[jillybean]

Hi,
In lieu of an appeals committee I have said I welcome any questions about td decisions to be posted here.
I hope everyone can benefit, I know I do by having these decisions scrutinized.

N/S made no alerts during the auction. E/W doubled 3♠ as lead directing and after the opening lead, called me and claimed damage.
I asked for the board to be played out and I would review it afterwards. The actual result of the board was 3♠SX+1
E/W disagreed with my decision and said ‘the board was unplayable, opps should be given A-“

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     Pass  Pass  1♣
 Pass  1♦    Pass  2♦
 Pass  2NT   Pass  3♠
 Dbl   Pass  Pass  Pass
 

My ruling,,,

Spoiler

Law21 call based on misinformation (X of 3♠)
Law40B Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited
(failure to alert 1♣)
Law40C If the director decides that a side has damaged
through its opponents failure to explain the full meaning of a
call or play she may award an adjusted score.
Damage due to failure to alert adjusted 3SS+1, reminded N/S to alert

tyia
jb

[david_c]

I don't agree with adjusting to 3♠ undoubled. You should try to find out what system N-S were playing, but it looks to me like they are in a game-forcing situation. (Most likely they are playing Polish Club and 2♦ is an artificial game force.) So there is no way that N-S will play in a part-score after this start. I would say that contracts of 3NT, 4♥ and 4♠ are all possibilities.

Then the important question becomes, is it possible for N-S to go down in game? I think yes, this is very likely. Four of either major will almost certainly go down on a diamond lead, and 3NT is also one down on best defence.

So I would be adjusting to some game contract off one.

[jillybean]

hi,
I couldnt find out what agreements N/S had - they couldnt/wouldnt communicate with me.
The rationale of adjusting to ie 4♠-1 is clearer now ,
thanks

[hotShot]

E/W were damaged by the missing alerts (more than one).
I think 4♥ makes (or even +1) since you can play a ruffing finesse with the 3rd ♠, after playing AK of trump.
4♠ is probably down 1.
So a propper adjustmend would have been 3♠= and 4♠-1 has some reason.

Without knowing the system NS were playing, it's hard to know what they would have bid without the dbl.

[paulg]

Clearly it is right to adjust. I believe they will play in 4♥ and would give them 9 tricks. as there seems no reason not to play for spades 3-3 in normal play.

Note EW's desire for A+/A- is technically unlawful once a result has been obtained.

Paul

[hotShot]

cardsharp, on Jun 4 2006, 08:58 PM, said:

Clearly it is right to adjust. I believe they will play in 4♥ and would give them 9 tricks.  as there seems no reason not to play for spades 3-3 in normal play.

edit: faulty comment removed

[jillybean]

cardsharp, on Jun 4 2006, 11:58 AM, said:

Clearly it is right to adjust. I believe they will play in 4♥ and would give them 9 tricks.  as there seems no reason not to play for spades 3-3 in normal play.

Note EW's desire for A+/A- is technically unlawful once a result has been obtained.

Paul

I dont see how they would find 4♥, isn't 3/4♠ a more likely contract?

[hotShot]

If they are in a GF sequence, without fit North will bid 3NT. South bids 4♥ and they are there.

[pigpenz]

my opinion on this one would be to give EW avg plus...NS avg - and also give NS a procedural penalty...giving them a net zero.

[blackshoe]

If you have no idea what system a pair is playing, it's kind of hard to figure out to what contract(s) they might have got.

Questions (for future reference in making rulings on this kind of case; I don't expect answers on this one):

1. what alert regulations were in force?
2. what convention card regulations were in force?
3. If NS were required to have CCs, did they have them?
4. Did West say he would not have doubled 3♠ if he'd had correct information about NS's auction?

