[finesse157]

... timing

Opps playing a Weak NT. X is penalties (16+ points)

LHO P RHO ME
1N X 2D D
2H PPP

After the 2D bid, I pause for a few seconds (no alert) so I doubled. LHO also paused for a few seconds. At the same time that LHO bid 2H, the 2D was alerted (as a transfer)

When it comes back to me, I am now stuck for a bid. As I have already X'd, any bid by me would be GF, including 2N. I have a hand that would normally pass, then bid 2n(Leb) over the 2H transfer (intending to bid 3D-NF over 3C). I do not have a hand that that can now compete below game (as I said, any bid is GF, even 3D)

Director was in an awkward situation but suggested that we continue and get back if there was any damage.
(18%) for us and no adjustment as he said that I could have bid 3D (the late alert had muddied the waters for me).

So, was this fair, or would an adjustment of 18%/Av be fairer.

NB I'm not looking for an adjustment, just opinions on the decision.

FYI I had
AJT-8-JTxxx-Qxxx
Too little for GF

[bluenikki]

finesse157, on 2022-April-08, 03:59, said:

... timing

Opps playing a Weak NT. X is penalties (16+ points)

LHO P RHO ME
1N X 2D D
2H PPP

After the 2D bid, I pause for a few seconds (no alert) so I doubled. LHO also paused for a few seconds. At the same time that LHO bid 2H, the 2D was alerted (as a transfer)

When it comes back to me, I am now stuck for a bid. As I have already X'd, any bid by me would be GF, including 2N. I have a hand that would normally pass, then bid 2n(Leb) over the 2H transfer (intending to bid 3D-NF over 3C). I do not have a hand that that can now compete below game (as I said, any bid is GF, even 3D)

Director was in an awkward situation but suggested that we continue and get back if there was any damage.
(18%) for us and no adjustment as he said that I could have bid 3D (the late alert had muddied the waters for me).

So, was this fair, or would an adjustment of 18%/Av be fairer.

NB I'm not looking for an adjustment, just opinions on the decision.

FYI I had
AJT-8-JTxxx-Qxxx
Too little for GF

The agreement about game force is unplayable, as you see.

[finesse157]

bluenikki, on 2022-April-08, 06:43, said:

The agreement about game force is unplayable, as you see.

The agreement was muddied by the late alert, and that is the issue.
1N-(X)-2D-(X)
2H?
If the 2D is natural, then any bid is GF, X would be pens for H's. We have points for game, we either punish them or take the game.

Over
1N-(X)-2D-P with 2D alerted
2H-(P)-P-?
I now have Lebensohl to push to game or partscore.

The problem is that the information about the 2D bid came too late and left us in a muddle.

[mikeh]

I truly don’t understand why you’d play your methods.

May I suggest that after the initial double, you agree that the opps cannot play 2m undoubled (we play they cannot play 2m or 2H undoubled but whether that’s optimal is a matter of judgement)

Then add on the agreement that if 2D were natural, double by you would be takeout….with a penalty double you pass, since partner is obliged to act and, unless the opps are fooling around, his normal action would be another double, which you’d convert.

You need to be able to compete for part scores. Focusing on games after the opps open even a weak 1N is highly inefficient. I know you’ll say you play lebensohl, etc, but often neither if you has a 5+ suit yet you have playable 4-3 or 4-4 fits. You need a takeout double.

However, just because I think your agreement is close to unplayable, and I do, doesn’t mean that you are not entitled to an adjustment, so let’s turn to the merits.

If I were a TD I’d be extremely suspicious. Your hand very strongly suggests that the 2D was intended as a transfer. Doubling and then claiming that you were misled has a hint of a double-shot. If they have screwed up, and sit, you have a great result and if they’ve failed to alert, you get to seek an adjustment. I want to stress: I am not in the least saying I think you did that. I’m telling you what I think I’d be worried about if I were called to the table as a TD.

Did you look at their card? Were you online or behind screens? If so, you could ask without conveying info to partner or the 1N bidder and I’d have even more concerns about the double.

In acbland for example, one checks off whether system is on after a double and I’d not adjust for you if that were the case.

Btw, if 2D were natural, what would pass by you be?

At the end of the day, if their card was silent and if you couldn’t ask without partner knowing, I’d adjust to average. But I’d strongly suspect you of trying to have it both ways, even if you really were not.

[mycroft]

finesse157, on 2022-April-08, 03:59, said:

When it comes back to me,

Here's your problem. You failed to follow the rules, and now as a result

Quote

I am now stuck for a bid.

I realize there are arguments that you should be asking here, since "oh, transfer"-2♥ happens a lot, but in this auction, where it is clear they aren't certain of their agreements (and unlike 1NT-p, that there are differing agreements more than once a blue moon (*)), I think your requirement-to-confirm is much lower (if it exists at all). And you did wait a bit for the Alert - that's sort of asking.

So, what should have happened?

