[Chris3875]

---

I was asked my opinion on this auction -

Just out of interest , how would you rule on the following scenario which happened today during a red point session . Average player W opens strong 1 NT , accredited Director N passes , average player E bids 2D which is a transfer to hearts BUT W doesn’t circle the bid then novice player S bids 2H . N summons the Director & requests that S be allowed to change his bid because the transfer wasn’t alerted & he assumed it was a natural overcall of D without asking . W is at fault for not alerting but S didn’t exercise the right to enquire & then there is the unauthorised info in to factor because W now knows that S has at least 5 Hs .


I'm not sure what the director ruled as I wasn't told, but I am assuming that South replaced his call with a 3♦ bid which went three off.

[blackshoe]

3♦ down 3 by South was the table result?

[Chris3875]

I think so ..... I wasn't given the board number, the name of the players or the table result ... but I read between the lines. This seemed to be the only hand where West would open a strong NT and East would transfer to hearts. The deep finesse record says that 3D should make 8 tricks, but if it was being played by a Novice 3 down seems OK too. This board also had an accredited director playing North with a weaker player in South so I'm reasonably sure.

My initial thought was to continue the auction from the 2H bid, play out whatever eventuates, than award a weighted score. Although we don't give procedural penalties as a general rule, as this was a red point event (club championship level), I would have given North a warning and maybe even a PP.

[blackshoe]

Hi, Chris.

South didn't exercise his right to enquire. So? Why should he? As far as he knows, 2♦ is natural, so there should be no need to ask. As for West's UI from South's withdrawn 2♥, again so what? It was his side's infraction that gave rise to the correction. Did he take advantage of UI? What are his LAs? That may factor into the score adjustment, but it makes no difference to the MI part of the ruling.

North has drawn attention to an irregularity. He has every right to do this, and to call the director (see Law 9). He did it "backwards" - first he called the director, and then he pointed out the irregularity (the failure to alert), but I don't think that matters. Nor do I think it warrants a PP. I would caution him not to make extraneous comments - it's not his place to explain to the TD what his partner was thinking, nor to explain to his partner, during the auction, what has gone wrong. Just call the TD and say "I think there was a failure to alert 2♦".

As for adjusting the score, what caused the damage? The MI, or South's 3♦ bid? If the latter, then there should be no adjustment — particularly if South would have bid 3♦ with the correct information in the first place, which he might well have done.

I would treat this as a learning experience for all concerned.

Oh, also, as I tell them to play it out, I'm going to remind West of his obligations regarding the UI from the withdrawn 2♥ bid.

I wouldn't use a double dummy analysis as a basis for determining score adjustments. Who plays a hand double dummy, particularly at this level?

[pran]

I agree With Blackshoe except for one detail:
How did North know that there was an irregularity at the time he "drew attention to an irregularity" (i.e. when South bid 2♥)?

North should have kept quiet and let auction (and play) continue until East's cards were exposed, and then draw such attention.

[Chris3875]

North made an assumption that the 2♦ bid was a transfer - correct as it turned out, and was probably horrified when she saw her partner bidding hearts. What is the correct procedure - wait until it is her turn to bid then ask about the 2♦ bid and when it is described as a transfer to hearts call the director who would then give South the opportunity to withdraw their bid of hearts ? I was thinking along the same lines as Pran - at the time she didn't KNOW an infraction had occurred so can we apply Law 9?

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2013-May-30, 01:11, said:

I agree With Blackshoe except for one detail:
How did North know that there was an irregularity at the time he "drew attention to an irregularity" (i.e. when South bid 2♥)?

North should have kept quiet and let auction (and play) continue until East's cards were exposed, and then draw such attention.

Perhaps North had seen the CC mentioning "Jacoby transfers". Then North knows there is an irregularity: either there was a failure to alert or the CC was wrong. Seems like a good idea to call the TD at that point.

Rik

[Chris3875]

I would be amazed and astounded if they had a CC

[campboy]

I would certainly give South the chance to change the 2♥; if he is inexperienced there is no reason to expect him to ask here. If he does change it to 3♦ the withdrawn call is UI to E/W. It seems to me that competing to 3♥ is an LA for East, and passing is suggested by the UI.

[Vampyr]

Chris3875, on 2013-May-30, 01:25, said:

North made an assumption that the 2♦ bid was a transfer - correct as it turned out, and was probably horrified when she saw her partner bidding hearts. What is the correct procedure - wait until it is her turn to bid then ask about the 2♦ bid and when it is described as a transfer to hearts call the director who would then give South the opportunity to withdraw their bid of hearts ? I was thinking along the same lines as Pran - at the time she didn't KNOW an infraction had occurred so can we apply Law 9?

Yes, I was also wondering how North knew -- particularly in light of the later comment that they are not likely to have had convention cards.

