[wank]

---

I heard about this hand. South is a professional player. 3♥ should have been alerted as pre-emptive though dummy's actually got a flat 9 count. South called for a ruling when dummy appeared claiming he would have bid over 3 hearts with the correct information. (I can't recall seeing anyone else alert a pre-emptive raise in this position either, but that's not the point.)

Please don't query the facts. They were all agreed.

The director ruled he would bid and adjusted the score to whatever. East-west appealed on the basis that south had an obvious bid however strong 3♥ was supposed to be.

Don't worry about the hands and what might happen later as it's all moot if you don't let south bid.

[blackshoe]

Well, then I guess it's all moot, since the auction is over and the dummy is down. South isn't getting another chance to bid.

[wank]

 blackshoe, on 2011-January-27, 12:51, said:

Well, then I guess it's all moot, since the auction is over and the dummy is down. South isn't getting another chance to bid.

i didn't ask if he got another chance to bid at this point. when you assign an adjusted score after the hand you do it on the basis of assigning bids and plays. south would thus be accredited with having made a different bid, whether he actually withdrew the cards from the bidding box himself or not.

i appreciate it helps to be anal when studying the laws, but i don't feel it's helpful to be such concerning the meaning of other people's posts.

[ArtK78]

 wank, on 2011-January-27, 12:38, said:

The director ruled he would bid and adjusted the score to whatever. East-west appealed on the basis that south had an obvious bid however strong 3♥ was supposed to be.

Really? South had an obvious bid over any strength 3♥ call?

I don't agree with either side here. South MAY have a bid over a preemptive 3♥ call, but I am sure that there are plenty of players who would not bid over a preemptive 3♥ call with this hand.

As for East-West's argument that South should bid no matter what the 3♥ bid showed, all I can say is "Really?" Suppose 3♥ is an unconditional game forcing call, as it was in old-fashioned Standard American. Bidding here could easily result in a large number at equal non-vul. Even if 3♥ were a limit raise it could be wrong to bid. Quite frankly, it could be wrong to bid here even if 3♥ was a preemptive raise.

Of course, with 6-5 shape it could be very right to bid here. But to say that it is automatic is going way too far.

Clearly East West should be subject to some procedural penalty if the conditions of contest require an alert for a preemptive raise. But a score adjustment in favor of North-South? I am not convinced.

[Coelacanth]

Was there misinformation? Yes, West's failure to alert East's bid constitutes MI.

Was South damaged? That depends. I think it's clear that South is more likely to bid over 3♥ with the correct information, but how much more likely is not evident. It's certainly not the case that he would never bid on the given auction but would always bid with an alert. Some form of weighted adjustment seems in order.

So you assign some % of 4♥ making however many tricks it made, and some % of the result you project assuming South bids. We would need to see West's and North's hands to know what that result would be. (It may also be a contract of 4♥ in the West, in which case obviously no damage and no adjustment.)

[blackshoe]

 wank, on 2011-January-27, 13:09, said:

i didn't ask if he got another chance to bid at this point. when you assign an adjusted score after the hand you do it on the basis of assigning bids and plays. south would thus be accredited with having made a different bid, whether he actually withdrew the cards from the bidding box himself or not.

i appreciate it helps to be anal when studying the laws, but i don't feel it's helpful to be such concerning the meaning of other people's posts.

You didn't ask if he got another chance to bid, you said "it's all moot" if I don't let him bid. I'm not letting him bid. I may "assign" a bid (or more than one) to him if I consider adjusting the score (although in so doing all I really care about is the likely/possible final outcome(s)), but that's a different. thing.

If you don't say what you mean, how the hell do you expect anyone else to know what you mean? I'm not a telepath.

As far as this hand goes, I find insufficient evidence to adjust the score.

[jallerton]

Did the TD ask South why he did not bid at the table, but feels that he would have bid 3♠, had he been given the correct explanation? If so, what was the reply?

[nigel_k]

 ArtK78, on 2011-January-27, 14:01, said:

Even if 3♥ were a limit raise it could be wrong to bid. Quite frankly, it could be wrong to bid here even if 3♥ was a preemptive raise.

Of course, with 6-5 shape it could be very right to bid here. But to say that it is automatic is going way too far.

An action can be automatic even if it might be wrong. A while ago I went for 1100 after opening 1NT with a balanced 16.

