[McBruce]

---

The third-seat Flannery 2♦ call (11-15, 45xx or 46xx) was not alerted.

South actually doubled the alerted 3♦ call, which should have been a responsive double.

When West bid 3♥, East summoned the Director and informed the opponents that he had failed to alert 2♦ and that the 3♦ call was an invitational raise, West's 3♥ call showing a minimum. West claimed later to have only remembered their agreement after bidding 3♦.

South was asked if she would change her last call as a result of the new information that 2♦ was Flannery. She chose to change to a pass and West repeated the 3♥ call.

The opening lead was the K♠, allowing a quick spade pitch, but the contract went down when South began with the Q♦, losing a trick to the J♦ and eventually two clubs. N-S chose not to press this until after the scores came out.


Should there be an adjustment here?


ACBL alert procedure does say to inform the opponents as soon as you realize you have forgotten an agreement. I found nothing about whether you need to let the opponents know which bids you made while you were unaware you had an agreement. How you would do this without letting partner know as well seems a bit of a problem. But clearly the wording of the clarification left N-S in doubt: has East forgotten to alert holding an invitational hand, or has East forgotten the agreement and was raising a third-seat weak two?

To make things even more complicated, North, an experienced player with lots of Flight A and top bracket experience, feels that South's withdrawn double is UI to him and would have bid 3NT (and played low to the A♦ of course) instead of doubling had he known Law 16D1. But he also claims to have no doubt as to what was going on, so the question may be "why didn't he then?"

[pran]

McBruce, on 2012-December-09, 02:55, said:

[...]
To make things even more complicated, North, an experienced player with lots of Flight A and top bracket experience, feels that South's withdrawn double is UI to him and would have bid 3NT (and played low to the A♦ of course) instead of doubling had he known Law 16D1. But he also claims to have no doubt as to what was going on, so the question may be "why didn't he then?"

Did the Director not explain all matters in regard to rectification? (e.g. Laws 10B2/16D1) North is of course under no UI restriction.

Lacking entries in South I suspect that North in 3NT would have played his ♦A followed by a small.

I feel strongly for adjusting the score to 3NT+1 effective (at least) for NS.

I am more in doubt what result should be effective for EW. Because of (potentionally) incomplete explanation from the Director I might let EW either just keep their score (5♦-1) or weighting it 50% with 5♦=.

In 5♦ leading the ♦Q towards the Ace is correct if the Jack is stiff offside and of course wrong with the King stiff anywhere.

[McBruce]

pran, on 2012-December-09, 03:45, said:

Did the Director not explain all matters in regard to rectification? (e.g. Laws 10B2/16D1) North is of course under no UI restriction.

Yes, I forgot to explain, to an occasional club director and a thirty-year veteran of high-level bridge, that the withdrawn double was AI. Even so, North might have been under UI restrictions preventing him from bidding 3NT: South's double was slapped on the table almost before West had a chance to grab the alert card and show it. In the N-S system, double, after weak2♦ - double - raise was supposed to show a hand willing to compete in either major and probably tolerance for clubs. It was the reflexive nature combined with the later withdrawal, once the nature of the auction became apparent, that led North to believe that South had not diamond shortness and values, but values and long diamonds.

[gnasher]

NS are entitled to know EW's system, no more. They're not entitled to know what was in East's mind when he bid 3♦.

The only possible damage from EW's actions is the UI before North's first call. If he would have doubled 2♦ anyway, there's no damage. If North is in range for a 2NT overcall over Flannery, we need to know what NS's methods are over it, but I doubt if any sequence would have got them to 3NT. I suspect that they would have played in 2NT making 10 tricks.

If North thought he had UI from the withdrawn pass, he was wrong. If the director says nothing about UI, the implication is that there is no UI. Anyway, as an "occasional club director and a thirty-year veteran of high-level bridge", North should have known to ask the director whether it was UI, rather than just assuming it was. Hence I'm not inclined to give North any compensation for his false assumption.

[Sjoerds]

McBruce, on 2012-December-09, 02:55, said:

Should there be an adjustment here?

There might be a violation to Law 16B. But IMO EW had a good understanding of their bidding so no evidence for UI
The non alert is a violation to Law 21. Corrected too late for North to change his call. First thing for me is to find out what could have happened after 2♦ with the correct information.
I would ask North what he would have done. And might even poll this situation.
I guess "pass" is an alternative. But 3NT...I don't know...
Will North double 3♥ again? I will ask him. And poll this one too if necessary.
East will still call 3♠.
Why did South call 4♦? I would ask her.
All these questions and polls are to establish if this bad result is due to the non alert or due to less fortunate bidding of NS.
If the latter is the case, I tend not to adjust the score.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-December-09, 06:46, said:

If North thought he had UI from the withdrawn pass, he was wrong. If the director says nothing about UI, the implication is that there is no UI. Anyway, as an "occasional club director and a thirty-year veteran of high-level bridge", North should have known to ask the director whether it was UI, rather than just assuming it was. Hence I'm not inclined to give North any compensation for his false assumption.

