[Phil]

"C" players:

---

Its matchpoints so there is a big difference between +440 in 5♦ +7 and 450 for 5♥=.

4♦ is Texas - not alerted.

If you ask them what 5♦ is over Texas you will get a blank stare.

Adjust or not?

[campboy]

I don't think so. If 5♦ means anything after Texas, surely it is a slam try in hearts, and North isn't interested. Obviously worth doing a poll, but I doubt you'd find any LAs.

[lamford]

Assuming North did not convey his dismay that 4D was not alerted in some way, then no adjustment.

Indeed, if North were to pass he would be using the UI, and if this were more successful I would adjust to 5H, which is also the correct ethical bid.

[mfa1010]

I agree with the previous posters.

[TimG]

I don't think North has done anything wrong. But, how did South find the pass of 5♥? Isn't 5♥ a cue-bid in this sequence (if 4♦ is natural and forcing)?

[AlexJonson]

Looking at North first, is it impossible that South is 3163. If South had alerted and then bid 5♦, would not a lot of North players consider passing.

Looking at South, it would seem that North's 5♥ (as TimG suggests) might be a cue bid, as we are asked to believe in the case of South's 5♦.

[Phil]

These are "C" players! Did you miss that? They don't know a cue bid from a cue ball.

[AlexJonson]

Phil, on 2011-January-20, 09:46, said:

These are "C" players! Did you miss that? They don't know a cue bid from a cue ball.

Well let's put it differently. If 5♥ is incomprehensible, will South return to diamonds.

[wyman]

TimG, on 2011-January-20, 09:23, said:

I don't think North has done anything wrong. But, how did South find the pass of 5♥? Isn't 5♥ a cue-bid in this sequence (if 4♦ is natural and forcing)?

I'm not sure that if 4D is natural that it must be forcing, especially among C players with weak agreements. In fact, if 4D is natural and forcing (and stronger than 5D), then the big hand should be cuebidding, or bidding 6D or something. He has a monster. So it's pretty clear to me that the big hand doesn't think 4D is forcing. This makes 5H impossible, and should be enough to wake the big hand up to the fact that something fishy is going on, such as "oh, crap, we play transfers."

But I'm anxious, as always, to hear about the reactions that led to the potential UI.

[hrothgar]

Phil, on 2011-January-20, 09:46, said:

These are "C" players! Did you miss that? They don't know a cue bid from a cue ball.

Then when bother wasting cycles trying to generate an answer based on the assumption that said individuals are playing bridge?

Either

1. You have a bunch of clueless gits, in which case you should do whatever you damn well feel like since they'll never know the difference

OR

2. You treat this as a learning experience, in which case you generate a ruling that presumes that the players in question have some clue what they're doing and are capable of learning.

FWIW, if this ["These are "C" players! Did you miss that? They don't know a cue bid from a cue ball.
"] is your attitude towards flight C players, I question whether you're the right person to be involved in adjudicating results.

[RMB1]

Can some one confirm that Texas (in response to 1NT) is alertable. It isn't in EBU.

[wyman]

In ACBL-land, it (like other transfers) is announceable.

[Phil]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-20, 09:52, said:

Well let's put it differently. If 5♥ is incomprehensible, will South return to diamonds.

I was thinking that 5♦ was a cue bid and 5♥ was UP. It never occurred to me that 5♥ could be taken as a cue. Is it really so strange for a beginner to bid this way with: AKx Ax KQxxxx Ax or the hand he held? Here it seems that 5♦ could be construed as natural (and I have no doubt this was how it was intended). I'm not even sure you have to determine if 5♦ shows a long diamond suit, or its 'raising' a 'natural' 4♦ call.

The play in 5♦ looks simple but 5♥ isn't if partner has a heart holding like H-x. Sure, the hand with QT-6t struck gold with 5♥ but should she be allowed to?

What would a "C" player actually do with a fistful of diamonds over a 2N opener? It seems 4♦ (temporarily forgetting the transfer) would be possible.

It seems this is similar (but not identical) to Case 20 from Las Vegas '01 Casebook:

The review committee thought West could only pull 4♠ because it was doubled, the hand with diamonds had a spade void, and because partner was a passed hand. It was unlikely West was sandbagging by passing with a lot of spades. In this thread, what basis does a hand with QTxxxx have to pull a 'natural' 5♦ call?

Opener's lack of an alert of 4♦ is clearly UI. The LA's to consider are pass and 5♥ and maybe 6♦. We have diamonds - so we pass, since we've already told our story with 4♦.

Maybe on Friday, I'll round up some "C" players and ask them what they would do over 5♦.

[Phil]

RMB1, on 2011-January-20, 10:42, said:

Can some one confirm that Texas (in response to 1NT) is alertable. It isn't in EBU.

