[jallerton]

RMB1, on 2011-January-23, 17:43, said:

Mine was meant to be a more open question: certainly we must determine what the alert suggests ---- but I agree that it suggests that opener does not think 4♥ is to play.

My real difficulty is determining if there are logical alternatives to Pass. I think that a very large proportion of people faced with this auction would Pass because the odds are that partner has a weak two in spades (and has either forgotten the system or thinks he can pull 4♥ with an unsuitable hand). They might well assume that a strong two in spades would not risk 4♠ because it might sound like contract correction.

It would be difficult to find peers of NS with the same agreements and level of confidence in their agreements. So conducting a poll would be fraught.

The basic problem is that the overloaded North/South version of the Multi is totally unplayable, made even worse when the pair has not properly discussed the meaning of some of the responses.

Certainly many players in the North position would be not entirely sure what hand type would be shown by 4♠. In this case, the TD has to tread carefully. I would want North to explain the meaning of 4♥. "To play," he'll say. "To play opposite a weak two in spades?" I'll further enquire. Then I'll gague his reaction.

In practice, this is the sort of auction where there could be issues with tempo, especially if North is not in the habit of holding out the 'stop' card and/or East is not in the habit of waiting for the full 10 seconds. A fast 4♠ is more likely to deliver a weak two in spades that prefers 4♠ to 4♥, whilst a ponderous 4♠ gives sends the messgae "Why have you just pre-empted the auction? What on earth am I supposed to bid with an Acol 2 in spades here?"

[blackshoe]

olegru, on 2011-January-24, 14:13, said:

There is no "C"-words in this discussion, just UI

Apparently you didn't read the same posts I did. Aside from that, I don't share your certainty as to the TD's correct action.

[olegru]

blackshoe, on 2011-January-24, 15:28, said:

Apparently you didn't read the same posts I did. Aside from that, I don't share your certainty as to the TD's correct action.

Maybe I did not . Actualy, I still did not find post you are referring to.
But as far as directors decision concern we should completely ignore all discussion about cheating and think solely in terms of UI and LA.
Sure you do not have to share my opinion about the TD's correct action. But could you share there you see gap in applied logic?

[Cyberyeti]

This is a mixture of memory and guesswork, so may be wrong.

I think this pair (who've played together for 20+ years) used to play either benji or a weak 2/strong bal only multi.

I think they may not have discussed the ramifications of adding the strong 2 (meaning you're not guaranteed doubleton support in this sequence).

They seemed pretty convinced that the 4♥ to play bid is one you shouldn't pull with the weak 2.

[blackshoe]

olegru, on 2011-January-24, 15:57, said:

Maybe I did not . Actualy, I still did not find post you are referring to.
But as far as directors decision concern we should completely ignore all discussion about cheating and think solely in terms of UI and LA.
Sure you do not have to share my opinion about the TD's correct action. But could you share there you see gap in applied logic?

Agree that any ruling should be based on consideration of UI and LAs. My main uncertainty, at the moment, is what the UI suggests. Posts from others seem to suggest they share the concern (or come to a different conclusion than yours, though I think there are some on both sides).

[jallerton]

Trecar, on 2011-January-23, 17:14, said:

Forgetting system is not a crime per se, but a pair of this standard should not be alerting over 3NT, thus a disciplinary penalty would both reinforce their need to comply with the rules, and encourage them to play a system that is coomon and understood by them both.

Players get the alerting rules wrong all the time. If you are going to issue a procedural penalty every time someone makes that type of mistake, you'll be a very busy TD and you won't be popular with the players or with the scorers.

Cyberyeti said:

I haven't seen an alert above 3N for about 3 or 4 years, I've seen obvious "near alerts" and done them.

I've seen plenty of faulty alerts over 3NT over the last or 4 years, just as I have seen plenty of announced transfer responses to 2NT openings and 1NT overcalls. Now that the alerting rules are slightly more complicated than they were five years ago, I'm afraid we have to accept that people will sometimes get confused.

Of course, your "near alerts" have exactly the same practical effect has real alerts.

