[jillybean]

---

I have not included the hands, deliberately.

3nt -1
At the end of the hand North calls and tells you there was a failure to alert 2♥, which shows spades.

What do you do?

[smerriman]

Not a director, but I guess:

- North has UI from the lack of alert, so need to find out what 3♥ would mean had 2♥ been correctly alerted as spades, and then check if North's final pass or any of their defense was demonstrably suggested by knowing their partner had made a mistake, while having logical alternatives that would have led to a better outcome for E/W.

- South may also have UI if North noticeably reacted to the lack of alert, so need to find out if that were the case or not (guessing probably not).

- E/W have MI, so need to figure out what the likely auction and play would have been if they had the correct information, and how that would have scored. And I guess that's still with South interpreting the bid as non-alertable.

- I guess technically you also have to check if E/W made an extremely serious error somewhere along the way, which may affect the adjusted score, though probably not going to be too applicable here.

Did I miss anything? Sounds like a whole heap of fun.

[mycroft]

Throw all four of them into the pool :-). But remember that "every MI case is a UI case" - that's important here.

But seriously:

• Well, technically, it's Announceable, not Alertable (unless it shows spades and). But an Announcement is a type of Alert, so not a worry.
  
• Why did east Lebensohl (I assume that's what 2NT! is)? Would she have made a different call if she knew spades?
  
• Not worried about South, he doesn't have any UI (I assume, if North is properly not going to say anything until after the hand)
  
• West - well, we'll get back to west.
  
• I assume North is okay with passing 3NT after partner shows lotsa hearts (as she *does* have UI), because 4♥ over a voluntarily bid 3NT (which is, well, we'll get back to that) requires A Hand.
  
• I also assume North led a spade rather than a heart, and it goes down on a spade lead no matter what.

So, start at the beginning.

• If East's call is different over spades, then almost nothing else matters. She doesn't know that South is going to pass/raise hearts, so doesn't get to "pre-pass", but if she was, say, "stayman with a heart stopper", then, well.
  
• Assuming East's 2NT is "get out in my suit" (which is a minor), then they'll do the same over spades as hearts (again, I assume. They might pass and bid over 2♠, but I'd really have to be convinced this shows something different than a direct 2NT and East has that, because "don't get to pre-pass").
  
• West, who is entitled to know that North has spades and South bid 3♥ over 2NT anyway, may have a better call over 3♥.
  
• If it's pass, then is it reasonable for North to pass absent the UI? East? Might there be a double here? If so, is it reasonable for North to sit for that?

So I'm looking at several potential contracts, from 2♥, 3♥ doubled or not, 3♠ doubled or not, 3NT or even 4♦. Investigate the play, including the play to 3NT on a spade lead (or a heart lead, if that's a LA). Note that if West would have made 9 tricks if he knew the spade layout, but went down because he didn't, then there you are. But let's assume not.

So you work out the potential contracts and their results, weight them according to probabilities, throw in a bit of help to E/W as the NOS, and assign the score.

But let's get back to West. Assuming he Alerted 2NT, and assuming it's "usually a weak hand", then 3NT is - an odd choice. Does it rise to the level of "serious error"? Well, depends on the hand and the player, but it would be a "serious error" if my partner did it, and I'd expect them to take all the blame (or the credit, it might make, maybe partner did find that other Ace) for the result. I'd certainly look at it. If it is judged so, then you need to work out whether the Serious Error was unrelated to the infraction (maybe they thought that ♥AT98 was a surprise and enough to make 9 tricks if partner even had one entry with their minor, but not for spades?) and if so, then apply 12C1e2.

I know you don't want to show the hands, but you can see that there are *so many* things to look at here, and most of them depend on the hand. And the system. And the level of player. And I'm probably missing something.

[a_user]

 jillybean, on 2025-April-07, 17:05, said:

---

I have not included the hands, deliberately.

3nt -1
At the end of the hand North calls and tells you there was a failure to alert 2♥, which shows spades.

What do you do?

At the end of the bidding or play? And does it matter?

[paulg]

jillybean, on 2025-April-07, 17:05, said:

---

I have not included the hands, deliberately.

3nt -1
At the end of the hand North calls and tells you there was a failure to alert 2♥, which shows spades.

What do you do?

a_user, on 2025-April-08, 00:57, said:

At the end of the bidding or play? And does it matter?

North is only permitted to advise at the end of the hand, so they have done the right thing.

[jillybean]

A few more things before we get to the hand.
East (leb - no alert) at end of auction reminded partner "Slow shows"
North led a spade

Board complete, -1, North calls the Director and explains the auction and failure to announce 2H.

Director asks West, would you have played the hand any differently given the correct information?
West blinks, and says uuh, I'm not sure, I don't think so.
Result stands.

This same question is often asked in cases of MI, it seems to be standard practice. I think it is unreasonable to expect players to instantly recreate the play of the hand in their head.
Is this lazy Directing or the best we can do?

[sanst]

 jillybean, on 2025-April-08, 05:47, said:

Director asks West, would you have played the hand any differently given the correct information?
West blinks, and says uuh, I'm not sure, I don't think so.
Result stands.

This same question is often asked in cases of MI, it seems to be standard practice. I think it is unreasonable to expect players to instantly recreate the play of the hand in their head.
Is this lazy Directing or the best we can do?

It's definitely a question you should ask, if only to establish the level of the player. But it doesn't stop there. You still should look at least at the hands and ideally at the line of play - now that can be difficult to impossible with not so good players - to establish whether EW have been damaged and there's a line of play that a player of this level could have chosen given the right explanation. Never forget that the NOS is 'considered innocent unless proven guilty '.
But we need far more information, as mycroft wrote, to give an opinion on this one.

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2025-April-09, 02:15, said:

It's definitely a question you should ask, if only to establish the level of the player. But it doesn't stop there. You still should look at least at the hands and ideally at the line of play - now that can be difficult to impossible with not so good players - to establish whether EW have been damaged and there's a line of play that a player of this level could have chosen given the right explanation. Never forget that the NOS is 'considered innocent unless proven guilty '.
But we need far more information, as mycroft wrote, to give an opinion on this one.

Unfortunately, we are not going to see the mycroft level of Directing at the Club and dare I say, perhaps not even in higher events.

The auction is not the same, if 2♥ had been announced as spades, East would bid a direct 3nt*, denying a spade stopper.
West would pass 3nt.

As I said above, I think it is unreasonable to expect all players to recreate the play, based on the correct information.

Does 12C1 Artificial Adjusted Score now apply, or does the Director attempt to recreate best line of play ?

[blackshoe]

If a table result was obtained, the director must try for an Assigned Adjusted Score (AssAS) unless 12C1c (too many possibilities for or too hard to figure out a weighted score) comes into play.

[pescetom]

I am undoubtedly a simple minded Director, but when things get complicated my first thought is to look at the ancillary information (diagram, convention cards, reporting history) and see how it fits with the various actions and explanations. It seems to me masochistic not to do so.
(My instinct is that if wise Directors once convened otherwise it was because such information was rarely available in those days, not that it was often superfluous or a major source of bias).

[jillybean]

This is a Club game. The Director does not have access to any reporting history, the pair may or may not have a fully completed CC.
Here, NS had a card that if looked at, would confirm that (1N) 2H was a transfer to spades. South forgot their agreement.

I doubt that a CD is going to have the knowledge, time or incentive to complete AssAS. Is the next best an Artificial Adjusted Score?