ahydra, on 2015-February-16, 05:41, said:
It's South who has the UI (unexpected alert). He surely should bid 3S over 2S. Not sure what West would do next - maybe 4D, maybe pass, maybe X - and as much as I'd like to award a split score, this being ACBL that's not permitted and I believe we have to go with "worst possible", i.e. 5D (W) making for both sides.
helene_t, on 2015-February-16, 05:55, said:
I thought that ACBL is ok with split scores, just not with weighted scores?
The relevant laws are 12C1{e} and 12C1{f}:
Quote
Law 12C1: (e) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of {c}*:
(i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred.
(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.
(f) The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance.
* For ACBL sanctioned events, 12C1{c} does not apply and 12C1(e) does apply (see Elections 1, p. 136).
So Helene is right, split scores are allowed. But was there damage?
On the question of a PP for South, Law 16 says that a player in receipt of UI "may not" choose an LA suggested over another by the UI. "May not" is the second strongest negative wording in the laws, so should incur a PP "more often than not". Yeah, "nobody does that". So? If "nobody" is the only one who does that, he's the only one who's right.
antonylee, on 2015-February-16, 11:06, said:
I was North, and was convinced before alerting that my partner had likely forgotten, because of my shape and because he frequently forgets what's on the CC. This is why I bid only 2S. Because my own hand and partner's propensities are AI to me, I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that there is no problem there.
When you know something about partner's tendencies which is germane to the auction and which opponents cannot be expected to know, failure to include that information in your explanation of partner's bidding, whether alerted or not, is MI. So Tyler's "should probably be alerted" is an underbid. It should definitely be alerted,
and explained.