[Cyberyeti]

jallerton, on 2011-January-25, 00:21, said:

Of course, your "near alerts" have exactly the same practical effect has real alerts.

Not necessarily, reaching towards the bidding box and then taking your hand away could simply be a change of mind about a bid, particularly if not immediate, that's one of the reasons I leave my alert card in the bidding box, the people who take their stop and alert cards out and put them by the side make it much more obvious.

[campboy]

FWIW I saw an incorrect alert above 3NT last night (2NT - 3♥ transfer - 4♦ cue superaccepting spades).

Anyway, the case looks simple enough that I am surprised there is so much discussion. The North hand makes it clear that when he bid 4♥ he was expecting partner to pass with his likely weak two in spades. So without UI he would expect the 4♠ bid to show a strong two, but has UI indicating that partner thought it showed a weak two.

[bluejak]

I am amazed at some of the posts. Certainly playing the Multi to include all 8 playing trick hands is unwieldy, but so what? People do, and we are not here to teach them bridge. Certainly assuming - as some people seem to - that they are not playing what they say they are playing is completely unjustified without evidence.

Is there UI? Certainly: North bid 4♥ intending it to play and partner's alert tells him it is not being taken as to play. Pass/correct is by far the most likely alternative. Thus the UI tells North that partner pretty certainly has a weak two in spades rather than the eight playing tricks in spades that 4♠ would show over a "to play" 4♥. What does it suggest? Clearly passing rather than progressing. thus we disallow the pass. Frankly this is a "baby" ruling that I would expect any TD to find without any difficulty.

What do we adjust to? That's more difficult, and of course a weighted score. Since West is presumably doubling 5♠ most auctions will probably end in 5♠ doubled.

This seems so simple to me that perhaps someone can explain to me what I have missed.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2011-January-25, 09:32, said:

I am amazed at some of the posts. Certainly playing the Multi to include all 8 playing trick hands is unwieldy, but so what? People do, and we are not here to teach them bridge. Certainly assuming - as some people seem to - that they are not playing what they say they are playing is completely unjustified without evidence.

Is there UI? Certainly: North bid 4♥ intending it to play and partner's alert tells him it is not being taken as to play. Pass/correct is by far the most likely alternative. Thus the UI tells North that partner pretty certainly has a weak two in spades rather than the eight playing tricks in spades that 4♠ would show over a "to play" 4♥. What does it suggest? Clearly passing rather than progressing. thus we disallow the pass. Frankly this is a "baby" ruling that I would expect any TD to find without any difficulty.

What do we adjust to? That's more difficult, and of course a weighted score. Since West is presumably doubling 5♠ most auctions will probably end in 5♠ doubled.

This seems so simple to me that perhaps someone can explain to me what I have missed.

I don't think you have missed anything. You have, however, failed to correct something, I think. I Have read the ACBL alert regulations over and over; and the thing about "above 3NT" applies to opener's first rebid and beyond, not responder's initial action. Maybe there is something new I am missing, or UK alert rules are different.

This, of course does not change your accurate assessment of the given situation.

[RMB1]

aguahombre, on 2011-January-25, 11:17, said:

Maybe there is something new I am missing, or UK alert rules are different.

Er. Yes. Different regulatory authorities have different alerting regulations.

Different in England (and Wales) from ACBL, different in Scotland (UK) from England, etc.

Is 4♥ "natual, not Pass-or-correct, to play opposite any weak two" alertable in ACBL?

[aguahombre]

RMB1, on 2011-January-25, 11:39, said:

Er. Yes. Different regulatory authorities have different alerting regulations.

Different in England (and Wales) from ACBL, different in Scotland (UK) from England, etc.

Is 4♥ "natual, not Pass-or-correct, to play opposite any weak two" alertable in ACBL?

"Conventional" calls, which is what opener took 4H to be --even though it was not intended as such.

Anyway, I found it in your Tangerine book. ACBL should use that simple approach..opening bid only.

[Cyberyeti]

I suppose I should now give the punch line.

