[jvage]

---

This appeal, published in the bulletin, would decide the winner of the national swiss pairs championship. Both pairs are strong but not regular partnerships, N/S have both represented their country and got several national titles. N/S did not notice an alert of 1♥, which showed 4+ spades, and never asked about the meaning. E/W claimed there had been an alert by tapping the table (no screens).

When the TD is called after play (5♣X=, N/S -750, I am not sure if the TD was first called after Dummy was displayed and later recalled) North says he would not have doubled if correctly informed about the meaning of 1♥. The TD decides to adjust and removes the double (5♣=, N/S -600), which only improves N/S's MP-score from 17 to 30% (as one can imagine, the 59 tables produced a lot of different results on this board).

N/S appeals, claiming that the missing alert also influenced the earlier rounds of bidding. As it went E/W were practically pushed into game and N/S also made it clear to East that his partner did not have much wasted in spades. They were not sure how the bidding would have gone, but a likely start was 1NT (or 1♠) from North, 2♥ from East and 3♣ from West. They agreed East would probably make another try with 3♥, but believed it was likely that E/W would then stop in 4♣. E/W agrees the bidding might have startet differently, but believe they would still reach game.

I was on the committe, and we decided:
It didn't really matter if there actually was an alert, since according to our regulations it is the alerting sides responsibilty that the alert is noticed. Had they noticed an alert both North and South would probably have asked about the meaning in this situation.

There are several possible developments, including that North may double 5♣ even with a correct explanation. The ruling, taking into consideration that E/W are the offending side, was a weighed score; 2/3 of 4♣+1 (N/S -150), 1/6 of 5♣= (N/S -600) and 1/6 of 5♣X= (N/S -750). For N/S this resulted in a score slightly above average on the board.

Comments?

[wank]

looks like a 2♠ bid anyway with the correct explanation. south would surely raise. so EW would get to 5C regardless. i expect north would often still give it a double in a pairs tournament at the vul (need to get 200 versus 140, etc). he's got 1 trick outside spades opposite a take-out double. he doesn't know all south's high cards are in spades even with the raise.

still, to be nice to non-offenders, i'd give it 60% 5♣ making, 40% 5 clubs doubled.

imo the actual weightings are way too generous to north-south. is tapping the table permissible alerting in norway? if it's not, i'd happily give EW a pp.

[pran]

wank, on 2011-August-11, 06:09, said:

looks like a 2♠ bid anyway with the correct explanation. south would surely raise. so EW would get to 5C regardless. i expect north would often still give it a double in a pairs tournament at the vul (need to get 200 versus 140, etc). he's got 1 trick outside spades opposite a take-out double. he doesn't know all south's high cards are in spades even with the raise.

still, to be nice to non-offenders, i'd give it 60% 5♣ making, 40% 5 clubs doubled.

imo the actual weightings are way too generous to north-south. is tapping the table permissible alerting in norway? if it's not, i'd happily give EW a pp.

Yes, tapping is permissible and indeed quite common, but as jvage wrote:
It didn't really matter if there actually was an alert, since according to our regulations it is the alerting sides responsibilty that the alert is noticed. (my enhancement)

[wank]

pran, on 2011-August-11, 08:13, said:

Yes, tapping is permissible and indeed quite common, but as jvage wrote:
It didn't really matter if there actually was an alert, since according to our regulations it is the alerting sides responsibilty that the alert is noticed. (my enhancement)

it matters for deciding whether to award a PP. in this case, no, so fair enough

[Vampyr]

[quote name='wank' timestamp='1313064565' post='567555']
looks like a 2♠ bid anyway with the correct explanation.

Wouldn't this be takeout of spades?

[wank]

Vampyr, on 2011-August-11, 08:59, said:

Wouldn't this be takeout of spades?

it says they're good players so i doubt it

[mgoetze]

I find the N/S actions rather distasteful. If North thought that East had been supporting West's suit with 3♥ and 4♥, then surely the removal to 5♣ is highly unusual, and that would have been a good time to wake up and ask. But why do that when you can instead take a double shot - double without asking and then ask the director to remove the double if it turns out badly! Well, that worked, the director gave them everything they asked for, and then they notice that it's still not enough to win, so they appeal. Sorry, I have no sympathy whatsoever.

[bluejak]

Distasteful? You prefer to support players who cannot be bothered to apply a simple rule. It is E/W's actions which are distasteful: if you play a 1♥ response to show spades then you know it is alertable - it is not the sort of position where there is any doubt - and you know that players will not necessarily be expecting an alert so it is important that you alert correctly. So you do not alert correctly, you gain an unfair advantage, and now you do not expect the AC to give that advantage back?

