[Coelacanth]

ACBL Regional Open Pairs

NS are both accomplished players (over 5,000 MP each) but not an experienced partnership
EW are good players (well, West is; East was me) but significantly less-experienced than NS

---

The auction was as shown. South thought for quite some time before passing over 2♥. After South's pass, West began to consider his call. (Clearly, he was deciding between passing and a 3♣ balance.)

Upon noticing West starting to think, South turned to West and said something like (sorry I don't remember it verbatim): "You really don't want to bid here. We play negative free bids, so my partner's double followed by 2♠ shows a much stronger hand than bidding 2♠ directly. 2♠ was forcing by agreement but I judged to pass."

West considered this and passed. 2♠ was held to 8 tricks (9 tricks are available) for +110 NS. 3♣ EW would be held to 6 trump tricks, and maybe not even that (an overruff is lurking).

Most of the room scored 140 or 150 NS, so -110 was a near-top for EW.

What do you think of South's actions?
Should West have summoned the TD prior to his final call?
Do EW have a claim for damage? (-150 in 3♣ would be a zero, but +100 in 3♠ would be a top. Of course, it's not clear that either N or S would have bid 3♠, and even if they had, they may have adopted a different line of play and made the hand.)
This was the last hand of the round. Midway through the next hand (at the next table), West wanted to call the TD. Would this have been too late for an adjustment (if, indeed, any was appropriate)?

[billw55]

As far as I know, negative inferences are not alertable, so south was under no obligation to give explanation if not asked. His voluntary disclosure could be considered active ethics, and perhaps lauded on that grounds, although the apparent wording may leave something to be desired.

Obviously no damage If EW got a near top, and hence no adjustment. Frankly west has a lot of nerve if he seeks adjustment from a near top to a top, based on his opponent going out of his way to be ethical.

[barmar]

I'm not sure about adjusting due to the late explanation, but surely South deserves a procedural penalty for a comment like "you really don't want to bid here." This is totally inappropriate.

[CSGibson]

If the 2♠ bid was forcing, then south was obliged to alert it. It is an unusual and unexpected treatment (certainly not unheard of, but probably less than 1 in 10 would play negative free bids even in an expert field). As far as South's warning, I think that he is placing himself in a bad position by giving that free advice - for example, what if W did not heed the advice, bid 3C, and S doubled - does his partner have UI that would impact whether he would pass or pull? Or would his partner be more willing to X 3C himself?

As far as West goes, I understand why he's thinking of calling - he doesn't yet know that he has a top, he just knows they went plus in 2♠ and probably would go minus in 3♠, which his balance might have pushed them to. I think his reasoning is flawed, but I don't begrudge him thinking about it.

And if I were the TD called, no adjustment and no PP.

[aguahombre]

South's approach was not what I would have chosen, because it sounds condescending. But let's not jump at the chance to issue a PP when his intent was active ethics. It had the effect of preventing his LHO from doing something which would have resulted in a poorer score.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2012-May-29, 09:30, said:

As far as I know, negative inferences are not alertable, so south was under no obligation to give explanation if not asked. His voluntary disclosure could be considered active ethics, and perhaps lauded on that grounds, although the apparent wording may leave something to be desired.

Obviously no damage If EW got a near top, and hence no adjustment. Frankly west has a lot of nerve if he seeks adjustment from a near top to a top, based on his opponent going out of his way to be ethical.

barmar, on 2012-May-29, 09:33, said:

I'm not sure about adjusting due to the late explanation, but surely South deserves a procedural penalty for a comment like "you really don't want to bid here." This is totally inappropriate.

It is fascinating to see such totally disparate opinions about South's comments posted back to back.

Personally, I am with Barmar here. While South's comments to West may have been intended to be helpful, they are totally out of line. If he should have alerted 2♠ then he should do so and not offer an explanation until and unless someone asks for one. A player should never volunteer an explanation.

If West had decided to act over 2♠, South's comments would be UI to North, and he might be in a position with no winning action, as everything he might do would be a logical alternative.

I don't want to even touch upon what would happen if it were determined that calling 3♣ on the West hand turned out to be the winning action and South's comments, rightly or wrongly, talked him out of acting.

[billw55]

To be clear, I agree that "you really don't want to bid here" is an improper comment, and could be considered intimidation under some circumstances. That is what I meant by "the apparent wording may leave something to be desired."

