[pescetom]

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

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.

Some RAs, including mine and IIRC ACBL, do insist that experienced players are expected to protect themselves if it looks like they may be receiving MI and they need to know. I share your concerns about this.

[P_Marlowe]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-26, 07:58, said:

For my understanding, why do you get the table to play the hand when you are going to award an adjusted score?
The OS have gained advantage from the infraction in the auction, will the play have any relevance?

Sure, ... it happens, that the finally achieved score at the table is good for the non offending side, in this case the score
stands, this means less work for the TD, and the no non offending side is happy.

[axman]

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

---

ACBL. Here's the auction, no alerts.

When dummy comes down;

---

.... I look at their card and under general approach; 2/1 gf. ...
"Director please"


How do you rule?

This is my take:

Voting that failure to alert to be MI does not make it so. First of all, Alerts are proven to be busy work. Busy work that players and TDs get wrong time and again. You have the opponents' CC: you have been informed. No MI therefore no damage from MI.

[pescetom]

 blackshoe, on 2023-April-23, 15:25, said:

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.

I respectfully take issue (like others in the early discussion, it would seem) with your point 3 that advisability is no issue. I don't have to take for gold every argument a player presents. It seems to me that in these cases the argument of the complainant must have some credibility, deriving either from clear inherent merit or from available documentation of agreements. If in doubt TD should give the benefit or poll, but just like paulg and sfi I am not convinced there is doubt here.

[pilowsky]

Does the question "Is 1NT forcing" asked OTB after the dummy has landed result in unfair transmission of information to the partner of person asking?
Partner might now consider that opener has a type of hand that they had not considered before hearing the question.

My understanding was that questions about the bidding should happen after the lead is placed face down but before dummy is exposed and should be of the form "please explain the bidding".
Leading questions such as "was that a transfer" etc could imply information transfer to partner.
It seems that by asking a "specific" question at this point could lead to partner considering possibilities that may not have occurred to them otherwise (eg implying that RHO has a specific holding, or that Declarer has a particular hand - a five card holding rather than six).

Suppose in the auction 1NT - P - 2D (not alerted) - P - 2H -PPP
Dummy comes down and RHO asks - "Was 2D a transfer to H?", might not Declarer ask if the question asked at this point isn't suggesting something about RHO's hand that LHO might not otherwise consider.

Should Director calls in these situations come after the play of the hand to avoid muddying the water?

[blackshoe]

 axman, on 2023-April-26, 11:55, said:

Voting that failure to alert to be MI does not make it so.

That's not what the law says.

 axman, on 2023-April-26, 11:55, said:

First of all, Alerts are proven to be busy work. Busy work that players and TDs get wrong time and again.

Uh, huh. I'm from Missouri. Show me.

 axman, on 2023-April-26, 11:55, said:

You have the opponents' CC: you have been informed. No MI therefore no damage from MI.

Nope. The opponent has his CC. Maybe. Besides, this goes back to my first comment in this post. That's not what the law says.

[Gilithin]

 axman, on 2023-April-26, 11:55, said:

Voting that failure to alert to be MI does not make it so. First of all, Alerts are proven to be busy work. Busy work that players and TDs get wrong time and again. You have the opponents' CC: you have been informed. No MI therefore no damage from MI.

With this attitude to alerting, I can guarantee that you would get kicked from our BBO table within 10 hands. If alerting your agreements properly is too much work, perhaps bridge is the wrong game for you. Your opponents are entitled to the information so when you withhold it you are committing the bridge equivalent of a yellow card offence. Doing it deliberately is simply cheating. Are you a cheat axman?

[axman]

 blackshoe, on 2023-April-26, 22:55, said:

That's not what the law says.


Uh, huh. I'm from Missouri. Show me.


Nope. The opponent has his CC. Maybe. Besides, this goes back to my first comment in this post. That's not what the law says.

Some clarification is in order:

The query was ' How do you rule?'

When I run a game I post and make these announcements prior to the session:

1. partnership's completed CCs must be presented to receive entry
2. exchange CCs for the round (to minimize the need to ask questions)
3. ALERTS ARE FORBIDDEN
as provided by L81C2 & L80B2f I find that L16B1 specifies Alerts are a system of communication other than by call or play and thereby conflict with L73B1 in contravention of L80B2e and thus are forbidden in face to face contests, and, that their use is subject to PP.

[Gilithin]

 axman, on 2023-April-27, 04:50, said:

The query was ' How do you rule?'

So you make up your own rules/regulations and just assume they are valid even when providing rulings for other jurisdictions? Just perfect for this forum. Well done.

[jillybean]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-25, 13:55, said:

So the poll is to test to see if my bidding capabilities/judgement/system/style is similar to others?
Please quote the law that gives you this power?

Could someone answer this please, I can't find the law that would be applied here.