If people play to the rules this game is fairer and better. We know poor players do not understand and follow the rules, but E/W are not such a pair. If I gained an advantage because I did not alert properly I would expect the opponents to get full redress for it.

[wank]

bluejak, on 2011-August-11, 16:23, said:

Distasteful? You prefer to support players who cannot be bothered to apply a simple rule. It is E/W's actions which are distasteful: if you play a 1♥ response to show spades then you know it is alertable - it is not the sort of position where there is any doubt - and you know that players will not necessarily be expecting an alert so it is important that you alert correctly. So you do not alert correctly, you gain an unfair advantage, and now you do not expect the AC to give that advantage back?

If people play to the rules this game is fairer and better. We know poor players do not understand and follow the rules, but E/W are not such a pair. If I gained an advantage because I did not alert properly I would expect the opponents to get full redress for it.

sounds like the daily mail. it's very easy to bash offenders, isn't it?

but to be fair, it's very difficult to ensure one's opps have noticed the alert when you tap the table. do you hammer the table so hard as to make everyone recoil? and if your response is to tell them not to alert in this fashion, thenyou should be blaming the norwegian regulations for permitting it.

[blackshoe]

I don't think David is bashing the offenders so much as bashing the idea that they ought to be let off the hook, and also the idea that one ought to bash the non-offenders.

On the latter point, in response to mgoetze's post, this old saying, attributed to Napolean Bonaparte, occurred to me: "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." This is a variation of "Hanlon's Razor": "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity".

[barmar]

wank, on 2011-August-11, 19:34, said:

sounds like the daily mail. it's very easy to bash offenders, isn't it?

but to be fair, it's very difficult to ensure one's opps have noticed the alert when you tap the table. do you hammer the table so hard as to make everyone recoil? and if your response is to tell them not to alert in this fashion, thenyou should be blaming the norwegian regulations for permitting it.

No, you don't have to hammer the table. But it's usually not that difficult to tell from someone's reaction whether they noticed your tapping.

When I was playing in a tournament this weekend, an opponent made an alert (this was in ACBL, where we say "alert" and tap the alert strip), and I guess I must have looked distracted because she asked something like "did you see the alert?" when I passed quickly after the alerted bid.

[mgoetze]

bluejak, on 2011-August-11, 16:23, said:

It is E/W's actions which are distasteful: if you play a 1♥ response to show spades then you know it is alertable - it is not the sort of position where there is any doubt - and you know that players will not necessarily be expecting an alert so it is important that you alert correctly. So you do not alert correctly, you gain an unfair advantage, and now you do not expect the AC to give that advantage back?

If the facts are indeed as you state them then sure, hit E/W with a large hammer and an even larger PP. Me, I have no idea how much of an effort these two made to alert correctly, and I also don't know what they knew about their opponents expectations, for all I know essentially the same thing came up just the board before, or they played a 64-board team match just the week before, or they actually did tap the table and N/S were just heavily asleep. I am just saying that, from the facts given, I surmise that E/W's actions may have been distasteful and N/S's quite certainly were.

[mfrench1]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-11, 13:24, said:

I find the N/S actions rather distasteful. If North thought that East had been supporting West's suit with 3♥ and 4♥, then surely the removal to 5♣ is highly unusual, and that would have been a good time to wake up and ask. But why do that when you can instead take a double shot - double without asking and then ask the director to remove the double if it turns out badly! Well, that worked, the director gave them everything they asked for, and then they notice that it's still not enough to win, so they appeal. Sorry, I have no sympathy whatsoever.

This is not the meaning of "double shot," but let that go. Calling the Director after the end of play when an earlier irregularity is revealed is perfectly acceptable, and "not waking up" does not change that.

[lamford]

The person who merits a PP is mgoetze, under 74A2, for suggesting that North-South have done anything wrong in the slightest. Note that there is no requirement to be at the table when making this remark, but I presume the Lawmakers did not intend it to extend to forums (or is that fora?). No doubt West tapped gently on the table, but this is a situation where the opponents will not be particularly expecting a transfer, so you should ensure that the alert has been noticed. North might well bid Two Spades anywhere, or he might bid One Spade. If West had responded One Spade, he would have no choice, but here he does have. I think that the same hand with Jx in one of the red suits and Axx in either minor would be better, and worth Two Spades. Here there is a danger of partner also having a doubleton club, and if West is psyching, then One Spade will probably expose it. So, I accept North's view that he would only bid One Spade with the alert. And he may well double 5C anyway.

So, I actually think the AC did an excellent job, and would be quite happy with their judgement of the likely auction. And I completely agree with bluejak's remarks on this one.