However, everything else south said is simply disclosure of facts, made with full expectation that only the opponents (perhaps less experienced) could benefit. Absent some other information, I believe that south's remarks were motivated by sportsmanship and active ethics, and that therefore a procedural penalty would be grossly inappropriate.

The situation is not at all complicated in the event that west was talked out of a winning 3♣ bid. He is simply awarded an adjusted score, which south is unlikely to oppose based on his evident (in my opinion) ethical standards.

[gordontd]

Presumably some part of North's actions should have been alerted, and that would have done the proper job of informing West and allowing him to make an informed decision.

[aguahombre]

I don't think it is clear at all about whether 2S should have been alerted as a "strong" continuation after a negative double. ACBL has decided that negative doubles themselves should not be alerted; yet we alert a negative double of 1H which denies spades because it is unexpected. My preference would be for the negative double of 2C to have been alerted and explained as being within a NFB context, but I don't think that is required either.

Most puzzling to me is why this particular situation ever occurred. Having encountered NFB style for quite some time, I know that after:

1d (2C) X (p)
2H (P)....2S not only is forcing for at least one more round, but also could be made on so many different hand types/strengths that opener simply cannot "judge" to pass.

[nige1]

Agree with C S Gibson that South should alert North's forcing 2♠ but not volunteer explanation and advice, unasked. Once attention has been drawn to that infraction, players should call the director.

Suppose the director is called before West passes,. The director says "bid on" and West elects to heed the gypsy's warning and pass, Can the director adjust the score on the grounds that, in the director's judgement, without the gratuitous warning, EW might have pushed NS into 3♠-1?

[gnasher]

2♠ is clearly alertable in the ACBL. It falls into the category "strong bids that sound weak".

South's should simply have said "I'm sorry, I should have alerted 2♠." Technically everybody should have called the director at this point, but in real life there is no need to do so.

I would give South a procedural penalty (perhaps just a warning, depending on whether I think he should know better) for his multiple breaches of procedures: volunteering an explanation, wantonly conveying UI, and being a condescending git. Having good intentions isn't always sufficient.

South may have benefited from his breach of procedure, and he could have known that this would occur, so the director should definitely consider an adjustment. He does that in the normal way, by considering what West might have done differently without South's infraction, and what North and South might have done after each of West's possible actions. He should remember that North would have had the UI that South knew what 2♠ meant, so North would have been constrained by Law 16.

[Vampyr]

gnasher, on 2012-May-30, 01:07, said:

2♠ is clearly alertable in the ACBL. It falls into the category "strong bids that sound weak".

Is the negative-free-bid double not alertable too?

[billw55]

gnasher, on 2012-May-30, 01:07, said:

2♠ is clearly alertable in the ACBL. It falls into the category "strong bids that sound weak".

Interesting. It would not have occurred to me that double and pull would be the default (and widely understood) method of showing a weak signoff. Learn something new everyday.

gnasher, on 2012-May-30, 01:07, said:

South's should simply have said "I'm sorry, I should have alerted 2♠." Technically everybody should have called the director at this point, but in real life there is no need to do so.

I would give South a procedural penalty (perhaps just a warning, depending on whether I think he should know better) for his multiple breaches of procedures: volunteering an explanation, wantonly conveying UI, and being a condescending git. Having good intentions isn't always sufficient.

Yes, of course the legally correct procedure is to give the belated alert, since west has not yet called.

Active ethics is about going above and beyond the laws in the interest of protecting the opponents and/or the integrity of the game. That is what south was doing here - protecting the opponents. To assign a PP is completely absurd. It amounts to punishing active ethics. If you give a PP, you can expect that south, north, and perhaps other players who learn about the situation, will go out of their way to avoid active ethics in events that you are running. Is that the result we want?

A more appropriate response would be to mention to south that the preferred action is to simply give the belated alert.

[bluejak]

Coelacanth, on 2012-May-29, 09:20, said:

What do you think of South's actions?

His wording was poor, but he was being actively ethical assuming what he said was true.

Coelacanth, on 2012-May-29, 09:20, said:

Should West have summoned the TD prior to his final call?

Should? That's up to him, but it wolud not have hurt.

Coelacanth, on 2012-May-29, 09:20, said:

This was the last hand of the round. Midway through the next hand (at the next table), West wanted to call the TD. Would this have been too late for an adjustment (if, indeed, any was appropriate)?

No, still within the Correctin Period.

aguahombre, on 2012-May-29, 17:34, said:

Most puzzling to me is why this particular situation ever occurred. Having encountered NFB style for quite some time, I know that after:

1d (2C) X (p)
2H (P)....2S not only is forcing for at least one more round, but also could be made on so many different hand types/strengths that opener simply cannot "judge" to pass.