I disagree with this. The director should have explained. I think that it is totally normal for players to assume that their partner's withdrawn action is UI. So normal that it would not occur to them to ask.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-December-09, 03:45, said:

Did the Director not explain all matters in regard to rectification? (e.g. Laws 10B2/16D1) North is of course under no UI restriction.

Lacking entries in South I suspect that North in 3NT would have played his ♦A followed by a small.

I feel strongly for adjusting the score to 3NT+1 effective (at least) for NS.

I am more in doubt what result should be effective for EW. Because of (potentionally) incomplete explanation from the Director I might let EW either just keep their score (5♦-1) or weighting it 50% with 5♦=.

In 5♦ leading the ♦Q towards the Ace is correct if the Jack is stiff offside and of course wrong with the King stiff anywhere.

You cannot weight scores in the ACBL. Law 12C1(e) applies. If you are ruling under 82C (Director error), then you use 12C1(e), treating both sides as non-offending, so both sides get "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred".

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-December-09, 06:46, said:

NS are entitled to know EW's system, no more. They're not entitled to know what was in East's mind when he bid 3♦.

No, and East should not have told them (and his partner). Aside from that, East's hand doesn't look like an invitational raise of anything to me. Do I need to get out more?

South's double of 3♦ seems dubious, if it's supposed to be responsive. So were his mannerisms reported in McBruce's second post (and why not in the original?)

Maybe I'm too old fashioned, but there seems to be a lot of strange bidding here — I would have bid 2NT over a weak 2♦ with North's hand. Not really relevant to the ruling, but…

Do NS have an agreed defense to Flannery? If so, what is it?

Is West's 3♥ "unauthorized panic", or a bid with no LA?

[McBruce]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-09, 12:35, said:

No, and East should not have told them (and his partner). Aside from that, East's hand doesn't look like an invitational raise of anything to me. Do I need to get out more?

South's double of 3♦ seems dubious, if it's supposed to be responsive. So were his mannerisms reported in McBruce's second post (and why not in the original?)

Maybe I'm too old fashioned, but there seems to be a lot of strange bidding here — I would have bid 2NT over a weak 2♦ with North's hand. Not really relevant to the ruling, but…

Do NS have an agreed defense to Flannery? If so, what is it?

Is West's 3♥ "unauthorized panic", or a bid with no LA?

West opened a Flannery 2♦. East forgot they were playing it and raised what he thought was a weak two after the double. West alerted this at about the same time the "I have seven diamonds and I don't care if we're playing responsive doubles, this needs to get whacked" (so we'll call it a) reflexive double hit the table. West then made the normal response of 3♥ showing a minimum. East now called the TD, claiming not to have seen the alert card and saying he was woken up by the combination of everything getting doubled and the 3♥ bid, not by the alert. South was given the chance to remove the double, and did so, and the auction continued. I stayed at the table for the auction, gave them the usual spiel about calling me back if there was possible damage, and looked at a hand record. A quick look back at the table showed that the defenders had not started club-club-ruff, and nobody called me back. It was at the end of the game that the N-S pair asked about the situation.

[blackshoe]

It doesn't matter what "woke East up" for purposes of the requirement to call and explain the failure to alert. The alert of 3♦ is still UI, though.

South misplayed the hand, but I don't think she perpetrated a SEWoG.

Should we adjust the score? Probably, but to what? To answer that, I think we need to know NS's methods over Flannery.

[Zelandakh]

McBruce, on 2012-December-09, 04:47, said:

South's double was slapped on the table almost before West had a chance to grab the alert card and show it.

I hope you gave N-S a very stern talking-to about this, if not a fine. Letting players get away with this sort of two-way double is just poor. Worse, when inexperienced players see a "thirty year veteran of high level bridge" getting away with this they are highly likely to do the same thing too.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-09, 17:05, said:

South misplayed the hand, but I don't think she perpetrated a SEWoG.

Didn't she perpetrate a SEWoG in the bidding, though, by doubling 3D?

[blackshoe]

WellSpyder, on 2012-December-10, 08:39, said:

Didn't she perpetrate a SEWoG in the bidding, though, by doubling 3D?

Maybe. I'm not sure it rises to that level, but I could be wrong.