[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2011-January-20, 11:09, said:

Transfers are announced.

Transfers to the majors (at any level) are announced. Transfers to the minors (not generally applicable over a 2NT opening, I'll grant you) are alerted.

IME, when a "C" player hears 5♥ in this auction, his reaction is "what the hell does that mean? I pass!" Absent UI, I'd say the same about 5♦ in response to Texas, except that I'd replace "pass" with "bid 5♥". IOW, I don't think pass is an LA to 5♥, though I'd want to poll to be sure.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-20, 12:42, said:

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.

Which one is that, as I do not recall it?

[peachy]

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

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

If these are truly "C" players, the normal (in my experience and observation over 33 years) reaction when something seems to be amiss, is for C-players to pass as soon as possible before anything worse happens... So South is not going anywhere.

[TimG]

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.

Phil, on 2011-January-20, 11:08, said:

I was thinking that 5♦ was a cue bid

Which is it?

[jillybean]

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.

This comment is outrageous, it is no wonder that directors have a bad reputation.

[TimG]

jillybean, on 2011-January-20, 13:48, said:

This comment is outrageous, it is no wonder that directors have a bad reputation.

Indeed. From time to time it would be nice to have a downvote option...

[Siegmund]

Outrageous or not the comment was moderately close to to the truth. Even if they have heard of a cuebid, you are not going to find ANY C players who have an agreement about what 4D(Texas)-5D means, OR who have an agreement about what 4D(nat)-5D(nat)-5H means.

It is obvious even to a stray dog passing by outside the bridge club window that, announcement or no announcement, raising 4D to 5D tells North his partner has forgotten Texas, and (if South has ever heard of texas in his life) that 5H tells South "you idiot, you forgot Texas."

Not remotely close to an adjustment for C players. For more experienced players you can talk about procedural penalties or whatnot. It's still going to be REALLY hard to find very many cases where people will assume these are cuebidding auctions.

Contrast this with 1NT-2D-2H-3D, which DOES have a legitimate meaning (a red two-suiter) widely known and used even by novices, and there is a case for black magic in the air if 3D gets passed and responder turns out to have six diamonds and a bad hand.

[AlexJonson]

Siegmund, on 2011-January-20, 13:59, said:

Outrageous or not the comment was moderately close to to the truth. Even if they have heard of a cuebid, you are not going to find ANY C players who have an agreement about what 4D(Texas)-5D means, OR who have an agreement about what 4D(nat)-5D(nat)-5H means.

It is obvious even to a stray dog passing by outside the bridge club window that, announcement or no announcement, raising 4D to 5D tells North his partner has forgotten Texas, and (if South has ever heard of texas in his life) that 5H tells South "you idiot, you forgot Texas."

Not remotely close to an adjustment for C players. For more experienced players you can talk about procedural penalties or whatnot. It's still going to be REALLY hard to find very many cases where people will assume these are cuebidding auctions.

Contrast this with 1NT-2D-2H-3D, which DOES have a legitimate meaning (a red two-suiter) widely known and used even by novices, and there is a case for black magic in the air if 3D gets passed and responder turns out to have six diamonds and a bad hand.

I guess for legalists the problem might be whether the laws related to UI mention class of player. I am not an expert, but I think they do not.

[AlexJonson]

peachy, on 2011-January-20, 13:23, said:

If these are truly "C" players, the normal (in my experience and observation over 33 years) reaction when something seems to be amiss, is for C-players to pass as soon as possible before anything worse happens... So South is not going anywhere.

So, Peachy, an impossible situation at 5♥. We are already playing in 5♦, the first C passable contract.

[AlexJonson]

lamford, on 2011-January-20, 13:02, said:

Which one is that, as I do not recall it?

Don't you really, Lamford.

Where are Bluejak and DBurn when you really need them.

[awm]

I'm sure that I don't have an agreement about what 5♦ means over texas. The texas transfer is often a game-level sign off, there are no super-accepts past game for that bid. So while there is UI (the lack of announcement) that texas was forgotten, I think AI (5♦ bid) conveys the same information. Even if south psyched 2NT, it's hard to imagine he'd bid 5♦ rather than pass 4♦ (or accept the transfer to 4♥). I don't think passing 5♦ is a logical alternative -- North's 5♥ call should stand.

There is some question as to why south passed 5♥. But there's no obvious UI for south, and given the level of the players involved and the failure to cuebid over 4♦ I think the result has to stand.

[jillybean]

TimG, on 2011-January-20, 13:52, said:

Indeed. From time to time it would be nice to have a downvote option...

I think I have made my down vote. I don’t believe there is any need to do it anonymously or veiled as sarcasm.

[RMB1]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-20, 14:23, said:

I guess for legalists the problem might be whether the laws related to UI mention class of player. I am not an expert, but I think they do not.

Think again

Law 16B1( said:

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

(My emphasis)

[mycroft]

Two differences between this one and the Ghestem one:
1) partner bid 2NT. Partner doesn't bid 2NT with 8 diamonds.
2) I can't pass 5D undoubled and get partner to tell me what is going on.

Is passing 5D reasonable? Unfortunately, I think so. I wouldn't do it - I'd bid 5H for exactly the reason described here "partner must have a slam try, and whatever it is, with Sxxx, I don't have it" - but I'm not a C player.

I also agree with many here who think that "cueball" is a bad generalization for C players. Many C players I know know what one is - even if the only way *they* remember how to suggest slam is 4NT (okay, the D players only know how to suggest slam with 4C. Give me this one), they get it when I bid it - and they sure know not to pass, whether or not they know what to show! If they are the kind of C players who play forgettable conventions they don't understand and also can't bid slam without ole Black, then we need to be told that. If they're the kind of C players who I had to "kick out" of the 199er game for their own good (and proceeded to put together a 58% game in the <1000), that's a different story.