People play differently from each other. Why not? How does it affect the ruling if they play differently from you?

billw55, on 2012-May-30, 06:28, said:

Active ethics is about going above and beyond the laws in the interest of protecting the opponents and/or the integrity of the game. That is what south was doing here - protecting the opponents. To assign a PP is completely absurd. It amounts to punishing active ethics. If you give a PP, you can expect that south, north, and perhaps other players who learn about the situation, will go out of their way to avoid active ethics in events that you are running. Is that the result we want?

Agreed: we want people to continue Active Ethics. But a suggestion as to how to react in future would not be out of line.

[gnasher]

billw55, on 2012-May-30, 06:28, said:

Active ethics is about going above and beyond the laws in the interest of protecting the opponents and/or the integrity of the game. That is what south was doing here - protecting the opponents. To assign a PP is completely absurd. It amounts to punishing active ethics. If you give a PP, you can expect that south, north, and perhaps other players who learn about the situation, will go out of their way to avoid active ethics in events that you are running. Is that the result we want?

A more appropriate response would be to mention to south that the preferred action is to simply give the belated alert.

The ACBL Code of Active Ethics tell us that "The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically required in volunteering information to the opponents. Quite often, the declaring side in an actively ethical partnership will volunteer such information before the opening lead is made." [emphasis added]

Nothing in this code encourages players to volunteer explanations in a live auction, announce the reasons for their own actions (still in a live auction), or offer advice to the opponents as to what to bid. That's probably because all of these things are against the rules.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-May-30, 01:07, said:

Technically everybody should have called the director at this point, but in real life there is no need to do so.

IOW, players are free to follow or not follow the rules, as they see fit.

gnasher, on 2012-May-30, 07:50, said:

Nothing in this code encourages players to volunteer explanations in a live auction, announce the reasons for their own actions (still in a live auction), or offer advice to the opponents as to what to bid. That's probably because all of these things are against the rules.

IOW, players are not free to follow or not follow the rules, as they see fit.

[billw55]

gnasher, on 2012-May-30, 07:50, said:

The ACBL Code of Active Ethics tell us that "The actively ethical player will often go beyond what is technically required in volunteering information to the opponents. Quite often, the declaring side in an actively ethical partnership will volunteer such information before the opening lead is made." [emphasis added]

Nothing in this code encourages players to volunteer explanations in a live auction, announce the reasons for their own actions (still in a live auction), or offer advice to the opponents as to what to bid. That's probably because all of these things are against the rules.

Yes Andy, I know that. I thought I had made that pretty clear.

My point - as I think you already know - is that, in my opinion, the circumstances of this particular infraction are such that no penalty should be assigned.

[gnasher]

billw55, on 2012-May-30, 08:54, said:

Yes Andy, I know that. I thought I had made that pretty clear.

If you knew that South's actions did not constitute compliance with the Code of Active Ethics, why did you say that "To assign a PP ... amounts to punishing active ethics"?

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-30, 07:59, said:

IOW, players are free to follow or not follow the rules, as they see fit.

IOW, players are not free to follow or not follow the rules, as they see fit.

There are situations where a failure to follow the rules is harmless and situations where it is not. Not calling the director following a late alert, before anyone has taken further action, falls into the first category. South's actions on this deal fall into the second.

[Coelacanth]

Interesting discussion, everyone. Thanks.

I agree that South's motives here were in no way nefarious. While his tone was indeed condescending, his comments did prevent West from taking the losing action.

I do think, however, that had 3♣ been making, or down only 2, there might have been a case for damage. It just seems that the difference in tone between "whoops, I should have alerted partner's last call" and "really, it would be a mistake for you to bid here" is relevant. Maybe L74A1 (courteous attitude), 74A2 (remark that might cause annoyance or embarrassment), 74B2 (gratuitous comments) or 74C4 (commenting during the auction) would be applicable. But I think these would all be dealt with, if at all, via a PP rather than a score adjustment.

For those who are curious, West's hand was ♠Kx ♥KTxx ♦x ♣AKQ9xx, not an unreasonable hand to balance with after the opponents have subsided at the two-level. However, North had the ♠AQ, ♥AJ (South had the ♥Q), and a stiff diamond (and the ♣T to overruff with). So South's comment, while poorly phrased, did help EW avoid a disaster on the hand.