Jillybean's ruling is okay, up to a point. First you decide which law has been infracted (in this case Law 21), then you see where that law takes you (Law 21C takes you to Law 40C, which allows the TD to adjust the score if she decides the NOS has been damaged). Has the NOS been damaged? Well, if West would not have doubled, they may have been, since 3♠X made 4. So how do we adjust? Law 12C2 says the NOS gets "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" and the OS gets "the most unfavorable result that was at all possible".

North has 5 points. How strong does he think South is? If 3 ♠ is forcing, then North might well have bid 3NT. At that point, South might pass, or he might bid 4♥. 3NT makes maybe 6 tricks. Down 3 is -150, down 4 is -200. Seems to me 3NT-4 is "at all possible", and their worst such score, so I would award that to NS.

If the double had not occurred, NS might well have bid on to 4 ♠, and gone down 1. I suspect its' likely West might have doubled that, so 4 ♠-1 for EW.

I've made assumptions here that I would prefer not to make when making rulings. I would much prefer to know what NSs system actually is. But you can't always get what you want.

This is a judgement ruling - I would inform both pairs of their right to appeal (Law 83).

I agree with reminding EW to alert when required - call it a procedural penalty in the form of a warning, and if they fail again, issue a PP in imps.

West's opinions about the playability of the board (they did, after all, play it! ) and what the ruling should be are (a) irrelevant and ( incorrect. 'Nuf said about that.

[paulg]

pigpenz, on Jun 5 2006, 05:13 PM, said:

my opinion on this one would be to give EW avg plus...NS avg - and also give NS a procedural penalty...giving them a net zero.

BBO brings new problems to directors that they'd rarely face in real life. The players and TD may not share a common language, alerting rules and 'standard' vary by country, and so I'm not keen on penalising first time offenders.

Giving A+/A- on a board where a result is obtained is not supported by the Laws and, if we wish the standards of directing to improve, then we should strive not to use it.

I believe jillybean handled the situation well even though I'd have adjusted differently.

Paul

[blackshoe]

pigpenz, on Jun 5 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

my opinion on this one would be to give EW avg plus...NS avg - and also give NS a procedural penalty...giving them a net zero.

It is at least unethical, IMO, if not illegal, to award a PP so as to give a contestant a specific net score on a board. See Law 81B2 and Law 12B. PPs should reflect the severity of the offense, taking into account the experience level of the offender, not the whim of the TD.

It is also illegal, as somebody mentioned upthread, to award an artificial adjusted score after a result has been obtained (Laws 12C1 and 12C2).

[jillybean]

Thanks for the replies, your comments are very helpful.

I obviously don’t yet know enough about the various systems to understand what the likely auction, continuations would have been in these types of auctions.

One change I am going to make to my tournaments is put a restriction so only players who have language=English set in their BBO version can play. This won’t be popular, I will make exceptions for some regular players but hopefully it will make my job easier.

jb

[inquiry]

blackshoe, on Jun 5 2006, 11:35 AM, said:

pigpenz, on Jun 5 2006, 11:13 AM, said:

my opinion on this one would be to give EW avg plus...NS avg - and also give NS a procedural penalty...giving them a net zero.

It is at least unethical, IMO, if not illegal, to award a PP so as to give a contestant a specific net score on a board. See Law 81B2 and Law 12B. PPs should reflect the severity of the offense, taking into account the experience level of the offender, not the whim of the TD.

It is also illegal, as somebody mentioned upthread, to award an artificial adjusted score after a result has been obtained (Laws 12C1 and 12C2).

The director was called after the opening lead. There should have been no result obtained. The hand can not be played normally after failure to alert the following:

• 1♣ artificial and forcing
  
• 1♦ artificial and negative
  
• 2♦ artificial and game force, may have very long unbid major
  
• 2NT goodness only knows what
  
• 3♠ my REAL suit, GF

That is at least four and maybe five unalerted bids. There is no way a normal result can be obtained now. If west knew 3♠ was focing, he would not have doubled for "lead" against likely 3NT contract. This is a horrible mess. Nor do I see a way the director can restore equity. 4♠X? 4♥? 3NT? No, this is clearly a LAW 21 and LAW 12 hand. LAW 21B3. Which states, Too Late to Change Call When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an adjusted score (Law 40C may apply). After opening lead hits the table and all is revealed, it is too late to make a change of call.