From North's point of view, maybe South knew too, and 2♥ was intended as takeout.

In any case, it is illegal (20F1) for North to query E/W's system when it is not his turn; and South is not permitted to change his call when the MI comes to light, since it is not the final call.

Possibly a PP to the pair without a convention card, since they offered no opportunity for timely disclosure.

[c_corgi]

Whether it is strictly correct or not, North's behaviour seems appropriate. What is the point in forcing his novice partner to stew in a 5(4!)-1 fit going lots off before getting an adjusted score? Its not as though he is likely to gain by calling the director: giving South his bid back just gave him further opportunities to lose equity before any adjustment was made.

[pran]

Chris3875, on 2013-May-30, 01:25, said:

North made an assumption that the 2♦ bid was a transfer - correct as it turned out, and was probably horrified when she saw her partner bidding hearts. What is the correct procedure - wait until it is her turn to bid then ask about the 2♦ bid and when it is described as a transfer to hearts call the director who would then give South the opportunity to withdraw their bid of hearts ? I was thinking along the same lines as Pran - at the time she didn't KNOW an infraction had occurred so can we apply Law 9?

North has two legal options:
1: At his turn to call (before he actually calls) request an explanation of East/West's auction so far. If at this time it is revealed that an alert was missing North should call the Director. North must not in any way suggest (at this time) that South should be allowed to change his call, only the Director may do that after learning about the irregularity.
or
2: North may call the Director when he definitely learns that there has been an irregularity.

After play is completed North is free to call the Director and claim redress for damage caused by the misinformation, and also for damage caused by Director's error if the Director failed to correctly inform South of his rights when (in case) called during the auction.

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2013-May-30, 01:26, said:

Perhaps North had seen the CC mentioning "Jacoby transfers". Then North knows there is an irregularity: either there was a failure to alert or the CC was wrong. Seems like a good idea to call the TD at that point.

Rik

If North has conflicting information about opponents' agreements, yes.

In this case a simple question at North's turn to call: "Should there have been an alert here?" would be in order.

[Trinidad]

Chris3875, on 2013-May-30, 01:42, said:

I would be amazed and astounded if they had a CC

Why? Are CCs not mandatory?

Rik

[Vampyr]

c_corgi, on 2013-May-30, 04:25, said:

Whether it is strictly correct or not, North's behaviour seems appropriate.

The problem with this approach is that bridge is a game, as as such it is defined by its Laws. An action that seems right in a moral or natural-justice sense is not "appropriate" if it breaches the rules of the game.

Perhaps for some it "feels right" to let North chime in and give South another go. But that doesn't mean it is right, and in fact it is not.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2013-May-30, 06:43, said:

Why? Are CCs not mandatory?

If these forums have taught us anything, Rik, it is that in many jurisdictions in which CCs are mandatory, it is common not to have them regardless. All we can do is be thankful that we don't have to play in them.

[barmar]

I think there have been other threads where they said that CCs are rare in Australian club games.

[barmar]

pran, on 2013-May-30, 04:31, said:

2: North may call the Director when he definitely learns that there has been an irregularity.

Why does he have to learn it "definitely"? Can't he call attention to a suspected irregularity? Sometimes the only way to find out if an irregularity has actually occurred is to raise the question due to a suspicion.

And 9A1 says that he can call attention to an irregularity at any time during the auction, not only at his own turn to call.

[c_corgi]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-30, 07:59, said:

The problem with this approach is that bridge is a game, as as such it is defined by its Laws. An action that seems right in a moral or natural-justice sense is not "appropriate" if it breaches the rules of the game.

Perhaps for some it "feels right" to let North chime in and give South another go. But that doesn't mean it is right, and in fact it is not.

If he has committed an infraction and the opponents are damaged by it, then he will rightly be ruled against. Since the former is not clear and the latter is not the case there is no need to rule against him. At worst he is guilty of speculatively drawing attention to an irregularity which, given that the irregularity had indeed occurred and in the absence of a plausible case of illegal communication, is not a problem. He has helped the game flow and increased the chances of a bridge result, while risking his partner being hampered by UI if the situation had been different: he sounds like a good egg to me. If you really find this unacceptable, what sanction would you apply?

[mycroft]

If he waits until his proper time, and doesn't coach his partner, but simply asks if 2♦ was Alertable, when told yes, once the TD is summoned, South will get her call back - with the knowledge of what West thought of 2♥. You or I probably wouldn't, depending on what the ABF regulation about "in situations where it is reasonable to believe that one has been misinformed" is; but a novice will. If she works out that 2♥ with this bad break may not work well, she might do the righter thing (whatever that is).

But North didn't wait, and did coach partner in his explanation to the TD, (and, in fact, coached the TD, which always puts the TD in a good mood) and put her in a bit of a bind.