[rigour6]

Scoring: MP

---

On the auction
N: 1H
E: 2C
S: 2D (alert -nat)
All pass

W seeks redress on the grounds that "nat" does not sufficiently describe the bid as non-forcing.

Result: 2DS-3

Questions:

1) Is S's description actionable if it does not include the "non-forcing" aspect? Is W entitled to assume that it is natural and forcing?
2) What adjustment should be made?


Not to seed the question, but my inclination is 1) "probably" and 2) none.

[TylerE]

What is the actual partnership AGREEMENT. Is 2♦ actually non-forcing, or did N simply choose to pass.

That out of the way, was there damage? If I were EW I would be happy to get 150 on these cards...looks like 110 or 130 at most playing !C, with 2NT probably down.

Also, seems to me E might have failed to play bridge, by simply bidding 2♣ with that monster and not doubling after 2♦ - p - p (Or Xing the first time). After N passes 2♦ E certainly should be suspicious.

[jtfanclub]

Um, yes it's actionable. No, I don't think damage occurred. West should have called after North's pass, and then he'd have been given another chance to bid (bidding would have been backed up as long as East hasn't made a call). But that's OK.

What's West going to do with the correct information?

[rigour6]

jtfanclub, on Jul 22 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

What's West going to do with the correct information?

That question there is the key to why I didn't see any need for redress.

That, and I agree that making 150 on those cards is pretty good news for EW.

(I too would have started with an X in east's shoes, but hey, whatever)


As far what's NS's agreement, again this is a pick-up game so I think that N knew 2D was not forcing, but past that, who knows?

[hotShot]

1) Were E/W missinformed?
2) Were E/W damaged?
3) Is the damage consequence of the missinformation?

1) Lets assume there was. (And I'm far from sure there was.)

2) What is the likely thing to happen if West is informed that 2♦ is nonforcing?
West has no bid, so West is not damaged.
East can see that North passed and can count his points so he knows that South bid was nonforcing.

So where is the damage?

No damage no case.

[barmar]

I agree that there was no damage to EW. The only potential redress might be a procedural penalty against NS for failing to follow proper disclosure rules.

[matmat]

hotShot, on Jul 22 2008, 02:03 PM, said:

East can see that North passed and can count his points so he knows that South bid was nonforcing.

I have little clue about the proper ruling,

I am also not sure what I am supposed to do if I am sitting East.

Three different thoughts come to mind here:

1) 2♦ was mis-alerted, and is, by opp's agreement, a non-forcing call
2) 2♦ is forcing, but N forgot (could also be that 2♦ is a conventional call of some sort here)
3) 2♦ is forcing, but N psyched and chose to pass.

if there was a psych somewhere it is impossible that West has a penalty pass of 2♦ or some such. Not impossible in case 1) either. So there might be a case for reopening in either situation.
But if 2 is the case, then shutting up is the way to go.

I am never certain as to what questions are appropriate to ask and which are not, at the table... it's sort of a catch 22. if you ask the wrong question or as the right question wrong, you're giving your partner UI and might end up getting a penalty yourself.

(sorry for the rambling)

[jtfanclub]

If they have an agreement, you're allowed to know about it.

If 2♦ is forcing, you're not allowed to ask if it was a psyche, or a judgement call, or even if North didn't see the bid correctly (or maybe thought your partner X'd).

Face to Face, It'd probably go 1♠ P 2♦ P P Director! If I was sitting east. Once things get clarified, then I'd pass.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Jul 23 2008, 04:49 AM, said:

I agree that there was no damage to EW. The only potential redress might be a procedural penalty against NS for failing to follow proper disclosure rules.

That's not "redress" in the sense the laws use that word. The criteria for and purpose of procedural (and disciplinary) penalties is a separate issue from the criteria for and purpose of what the new laws call "rectification" — i.e., redress for damage.

[rigour6]

barmar, on Jul 23 2008, 04:49 AM, said:

I agree that there was no damage to EW. The only potential redress might be a procedural penalty against NS for failing to follow proper disclosure rules.

Just so I'm clear, last I looked such "procedural penalties" existed as only a theoretical entity, the software doesn't actually give me as a TD any way to actually alter the score of just one pair. Is that still the case?

I let the -150 ride for a pretty good result EW, ironically of course the only real sanction which became involved was that W decided he'd make a snarky comment aimed at me personally, and that went (kick/ban), because I don't volunteer my time to have people I don't know point out my shortcomings, I can get at home from people I love. I suspect that when he hit the lobby he was apoplectic, but the nice thing about the software is once I ban you, I can't even see the postings, so my day goes on quietly, and you get to find a TD which is more to your liking.

[jtfanclub]

rigour6, on Jul 23 2008, 01:54 PM, said:

Just so I'm clear, last I looked such "procedural penalties" existed as only a theoretical entity, the software doesn't actually give me as a TD any way to actually alter the score of just one pair. Is that still the case?

Only with A+/- or the like. No, you can't hurt NS more than the 150 is like to already do.

Had a Norwiegan fellow call me stupid yesterday because the opponents were playing 2♣ P 3♦ as "points", and he didn't think they should be allowed to play it or something. I offered to adjust the score to 3♥X-4 by him, but he didn't seem to see that as a kindness. I didn't kick him out, though.

[rigour6]

I don't know if it reflects growing (misplaced) confidence in my rulings, or just altered blood sugar but whereas in the old days I used to try and reason people through these things, asking a series of telling questions, like:
"what's the damage to you?
"if it had been alerted, what would you have bid?"
"what's the lead you would have made?" followed by "and how would that make a difference?"

I have generally found those conversations weren't successful. Typically the person calling has made a bad decision and is now looking to blame the opps (I don't think that was the case here). Typically their explanations fall into two categories:
1) I can't tell you how it would have worked out better for us but I demand my A+ anyway for punitive reasons
2) Some very complicated explanation which might be technically right but I just don't see your average player deciding to take that line, barring latent extra-sensory perception.

So then the thing spirals down as the person gets frustrated with my obvious stupidity. And eventually they insult me and then whammo. Some players have saved us all time but jumping right to the insult, and on this I've really become zero tolerant, because
a) hey this is me you're insulting (ego),
but I hope at least partially
b.) disrespect for officials, particularly officials who are volunteering, really feels like a red card offense to me. I know some of the TDs suck as Directors (especially me) but bottom line, that's really not a justification for people to insult us
c) my games are free and relaxed so if you're going to take an attitude, either looking for penalties for missed alerts or alternatively, sniping at the director, well really my games aren't the place for you. I know you'll be ticked when I boot you, but you'll get over it and go on with your life and be happier not having to deal with idiots like me, and I'll do likewise only substituting the words "jerks like you" for "idiots like me".
d) (childish) it is satisfying to have someone readying for a big long snark at you, and have the power to just go, "you know what? not today" and just escort them to the lobby and mark them enemy so they can rant to everyone else but you can go back to running your tourney.