[bluejak]

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

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

The idea of this forum is to help people with directing problems. When dealing with C players you do your best as a TD, the same as when dealing with top internationals.

Yes, the bridge they play is different , but the professional approach of the TD should not be.

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

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.

It is not just an arbitrary decision: it is an illegal decision, clearly wrong. You should be giving correct rulings to C players whether it is a Unit Championship, or a Ladies afternoon jaunt with tea and crumpets. Also, whether it would be a zero, you should make rulings without knowing the effect of them.

I am not sure I blame the pair for saying you made a bad ruling since you did. If you had made the correct ruling - see other posts for the approach - and explained it properly perhaps both sides would accept it without this sort of comeback.

Do not start giving Averages as compromises, fair or otherwise: just follow the Laws. Here you either have an infraction in Law and damage - in which case adjust per law 12C1E - or you do not.

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-20, 12:42, said:

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.

If you are referring to the Ghestem case the pass of 5♣ doubled was obvious without the UI since it could easily be the correct contract, and very likely was. Only the UI suggests otherwise. In this case the player who bid 5♥ has a pretty fair idea that 5♦ is the wrong contract from the logic of the situation.

Legally, the difference is seen by asking "Were there LAs to 5♥?" in both cases and "Did the UI suggest 5♥ over the LA?". In the Ghestem case pass of 5♣ doubled was clearly an LA, being the obvious action without the UI. In this case pass of 5♦ does not really look like an LA at all. Of course, in both cases 5♥ is suggested by the UI, but if there is no LA to 5♥ then that does not matter.

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-20, 14:23, said:

I guess for legalists the problem might be whether the laws related to UI mention class of player. I am not an expert, but I think they do not.

They do not mention the class of player specifically, but they do not need to. When making a judgement ruling, judgement of what players will do depends on their class. For example, when considering whether a call is an LA you really want to know what the peers of the player concerned will do.

Also, when deciding whether a player is damaged you have to decide what might [not "would"] have happened without the infraction. What might have happened is likely to be different for different classes of player.

[Note: I see Robin has found that they do mention the class of player specifically. Ah, well, that's what comes of not reading the Law again. But my general comment stands: whether said specifically or not, the class of player is relevant in judgement rulings.]

[Phil]

Oh well, won't be the first or last time I make a bad ruling.

[AlexJonson]

Well it turns out it's all very simple.

One day partner bids 5m after a misunderstanding, and you are clearly a 'cheat' if you don't pass.

Next day partner bids 5m after a misunderstanding, and you are a 'cheat' if you do pass (maybe not so clearly).

Do me a favour.

[AndreSteff]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-20, 12:42, said:

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.

I know that case!
The difference is that in this case there is no way that 5♦can be meant to play, except when you use the UI.

[dburn]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-20, 14:27, said:

Where are Bluejak and DBurn when you really need them.

Since bluejak and I do not always agree entirely with one another, the net effect of having neither of us contribute tends to be the same as the net effect of having both of us contribute, except that the latter takes longer to peruse.

However, on this occasion I do agree almost entirely with my learned colleague. Certainly a Director should only very rarely award artificial adjusted scores such as A+ or A- in cases such as this; he may do so only if attempting to award a weighted score (where these are permitted) and judging that the possible outcomes are "numerous or not obvious" [Law 12C1d]. Instead, the Director should consider whether North's bid of 5♥ is an infraction: if it is, it should be cancelled; if it is not, it should be allowed to stand; and the table score should be adjusted if necessary.

North has the UI that South does not know that 4♦ showed hearts and was intended only to have South rather than North declare 4♥. Thus, North knows what he is not entitled to know: that South is actually raising North's "diamonds". The question is: would North know that anyway? Suppose (as one should generally suppose in such cases) that North and South were separated by a screen, so that from North's point of view the auction is impossible - he is staggered when the tray returns with 5♦ rather than 4♥ in front of South. May North assume that South has forgotten? Or must North assume that his partner bid 5♦ knowing full well what 4♦ meant, and act accordingly?

The method of resolving this question is not clear. There are some who believe, not without justification, that North must in fact proceed as if South had explained 4♦ as "hearts, not necessarily more than game values" and then bid five diamonds over it. This has never struck me as altogether satisfactory, because it implies that North is in effect permitted to take advantage of the UI that partner has actually remembered the system. Others believe (as I do) that North must proceed as if he had not heard anything at all from the South quarter with regard to 4♦, and is allowed to guess or deduce that South has forgotten the methods. The first school would disallow 5♥, the second school would condone it. Until more official guidance on the question is given than we have at present (although some might exist of which I am unaware), any given ruling may depend on the school to which the Director or the Appeals Committee belongs.

The difference between this and the Ghestem case is that in the former, the table auction is impossible - South can't have a 2NT opening that bids 5♦ over what is in effect a sign-off in 4♥. In the latter, a South who hears his partner show the red suits might nevertheless want to play in 5♣ - that auction is not impossible, even though it might be implausible (particularly if South has passed at some previous opportunity to bid).

[iviehoff]

AlexJonson, on 2011-January-20, 16:39, said:

Well it turns out it's all very simple.
One day partner bids 5m after a misunderstanding, and you are clearly a 'cheat' if you don't pass.
Next day partner bids 5m after a misunderstanding, and you are a 'cheat' if you do pass (maybe not so clearly).
Do me a favour.

You are focusing on an irrelevant piece of information to imply a similarity that doesn't exist.