[P_Marlowe]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-27, 11:27, said:

Could someone answer this please, I can't find the law that would be applied here.

https://www.bridgeba...ost__p__1053446

[jillybean]

 P_Marlowe, on 2023-April-27, 11:40, said:

https://www.bridgeba...ost__p__1053446

Following this, the OS have a reasonable chance of a good outcome if the "poll" goes against the NOS?
(if this isn't an incentive to stop alerting, it is certainly doesn't provide an incentive to get it right)

Who to believe, the OS or the NOS?

[Bad_Wolf]

Hi Jillybean

You are completely correct. "sloppy" players have an advantage over the rest of the field. This is a fact of life as you will NEVER get any justice from a director. The Laws are irrelevant, you simply have to protect yourself.

As an example what do you play after Landy 1NT-(2C)- alerted and explained as majors. If you don't play 2M as natural you are mad. Against most average players there is a good chance they will have clubs, so you need to be able to get a major in yourself. Yes the Laws should give you protection but the director won't. The opps will just claim they had a momentary forget and the director will walk away. It doesn't matter that this pair "forgets" every second time it comes up and so the real agreement is "clubs or majors" because the director is not around to see this.

My advice, which has served me in good stead not least in minimising angst, is to never call the director. Ever. Just make a mental note and get your revenge against this pair on a later date.

Oh and of course failing to alert is MI. But it doesn't matter as no director will help you. Just a hard fact of bridge life.

Bridge is war, not a game.

[blackshoe]

 axman, on 2023-April-27, 04:50, said:

Some clarification is in order:

The query was ' How do you rule?'

When I run a game I post and make these announcements prior to the session:

1. partnership's completed CCs must be presented to receive entry
2. exchange CCs for the round (to minimize the need to ask questions)
3. ALERTS ARE FORBIDDEN
as provided by L81C2 & L80B2f I find that L16B1 specifies Alerts are a system of communication other than by call or play and thereby conflict with L73B1 in contravention of L80B2e and thus are forbidden in face to face contests, and, that their use is subject to PP.

In a club game you're certainly entitled to forgo alerts, but in this forum, when we are asked for a ruling under the laws and (usually) some RA's set of regulations, please either give your ruling under those assumptions or state explicitly, up front, the set of regulations under which you are ruling.

[blackshoe]

 Bad_Wolf, on 2023-April-27, 15:16, said:

Hi Jillybean

{snip}

Bridge is war, not a game.

Bad advice. Not to mention a clear bias against at least club level directors, if not all directors. Yeah, some directors are better than others, and some are terrible. But "don't ever call the director", while it may help your blood pressure, won't fix the problem.

[jillybean]

 blackshoe, on 2023-April-27, 15:57, said:

Bad advice. Not to mention a clear bias against at least club level directors, if not all directors. Yeah, some directors are better than others, and some are terrible. But "don't ever call the director", while it may help your blood pressure, won't fix the problem.

What will? So many infractions are ignored or condoned, I think we are past the tipping point.

To be fair, stop alerting/announcing too

[jillybean]

 Bad_Wolf, on 2023-April-27, 15:16, said:

Bridge is war, not a game.

I'm always up for a challenge

To finish with a caveat, this was not a case of the opponents failed to alert, let's do some bunny bashing.
This hand was in the Open Pairs at a Regional, I'm the bunny getting bashed.
I will stop worrying about following or understanding the laws and get back to improving my play of the hand.

[barmar]

 jillybean, on 2023-April-26, 07:58, said:

For my understanding, why do you get the table to play the hand when you are going to award an adjusted score?
The OS have gained advantage from the infraction in the auction, will the play have any relevance?

If they get a poor result in the actual play, did they really gain an advantage?

You seems to be saying that they potentially had an advantage, because they shut you out of the bidding. But if the potential didn't actually materialize, they didn't really gain an advantage, so there's nothing to adjust.

I think we should treat "gain advantage" as equivalent to "cause damage", i.e. the NOS gets a worse result than they would have without the infraction, and this is a direct result of the infraction.

[jillybean]

 barmar, on 2023-April-28, 17:10, said:

If they get a poor result in the actual play, did they really gain an advantage?

You seems to be saying that they potentially had an advantage, because they shut you out of the bidding. But if the potential didn't actually materialize, they didn't really gain an advantage, so there's nothing to adjust.

I think we should treat "gain advantage" as equivalent to "cause damage", i.e. the NOS gets a worse result than they would have without the infraction, and this is a direct result of the infraction.

We never got to make that decision because this changed from the "OS failed to alert, there is MI and a potential advantage" to "your reason for wanting to bid over a forcing 1NT and not a non forcing 1NT isn't logical". Any advantage the OS gained by their infraction was never addressed.
This is why I'm so incensed!

 blackshoe, on 2023-April-23, 15:25, said:

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.