Whether 3♥ is a preemptive raise or a limit raise makes only a small difference to the safety in bidding 3♠. There is a fairly small set of hands for South where I would accept his contention that he was damaged by the failure to alert but the given hand is not one of them. You might even argue that it's better to bid on this hand after a limit raise as partner will then play you for shape rather than high cards. Anyway it's a very obvious and automatic 3♠. Apart from the lack of damage, South passing throughout probably also counts as 'wild or gambling'.

I would allow the appeal.

[mycroft]

The only thing I can see with that hand is that there are almost certainly two unavoidable heart losers, and trumps are going to break if we let them play (Nothing else will, of course). 6=1=1=5 is more interested in bidding, yet more 6=0=2=5.

Having said that, I tend to agree that I don't see any reason to not "come alive" no matter how strong 3H is. It might, however, impact North's decision over (the almost certain) 4H. Whether I would expect newer players to see that at the table opposite a limit raise is debatable. This is of course the Gold Cup, however, so "newer players" may not apply.

(/me wonders if I would be one of those "newer players" at the table. I hope not.)
(1x-p-3x is Alertable in my world if pre-emptive, and most people know that, so most people do. How that changes the unalerted call understanding is debatable, too, but irrelevant in RightPondia.)

[WellSpyder]

I'm interested to see that no-one has yet raised the question of South protecting himself here. South is reportedly a professional, and I wonder how many people he plays against play 1H - 3H as anything other than preemptive these days? Of course the standard Acol meaning is invitational, and in an ordinary club game this might be quite common, but in the Gold Cup I would actually be very surprised to find anyone not playing this as pre-emptive, and it would not occur to me to claim damage if this wasn't alerted.

(I know that isn't the end of the story - as we have discussed elsewhere recently, there are significant difficulties with the concept of protecting oneself without putting your own side's interests at risk. But I would certainly view the claim of damage here with a considerable degree of scepticism.)

[MickyB]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-January-28, 01:51, said:

I'm interested to see that no-one has yet raised the question of South protecting himself here. South is reportedly a professional, and I wonder how many people he plays against play 1H - 3H as anything other than preemptive these days? Of course the standard Acol meaning is invitational, and in an ordinary club game this might be quite common, but in the Gold Cup I would actually be very surprised to find anyone not playing this as pre-emptive

An odd statement IMO. I would be shocked if less than 20% played it as limit, I would expect more like 30%, and the pair in question play fairly simple methods, so I would have put the chance at them playing it as limit at over 50%.

[Trinidad]

 WellSpyder, on 2011-January-28, 01:51, said:

I'm interested to see that no-one has yet raised the question of South protecting himself here. South is reportedly a professional, and I wonder how many people he plays against play 1H - 3H as anything other than preemptive these days? Of course the standard Acol meaning is invitational, and in an ordinary club game this might be quite common, but in the Gold Cup I would actually be very surprised to find anyone not playing this as pre-emptive,

 MickyB, on 2011-January-28, 05:33, said:

An odd statement IMO. I would be shocked if less than 20% played it as limit, I would expect more like 30%, and the pair in question play fairly simple methods, so I would have put the chance at them playing it as limit at over 50%.

Really? That surprises me. It's been ages since I met an established pair that played 1M-3M as a limit raise.

Rik

[mycroft]

I would guess that 80+% of players in my end of the world play Jacoby 2NT and limit raises. If you're in inv+ 2NT world, then of course 1M-3M would be different.

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2011-January-28, 06:44, said:

Really? That surprises me. It's been ages since I met an established pair that played 1M-3M as a limit raise.

Rik

I don't think it matters much what percentage of players play it as limit raise. 5B5 of the EBU Orange Book, which applies in this case, states:

"If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category." True, we have the conflicting 5H1:

"A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side's interests at risk."

It is unclear which of these take priority, and I see the latter being there to prevent someone stating that he would have doubled 2C if he had known it was Stayman, or would have bid except he thought that a 2NT overcall was natural, not both minors. Note that it says "and" if he had the opportunity ... so it is enough to conclude, as here, that he could not have been aware of its likely meaning as people play it differently. If he did know that the players used pre-emptive raises, then the second test of whether he could safely ask is applied.

As far as the adjusted score is concerned, it is entirely up to the TD to decide, under 21B3, whether the infraction benefited the offenders, and the benefit of the doubt is given to the non-offenders:

"When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity he awards an adjusted score."