Law 40C states: 40C. Director’s Option[B]
If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents’ failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score.

So we know turn to law 12. The director, having ruled that the normal result is not possible could go with 12B2... fault no fault ruling and assign average minus to the offenders and average plus to the defenders. Or the director could decide to be more harsh and rule using 12C2 (assigned score), here giving the offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probabler (4♠x-1), and for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred (same result).

I think the mistake was allowing play to continue. This hand was hopelessly fouled by the failures to alert.

[PeterE]

No, please stop, Ben. This is totally the wrong approach. The TD shall allways try to get a (real) score on every board. This score is insofar needed to judge, whether at all damage occurred on the board. Perhaps the outcome will be very good for the non-offending side - who knows (especially at the table, before all four hands are visible).

The first duty of the TD in all cases of UI, MI etc. is to ascertain the facts and to let the bidding and/or play continue. Only in those rare cases, were the laws specifically mention artificial (adjusted) scores (eg Law 15, 17D etc.) it is correct to stop the play.

Of course after such a mess as in our current case the TD will have much fun to work out an assigned adjusted score afterwards, but who said, that the life of a TD is an easy one ?

[inquiry]

PeterE, on Jun 5 2006, 03:11 PM, said:

No, please stop, Ben. This is totally the wrong approach. The TD shall allways try to get a (real) score on every board. This score is insofar needed to judge, whether at all damage occurred on the board. Perhaps the outcome will be very good for the non-offending side - who knows (especially at the table, before all four hands are visible).

The first duty of the TD in all cases of UI, MI etc. is to ascertain the facts and to let the bidding and/or play continue. Only in those rare cases, were the laws specifically mention artificial (adjusted) scores (eg Law 15, 17D etc.) it is correct to stop the play.

Of course after such a mess as in our current case the TD will have much fun to work out an assigned adjusted score afterwards, but who said, that the life of a TD is an easy one ?

Well each law I quoted gives the director the right to assign a score. Start with LAW 21B3. Which states, Too Late to Change Call When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an adjusted score (Law 40C may apply).

Clearly after the opening lead, it IS TO LATE TO CHANGE A CALL. Even if 3♠x is going down EW would have had a shot at 4♠X if they had known 3♠ was real suit and FORCING to game, probably in spades.

40C also gives the director the right to adjust the score.

I can not see how anything useful is achieved from playing 3♠x EVEN IF IT GOES DOWN, since 3♠ would have been forcing. This is a total mess, and the director needs to step and and take control. There has been damage (several failures to alert), the opening lead has hit the table and dummy exposed, so it is too late to allow a change of call. The hand can not be played normally. Enough said.

[PeterE]

Nearly everything you said is agreed - of course. Except the verly last item. Surely can the hand be played normally. Perhaps the outcome will not be normal, but the TD does not know this and he does not care about ... at this moment. You also mentioned damage and meant infraction (I believe). Damage is - according to the Code of Practice -

CoP said:

Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in theinstant prior to the infraction.

Of course the score will most probably be adjusted afterwards.
But when the laws mention adjusted scores they refer to

Law 12 C said:

1. When, owing to an irregularity, no result can be obtained, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity: [...]
2. When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a nonoffending side, the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. [...]

And 12 C1 does not read "... no sensible result can be obtained ...". On the other side 12 C2 requires a table result before coming into life.

Once again: When the TD is summoned after dummy is faced in our case, he will hear the statements of the players, he will perhaps ask additional questions, but he will not look into the cards of the players. He will ascertain all needed facts (hopefully) and then he will order the players to go on with the play and to call him back after play finished.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Peter. That's how I understand the Laws, and the job of the TD.