9B1 said:

a. The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.
b. Any player, including dummy [Mycroft: and including a player whose turn it is not], may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

Law21B said:

Call Based on Misinformation from an Opponent
1. (a) Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17D) and provided that partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for that side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent. Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation.

"oh alert, 2♥" should not "get around to you". You should call the director as soon as it happens, and allow her to decide if 21B1a applies ("could well have been invluenced by misinformation"). If it does, then you get to change your call, partner is entitled to *both* auctions (you would have doubled a natural 2♦, you're doing [whatever] opposite a transfer), the double is UI to the opponents and the game continues.

Having not done that:

Law21B, continued said:

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

but now, both sides are "at fault", at least partially, because this would all have gone away if the director had been called at the correct time. The great discussion on the flawed 2017 version of Law11A (see a fortunate inadmissable double thread from right here on BBF) applies, as does 10B ("you were okay with the correction when it happened, I'll allow the waiver now"). But those cases tend to be enforced when "it was okay when you thought it was going to hurt the opponents, now that it's backfired you want the director to fix it", and this isn't such a case, it's a "oh, late Alert, yeah, I guess it's okay", only it isn't.) So I probably would adjust. If I did, it would probably be that you did either what you said you would do, or made whatever call is a takeout of hearts, if you have one. But I would be ruling "at-fault/partially at-fault" when it came to judging weightings.

(*) For instance, I play a weak NT, and for me, 2♦ is 100% "to play 2♦", and I get somewhat annoyed when the opponents stare at me wondering when the TD of decades experience and writer of a well-known analysis of the 2018 ACBL Alert regulations is going to announce my partner's transfer, never mind "stare at me and then ask" - even better if they then pass and somehow partner bids their heart fit. I know *why* they do it, but that doesn't mean I like it.

[finesse157]

mycroft, on 2022-April-08, 08:51, said:

Here's your problem. You failed to follow the rules, and now as a result

I realize there are arguments that you should be asking here, since "oh, transfer"-2♥ happens a lot, but in this auction, where it is clear they aren't certain of their agreements (and unlike 1NT-p, that there are differing agreements more than once a blue moon (*)), I think your requirement-to-confirm is much lower (if it exists at all). And you did wait a bit for the Alert - that's sort of asking.

So, what should have happened?


"oh alert, 2♥" should not "get around to you". You should call the director as soon as it happens, and allow her to decide if 21B1a applies ("could well have been invluenced by misinformation"). If it does, then you get to change your call, partner is entitled to *both* auctions (you would have doubled a natural 2♦, you're doing [whatever] opposite a transfer), the double is UI to the opponents and the game continues.

Having not done that:

but now, both sides are "at fault", at least partially, because this would all have gone away if the director had been called at the correct time. The great discussion on the flawed 2017 version of Law11A (see a fortunate inadmissable double thread from right here on BBF) applies, as does 10B ("you were okay with the correction when it happened, I'll allow the waiver now"). But those cases tend to be enforced when "it was okay when you thought it was going to hurt the opponents, now that it's backfired you want the director to fix it", and this isn't such a case, it's a "oh, late Alert, yeah, I guess it's okay", only it isn't.) So I probably would adjust. If I did, it would probably be that you did either what you said you would do, or made whatever call is a takeout of hearts, if you have one. But I would be ruling "at-fault/partially at-fault" when it came to judging weightings.

(*) For instance, I play a weak NT, and for me, 2♦ is 100% "to play 2♦", and I get somewhat annoyed when the opponents stare at me wondering when the TD of decades experience and writer of a well-known analysis of the 2018 ACBL Alert regulations is going to announce my partner's transfer, never mind "stare at me and then ask" - even better if they then pass and somehow partner bids their heart fit. I know *why* they do it, but that doesn't mean I like it.

This is the perfect answer, thank you.

I should have stated that the game was online so the 2D self-alert was late and came after I had bid, and at the same time that the 2H bid was made. It was at this point that I called the Director (ASAP). So 21B1a applies exactly, but how should the director have handled it?

FYI. With the correct alert, I pass and bid 2N (leb) over the 2H bid.

With the director encouraging us to continue (and tell him if we were damaged), I did not have the chance to take the bid back.
TBH also, I direct online on the EBU occasionally, and I might have made the same decision. Personally I would give a score/Av or score/Av+.
However, I was not looking for an adjustment, rather to learn what went wrong

[mycroft]

That changes things. It depends on whether undos have been allowed by the tournament operator.

If yes, even if they are only expected to be used with the director present, the "correct" thing to do is to call the director, have the director rule that 21B1a applies, have you request, and the opponents accept, an undo, and bid correctly, sticking around to ensure UI is not used.

If not, then 21B3 has to apply ("It is too late to change a call" because of the technical limitations imposed by the tournament) and unlike what I said last time, the director would rule that you were in no way at fault. She should probably ask you (privately, now, before the auction ends) what you would do with the correct information (so that you don't "magically" find the right answer after seeing all the hands - if we're emulating 21B1 as much as the tech allows, you wouldn't get a chance to wait).

If the director just says "play on and we'll figure it out later", well then she does her best "later".