[makiigoca]

Scoring: IMP

Dealer opened 2♣ not alerted, in his profile stands that he/she playes sayc, E 2♦, S 2♠, W DBL, N 3♣, E pass, S pass, W 3♦, N 3♠, E 4♦, S 4♠, all pass, the lead was 10♣ and NS made 4♠+3 it's IMPs so it doesn't matter 4♠ is always there but W called me to complain for no alert on openning 2♣ because it's not 21+pts and i looked at the hand and said that i think it's ok because it can be considered as 8+tricks and left the score as it is, was i wrong? pls send me your opinion thx

---

[hrothgar]

Opening 2♣ is a bad bid, however, its is not an illegal bid.
No adjustment.

[the hog]

I would definitely adjust the result. Nth - Sth score stands, W is penalised one top for a self serving fatuous director call.

[1eyedjack]

You don't state what alerting regulations are in force so we cannot judge wether the bid is alertable within the context of the competition.

You do not state to what extent the alerting regulations have been published in the conditions of contest, so we cannot judge whether N-S could reasonably have been expected to know to alert it, assuming that it is alertable.

The level of experience of the relevant parties is also of possible relevance in deciding what action by them is reasonable, particularly in the assessment of procedural penalties.

The only thing that is clear is that E-W have not been damaged by the failure to alert, if it is alertable.

Assuming that the bid is alertable, should E-W be penalised for bringing to the director's attention a breach of regulations by N-S despite the lack of damage? If they are simply reporting the breach to protect future opponents of N-S without requesting an adjustment then there is a case to let it pass.

But it is close. It would be more acceptable in a F2F game where directors have more time to deal with such things. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would be taking their lives in their hands if they make any assumptions about the meaning of a non-alerted 2C opener (or for that matter a 2C response to 1N, and a few other situations), in an event where the alerting regulations are at best fluid.

Perhaps a warning to E-W.

[McBruce]

This sounds to me like the type of Director caller that a local TD dealt with by saying "From now on, whenever you feel the Director should be called, let your partner know and let him call. If I hear your voice calling, I'm not coming."

[EricK]

Does anyone think that South's Pass of 3♣ may reveal a concealed partnership understanding (that 2♣ may be weaker than standard).

I don't know of any pair who play that a strong artificial 2♣ may only be forcing to 3m (I have seen 100%GF; 100% GF except for 2NT rebid; forcing to 3M or 4m). If that is a partnership agreement, then I think that it should be alerted at some point. If not the 2♣ bid, then certainly the 3♣ bid which is non-forcing in a way that the opps might not expect.

Of course, E/W misbid the hand horribly, but I am not sure how relevant that is here.

Also, some players, and it's not entirely their fault, believe rather strange things about the laws of bridge - generally because they have been told them by people they trust (local "experts"). It wouldn't surprise me if West genuinely believed that a standard 2♣ opening has to have 21+HCP. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if West was trying to pull a fast one. It seems that nothing surprises me any more.

Without more information, I would be hesitant in penalising West for calling the director.

Eric

[keylime]

I get after the N-S hand for failing to alert 2C as 8.5 tricks, on the likely part they have no CC. I give the caller of the TD a warning, but no penalty. Scores stand, but N-S get a procedural penalty.

[Gweny]

Note to posters
This is BBO tournament directors forum.

this is not F2F tournament directors forum.

So when you are giving us your wisdom please make sure it is doable with bbo tds interface.

Procedural penalties are not possible at this time with this interface.

PS - Welcome to forum makiigoca

[inquiry]

I am going to disagree with my esteemed collegues (well other than Eric) that calling the director was hugely wrong. Something was surely amiss here. North opened 2♣, south made a free bid of 2♠'s, and then south passed a "new suit" (rebidding 3♣ was a new suit by North since 2♣ was artificial. This is not sayc and smacks of some sort of unknow hidden agreement. Within this context, a call to the director is not outrageous.

On the otherhand, at this vul, west has an easy 5♦ bid. How many points can he expect teh opponents to hold combined when his partner takes two actions (2♦ and 4♦) and he himself is holding 9 hcp and four card diamond support?

I would have ruled that 4♠ stand. Once South passed 3♣, West was defacto alerted to the very unusual situation where the rnew suit eibid is not forcing, os I consider no harm done. And what is West comlaint? They made 4♠ AFTER I balanced back in and I am upset because they were not AS STRONG as they should have been (making it easier to make 4♠)? What kind of logic is that?

It reminds me of a fellow who got caught speeding in DC a couple of years ago, They raised the speed limit from 55 to 65 on a road because everyone was speeding anyway, but announced to raising the speed limit they were going to STRICTLY enforce the speed limit. When this fewllow wwas caught, his excuse was it was not fair, beacuse he didn't realize that had RAISED the lspeed limit by 10 miles per hour, so they shouldn't have given him a ticked.

[paulhar]

inquiry, on Aug 10 2004, 04:39 AM, said:

This is not sayc and smacks of some sort of unknow hidden agreement. Within this context, a call to the director is not outrageous.

The most likely explanation is that at least one of N/S didn't have a clue. A director that had some time could look at some N/S bidding on other hands and make the probable ruling: "You were fixed by a pair that didn't know what they were doing. No adjustment." If the player with the spades had "Beginner" on his profile, I think you need not look at their other results, and the complaining pair had that information available to them at the time. On the other hand, if the player with the clubs was the beginner and the player with the spades was an expert, now I think there might be a problem with the pass of 3C being based on prior experiences which amount to undisclosed knowledge.

[keylime]

Then there needs to be a way to put 'em in the interface. Here's a clear example right. This is at least a 1/4 board penalty.

[inquiry]

keylime, on Aug 10 2004, 11:13 AM, said:

Then there needs to be a way to put 'em in the interface. Here's a clear example right. This is at least a 1/4 board penalty.

Why? What damage was done to EAST/WEST by thiis NORTH/SOUTH bidding? Are you really saying that EW were damaged because 2C was not as STRONG as it should (could?) have been? IF north had the HEART AQ instead of the 43... would that remove E/W complaint. Give me a break. No harm, no foul, but look to see if I can figure out why 3♣ was not forcing, and if not forcing, why it wasn't alerted. Failure to alert if it was non-forcing did not cause damage to EW, so no adjustment.

Ben

[McBruce]

We're not talking about adjusting the score here. We're suggesting a procedural penalty to E-W for the frivolous Director call. If you choose to give one under Law 90 (or a Law 91 disciplinary penalty, such as the ones prescribed by the ACBL Zero Tolerance policy), you have no way of doing so in a BBO tournament. Warnings, for some people, only work up to a point.

This is one of several reasons I chose to create a rating system for my tournaments: so that if need be I could assess such penalties and make them apply to the rating system at least, even if they did not apply to the BBO scoreboards. On one occasion I was told that a player had berated his partner, and when I went to the table unannounced I saw him do it again. I gave a 3% disciplinary penalty on the spot (slightly less than half a board in a 15-board tourney).

The kibitzers cheered.

[helene_t]

It's a little strange that S first makes a freebid and then passes 3♣. If 2♠ was a negative freebid (weaker than pass or double), maybe it should have been alerted. But this is all hypothetical. It is clear that NS had no common understanding as to the forcing character of 3♣, and all four are probably inexperienced players with the possible exception of East.

If West assumed that 3♣ was forcing (since N had "SAYC" in his profile), he wouldn't have bid 3♦ since he would assume that the game belonged to NS in which case defending 3♣ would be attractive. Also, the fact that he first doubled 2♠ instead of bidding 4♦ suggests that he actually knew what NS were doing.