The ruling on the night was in effect "You gained 6 IMPs on the board, be happy with that" (5♣-1 at other table).

Normal for Norfolk ...

Unsurprisingly we've appealed.

[Cyberyeti]

It gets worse. We notified the TD within 5 seconds of his ruling on the Friday night that we were appealing, he said he wanted it in writing from the captain (by email). The captain has no home email and works Tues-Fri, Tues unsurprisingly is busy so he sent it in on Weds from work and the same director who made the ruling ruled it out of time

The whole team is considering pulling out of the league now, and severing all ties with this particular club as we'd rather play using the rules of bridge rather than be in the wild west. Unfortunately the EBU with pay to play has rendered the bridge club I used to play at unable to be part of the EBU, so not sure what to do now, possibly join direct.

[WellSpyder]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-January-28, 09:54, said:

Unfortunately the EBU with pay to play has rendered the bridge club I used to play at unable to be part of the EBU, so not sure what to do now, possibly join direct.

I was told that provided you have joined the EBU through an affiliated club, you will remain a member even if you leave the club. So provided you play in enough pay-to-play events (including EBU congresses, etc) to qualify for normal membership benefits, you should not need to find another club just for the purposes of joining the EBU.

[bluejak]

Appeal to the National Authority? The National Authority for England is vested in the EBU L&EC, and has jurisdiction for this purpose only over all duplicate in England, so I understand, including duplicate not played within the auspices of the EBU.

Mind you, I am not in a position to advise you so to do. It is merely an idea.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-January-28, 09:54, said:

It gets worse. We notified the TD within 5 seconds of his ruling on the Friday night that we were appealing, he said he wanted it in writing from the captain (by email). The captain has no home email and works Tues-Fri, Tues unsurprisingly is busy so he sent it in on Weds from work and the same director who made the ruling ruled it out of time

The whole team is considering pulling out of the league now, and severing all ties with this particular club as we'd rather play using the rules of bridge rather than be in the wild west. Unfortunately the EBU with pay to play has rendered the bridge club I used to play at unable to be part of the EBU, so not sure what to do now, possibly join direct.

While I agree entirely that the original ruling was wrong, and it does seem a simple decision to correct to either 6Sx-6, on a normal KD lead, or some weighting of 5Sx-5 and 6Sx-6, I do not mind which, I think that your failure to appeal on time was a major factor. 179 Internet cafes are listed in Norfolk, and why could one of the other players not have sent the email on behalf of the captain? And what was the matter with the post?

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2011-January-31, 06:23, said:

While I agree entirely that the original ruling was wrong, and it does seem a simple decision to correct to either 6Sx-6, on a normal KD lead, or some weighting of 5Sx-5 and 6Sx-6, I do not mind which, I think that your failure to appeal on time was a major factor. 179 Internet cafes are listed in Norfolk, and why could one of the other players not have sent the email on behalf of the captain? And what was the matter with the post?

So it would have been posted on Sunday by the time we'd got our stuff together, and probably arrived Tuesday, is one day that important ? The captain normally has email, but his computer blew up, so the rest of the team were unaware of this issue. We did notify him clearly on the night that we were appealing and were given no indication of how long we had to do so.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-January-31, 09:03, said:

So it would have been posted on Sunday by the time we'd got our stuff together, and probably arrived Tuesday, is one day that important ? The captain normally has email, but his computer blew up, so the rest of the team were unaware of this issue. We did notify him clearly on the night that we were appealing and were given no indication of how long we had to do so.

I would agree that he should have stated what the deadline for receipt of the written appeal was - presumably he did need it in writing to forward it for other opinions. Are there rules of the event that specify how appeals are to be made?

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-January-31, 09:51, said:

I would agree that he should have stated what the deadline for receipt of the written appeal was - presumably he did need it in writing to forward it for other opinions. Are there rules of the event that specify how appeals are to be made?

Usually it's the director who fills out the appeal form, and a verbal request for an appeal (with the appropriate deposit) is normally enough to instigate an appeal. Like you I wonder if there were conditions of contest that cover this.