements are a form of Alerting, and you must still visually Alert the call. Calls that require Announcements must be immediately announced, even if the call would otherwise not be Alerted or if the Alert would be delayed. Announce the following Agreements:
…
4. After a 1-level major suit Opening in first or second seat, a 1NT response that is Forcing or Semi-Forcing. Also announce “could have 4 spades” in the unopposed auction 1H - 1NT if you routinely bypass a 4-card spade suit.
-- ACBL Alert Regulations, Announcements

Quote

Infraction: A player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation.
Irregularity: A deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player.
-- Laws, Chapter 1, Definitions

1. It seems like it would be difficult to misunderstand "Was 1NT forcing?" Not that it matters to the ruling.
2. The question was asked and answered after dummy came down. We are now in the play period. This matters (see below).
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.
4. Failure to announce 1NT forcing is an infraction of the Alert Regulation and hence of Law 40B. (See the definitions above).
5. Such infraction is considered MI "absent evidence to the contrary" (Law 21B)
6. It is too late for Jillybean to change her last pass, since we're now in the play period (see #2 above).
7. If the TD judges that the offending side (OS) gained an advantage from the irregularity, he awards an adjusted score. (Law 21B3).

It seems to me that the OS *did* gain an advantage from their infraction/irregularity, because if Jillybean had been able to bid 3♥ over 2♠, the OS would have had to decide whether to allow that contract to stand, double it, or bid 3♠. Since they didn't need to make that decision, they gained an advantage.

The TD, called at the time dummy went down, should find out what the OS might have done over 3♥ and instruct the table to play out the hand, and to notify him of the table result. Now he may adjust the score to whatever would have happened in 3♥, or in 3♥ doubled, or in 3♠ (there may be other possibilities). He may award a weighted score.

What if there was no damage, if none of the possible results would have given the non-OS a better score than they got at the table? In that case it seems to me there should be no adjustment, even though Law 21B3 doesn't refer to "damage" but only to "advantage". There is another consideration though: if this was Matchpoints (the OP doesn't say) then it's possible there was (or wasn't) damage to the Matchpoint (MP) score. If there was damage to the MP score, adjust. If there was no damage because the Non-OS would have obtained the same MP score they got at the table, one might adjust as a message to the OS to remember to announce 1NT Forcing. Some will see that as silly. I suppose TD could just tell them.

The details of any score adjustment depend on the four hands, and we don't have those.

I would not give the OS a procedural penalty unless they've made a habit of this infraction and have been warned about it before.

[johnu]

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

I ask North, was 1NT forcing? They say, no, I look at their card and under general approach; 2/1 gf. I ask again, they say yes it was, I misunderstood your question.
"Director please"

A little confusing to me. When did you look at their card? After the bidding was over? Sounds like that but never assume....

Were you playing in an ACBL tournament? Ideally you should glance at their card before the round (something I need to work on in pair games), but I would assume 2/1 if I didn't look. Almost nobody plays anything other than 2/1 except for a few odd pairs playing a precision-like system. And even among 2/1 players, a lot of them have switched from playing forcing NT.

[jillybean]

Match Points

I did not ask anything before the opening lead, it was a straight forward auction 1S 1NT 2S. There was no correction or suggestion that there had been a failure to announce/alert.

I made a face down lead, asked partner if he had any questions, the reply was negative.

I faced my lead.

When I saw dummy I asked "do you play a forcing 1nt?" - the reply was negative.

I took the opponents CC out from under the bidding box and noted "2/1 gf" under general approach.

I again asked "Your card says you play 2/1 , was 1nt forcing?" the reply, "Yes it was, I misunderstood your question"

I called the Director.

[TylerE]

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.

[jillybean]

I did not tell the table that given the correct information, I would have bid 3H. This was in a discussion with the Director away from the table.
I am aware that players do make that comment at the table and the problems/advantages it creates.

Did you really intend to say that I should protect myself from my opponents infractions by asking about a bid which, when required, is announced with a simple one word, "forcing" and in the process of asking, I will give UI to my partner?

I'm damned if I do, I'm damned if I don't, remember that I'm not the one who has made the infraction.

[axman]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-24, 07:25, said:

Did you really intend to say that I should protect myself

My experience with protecting myself is first to shoot myself through the heart before torturing the remaining parts of my body.