To overturn the adjusted score, you would need to show that the director's judgement here was wrong, and he might quite easily conclude that a player would be more inclined to bid over a pre-emptive raise. But it does seem that a weighted score is more appropriate, polling, say, ten players and weighting the scores according to the number of peers that bid. To find the peers, we need to find those that pass over a limit raise, so it might be a slow process, like trying to find someone that votes for the Monster Raving Loony Party. Of course everyone bids here.

[FrancesHinden]

 wank, on 2011-January-27, 12:38, said:

---

I heard about this hand. South is a professional player. 3♥ should have been alerted as pre-emptive though dummy's actually got a flat 9 count. South called for a ruling when dummy appeared claiming he would have bid over 3 hearts with the correct information. (I can't recall seeing anyone else alert a pre-emptive raise in this position either, but that's not the point.)

Please don't query the facts. They were all agreed.

The director ruled he would bid and adjusted the score to whatever. East-west appealed on the basis that south had an obvious bid however strong 3♥ was supposed to be.

Don't worry about the hands and what might happen later as it's all moot if you don't let south bid.

Sorry for quibbling, but they aren't the facts as they were told to me by the TD who gave the ruling.
Also, I understand this ruling is currently under appeal. Unless the appeal has already been heard, isn't it at least polite to wait until the actual result is known?

[wank]

 FrancesHinden, on 2011-January-29, 07:31, said:

Sorry for quibbling, but they aren't the facts as they were told to me by the TD who gave the ruling.
Also, I understand this ruling is currently under appeal. Unless the appeal has already been heard, isn't it at least polite to wait until the actual result is known?

you were misinformed. the appeal has already occurred.

[FrancesHinden]

OK.

[jallerton]

 lamford, on 2011-January-28, 12:40, said:

I don't think it matters much what percentage of players play it as limit raise. 5B5 of the EBU Orange Book, which applies in this case, states:

"If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category." True, we have the conflicting 5H1:

"A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side's interests at risk."

It is unclear which of these take priority, and I see the latter being there to prevent someone stating that he would have doubled 2C if he had known it was Stayman, or would have bid except he thought that a 2NT overcall was natural, not both minors. Note that it says "and" if he had the opportunity ... so it is enough to conclude, as here, that he could not have been aware of its likely meaning as people play it differently. If he did know that the players used pre-emptive raises, then the second test of whether he could safely ask is applied.

As far as the adjusted score is concerned, it is entirely up to the TD to decide, under 21B3, whether the infraction benefited the offenders, and the benefit of the doubt is given to the non-offenders:

"When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity he awards an adjusted score."

To overturn the adjusted score, you would need to show that the director's judgement here was wrong, and he might quite easily conclude that a player would be more inclined to bid over a pre-emptive raise. But it does seem that a weighted score is more appropriate, polling, say, ten players and weighting the scores according to the number of peers that bid. To find the peers, we need to find those that pass over a limit raise, so it might be a slow process, like trying to find someone that votes for the Monster Raving Loony Party. Of course everyone bids here.

I agree with almost all of what you say, but the last couple of sentences are an exaggeration. A couple of early repliers to this thread passed, as did the player at the table.

Aa part of the polling technique here, it might be best to give people the hand and the auction without any explanation of the 3♥ bid. If they give you an answer without asking you about the strength of 3♥, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the strength of 3♥ did not affect their bidding. If they answer without asking, you can still confirm this concluaion by following up with the "Does the strength of 3♥ make a difference?" question.

[bluejak]

 lamford, on 2011-January-28, 12:40, said:

I don't think it matters much what percentage of players play it as limit raise. 5B5 of the EBU Orange Book, which applies in this case, states:

"If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that there is no agreement that the call falls within an alertable or announceable category." True, we have the conflicting 5H1:

"A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if he had the opportunity to ask without putting his side's interests at risk."

Are these really conflicting? I do not think so. One talks about what the alert means, one about adjustments for damage.

Take a simple case:

---

5B5 tells you what the lack of alert means, namely that 2♥ is not alertable.

5H1 tells you whether you are likely to get redress by assuming it is natural in the face of common sense.

I see no conflict.

[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2011-January-30, 18:30, said:

Take a simple case:

---

5B5 tells you what the lack of alert means, namely that 2♥ is not alertable.

5H1 tells you whether you are likely to get redress by assuming it is natural in the face of common sense.

I see no conflict.

The only meaning, I believe, of 2H which is not alertable is "natural". So, under 5B5, the opponent is entitled to assume that 2H is natural if it is not alerted. However, when he argues that he did assume it was natural, he will, correctly, be given short shrift under 5H1.