[mgoetze]

lamford, on 2011-August-22, 10:56, said:

The person who merits a PP is mgoetze, under 74A2,

Go ahead, I wasn't planning to win any Norwegian events anyway.

[Trinidad]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-11, 13:24, said:

I find the N/S actions rather distasteful. If North thought that East had been supporting West's suit with 3♥ and 4♥, then surely the removal to 5♣ is highly unusual, and that would have been a good time to wake up and ask. But why do that when you can instead take a double shot - double without asking and then ask the director to remove the double if it turns out badly! Well, that worked, the director gave them everything they asked for, and then they notice that it's still not enough to win, so they appeal. Sorry, I have no sympathy whatsoever.

Others have already commented from a more legallistic point of view. Nobody has yet responded from a bridge technical point of view. I would like to do this. You accuse North of taking a double shot. Before you do that, you need to look at what is unfolding from North's point of view. Since it seems that you haven't done that, let's do that one step at the time.

East opens 1♣ and partner South doubles. West bids 1♥. Remember that North has three cards in hearts and South has at least three more for his double. North doesn't have any problems finding a bid. He just bids his natural 2♠.

But now something odd happens: East is raising West's hearts. This doesn't add up. West has four hearts, East has four hearts, North sees three and South has at least three. That means that there are 14 or more hearts in the deck. It is vaguely possible that East raised on three hearts, but if I were North I would strongly suspect that West made a baby psych when he bid 1♥. (Or, alternatively, West has pulled a wrong bidding card. However, whether West bid wrong deliberately or by mistake is irrelevant for North.)

Still, there is nothing to worry. South bid 3♠, West passes (certainly not removing any suspicions) and North passes. And now, East bids 4♥. There is no way that East would bid that on only three hearts. The conclusion is clear: West has psyched. South passes and -not surprisingly- West removes to 5♣. If that doesn't confirm the psyche, then what does?!

North has 2 aces, opposite a takeout doubler and against an opponent of whom he knows that he has psyched with a lot of club support. A double is absolutely obvious. Actually, not doubling could well be considered a SEWoG.

You claim that North should have known to ask about the agreements at this point. The whole point about "knowing to ask" situations is that you can only know to ask if you don't have a logical explanation for what is happening at the table. But in this case, everything in the auction screams "PSYCHE!!!" (or pulling the wrong bid). And that is about the worst point in the auction to ask for clarification and wake up EW.

Not only did NS everything right from a legal point of view, they also did everything right from a bridge point of view.

Rik

[Free]

Trinidad, on 2011-September-04, 04:37, said:

Others have already commented from a more legallistic point of view. Nobody has yet responded from a bridge technical point of view. I would like to do this. You accuse North of taking a double shot. Before you do that, you need to look at what is unfolding from North's point of view. Since it seems that you haven't done that, let's do that one step at the time.

East opens 1♣ and partner South doubles. West bids 1♥. Remember that North has three cards in hearts and South has at least three more for his double. North doesn't have any problems finding a bid. He just bids his natural 2♠.

But now something odd happens: East is raising West's hearts. This doesn't add up. West has four hearts, East has four hearts, North sees three and South has at least three. That means that there are 14 or more hearts in the deck. It is vaguely possible that East raised on three hearts, but if I were North I would strongly suspect that West made a baby psych when he bid 1♥. (Or, alternatively, West has pulled a wrong bidding card. However, whether West bid wrong deliberately or by mistake is irrelevant for North.)

Still, there is nothing to worry. South bid 3♠, West passes (certainly not removing any suspicions) and North passes. And now, East bids 4♥. There is no way that East would bid that on only three hearts. The conclusion is clear: West has psyched. South passes and -not surprisingly- West removes to 5♣. If that doesn't confirm the psyche, then what does?!

North has 2 aces, opposite a takeout doubler and against an opponent of whom he knows that he has psyched with a lot of club support. A double is absolutely obvious. Actually, not doubling could well be considered a SEWoG.

You claim that North should have known to ask about the agreements at this point. The whole point about "knowing to ask" situations is that you can only know to ask if you don't have a logical explanation for what is happening at the table. But in this case, everything in the auction screams "PSYCHE!!!" (or pulling the wrong bid). And that is about the worst point in the auction to ask for clarification and wake up EW.

Not only did NS everything right from a legal point of view, they also did everything right from a bridge point of view.

Rik

Very nice analysis, but I think you forgot one little detail: West wouldn't bid 5♣ over 4♥ if he psyched, unless 4♥ was doubled. This is not the case. I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions out of this, but it's strange even if W psyched.