Transfers are announced.

[Phil]

hrothgar, on 2011-January-20, 10:22, said:

FWIW, if this (snipped quote) is your attitude towards flight C players, I question whether you're the right person to be involved in adjudicating results.

Vitriol aside, I consulted with other directors (3) in the room, and everyone thought that 5♥ was taking advantage of the failure to alert. One of the directors was EW at this table, and was willing to let it go, however, the game was a Unit Championship, and was a relatively significant event, so I try to make adjustments instead of just ignoring the problem.

We both agreed that NS should try to take something from the experience about what happens when your partner doesn't alert your bids and your responsibilities. Judging from the comments, perhaps this one isn't as clearcut of an example that I would like to educate a "C" pair on.

Instead of +440 (which would have been next to a zero - one pair reached the doomed 6♥), I adjusted to A+/A-. I readily admit (and did at the time) that this was an arbitrary decision, since I can't see any basis in law for assigning A+/A-. Controversy aside, A- seemed like a fair compromise without giving them a virtual zero on one board.

It was only until last night when I played this "C" pair in a swiss match did I get an earful of "you made a bad ruling on Sunday, I spoke with such-and-such director, bla bla bla".

That is why I posted this.

[campboy]

Your ruling was blatantly illegal. Either you think that pass is a logical alternative and 5♥ was suggested, in which case you have to adjust the score to 5♦+2, or you don't in which case 5♥ was legal and table score stands.

Incidentally, it is worth reminding South to draw attention to his failure to alert/announce when he becomes aware of it (as it seems likely he woke up after 5♥).

[iviehoff]

TimG, on 2011-January-20, 09:23, said:

But, how did South find the pass of 5♥? Isn't 5♥ a cue-bid in this sequence (if 4♦ is natural and forcing)?

What legal issue does North's pass raise? If N has no UI, he is within his rights to bid what he chooses. He isn't fielding a misbid either. So he's allowed to think that partner bid 5H because he wants to play there.

My partner did that once - a really rather decent player who has won county level events:
1S - 3S
4C - pass
Except in our case it led to the only negative score on the traveller.

[AlexJonson]

iviehoff, on 2011-January-20, 11:50, said:

What legal issue does North's pass raise? If N has no UI, he is within his rights to bid what he chooses. He isn't fielding a misbid either. So he's allowed to think that partner bid 5H because he wants to play there.

My partner did that once - a really rather decent player who has won county level events:
1S - 3S
4C - pass
Except in our case it led to the only negative score on the traveller.

I think you mean South. Of course, this is about suggesting a question to South about the reason for his final pass. I guess if he says 'partner looked as if he would shoot me if I bid again' ...

[lamford]

Phil, on 2011-January-20, 11:26, said:

Instead of +440 (which would have been next to a zero - one pair reached the doomed 6♥), I adjusted to A+/A-. I readily admit (and did at the time) that this was an arbitrary decision, since I can't see any basis in law for assigning A+/A-. Controversy aside, A- seemed like a fair compromise without giving them a virtual zero on one board.

This was indeed arbitrary, as you state, being "based on personal whim, rather than any reason or system" (Dictionary.com). I think the players will, in the long-term, prefer that you apply the Law. Firstly, there was no infraction (except the failure to alert). Indeed both South and North considered 4D to be natural. South was raising diamonds, and North thought that was what South was doing. But North only knows that from the failure to announce. If South had announced, "transfer to hearts" and bid 5D, North might well have passed, having no idea what 5D meant. But now, he is legally obliged to bid 5H, even though it rates to fail. It was pure chance that South had H AKx and that both contracts made the same tricks. You do not punish a bid because it is unauthorised panic, if it is also the only legal choice. And the directors with whom you consulted should have this explained to them as well.

It seems to me that there were "C" directors, rather than "C" players.

[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-January-20, 12:07, said:

This was indeed arbitrary, as you state, being "based on personal whim, rather than any reason or system" (Dictionary.com). I think the players will, in the long-term, prefer that you apply the Law. Firstly, there was no infraction (except the failure to alert). Indeed both South and North considered 4D to be natural. South was raising diamonds, and North thought that was what South was doing. But North only knows that from the failure to announce. If South had announced, "transfer to hearts" and bid 5D, North might well have passed, having no idea what 5D meant. But now, he is legally obliged to bid 5H, even though it rates to fail. It was pure chance that South had H AKx and that both contracts made the same tricks. You do not punish a bid because it is unauthorised panic, if it is also the only legal choice. And the directors with whom you consulted should have this explained to them as well.

It seems to me that there were "C" directors, rather than "C" players.

North's suit is Hearts. I fail to see the difference between this case and the recent case where the concensus was to pass 5♣ and not bid Hearts.