[blackshoe]

---

NS are good club players. South has just returned from a year of no bridge. This was his first session. EW are perhaps not quite as good, although East, who is generally argumentative and intimidating at the table when he feels (rightly or wrongly) there's been an irregularity by the other side, would probably disagree.

When South bid 4♥, West asked if there'd been a failure to alert. South said "I'm not sure". West and North Pass. Now East chimes in "If 4♦ should have been alerted then I want to double 4♦!" And he puts a double card on the table. Director! She has difficulty getting East to quiet down. In the course of "discussion" East asserts "of course he knew it should be alerted! He bid 4♥!" Rather loudly, too. I heard it, on the other side of the room. In the end she requires the auction and play to proceed, which it does as shown. 5♥ making was an average board. No further director calls ensued.

How would you have handled this one?

[gnasher]

I assume that 4♦ was systemically a transfer, and South's uncertainly was about whether to alert? If so, there has been MI. Without the MI, I assume that East would have doubled 4♦ and folded up his tent, so NS would have played either 4♥ or 5♥ and made eleven tricks. NS +650.

With the auction as it went, West had the UI that East would have doubled 4♦. Obviously that makes West's 5♦ call illegal. Adjusting for the UI would take us back to 4♥x+1. East's double of 4♥ looks like a serious error to me, and it's unrelated to South's infraction. EW receive the score that they would have obtained if West had followed the rules. EW -990.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-May-27, 14:27, said:

I assume that 4♦ was systemically a transfer, and South's uncertainly was about whether to alert? If so, there has been MI. Without the MI, I assume that East would have doubled 4♦ and folded up his tent, so NS would have played either 4♥ or 5♥ and made eleven tricks. NS +650.

With the auction as it went, West had the UI that East would have doubled 4♦. Obviously that makes West's 5♦ call illegal. Adjusting for the UI would take us back to 4♥x+1. East's double of 4♥ looks like a serious error to me, and it's unrelated to South's infraction. EW receive the score that they would have obtained if West had followed the rules. EW -990.

I would like to be there when the ruling is given. PP for E/W as well?

Do they allow split rulings in the land of the free?

[aguahombre]

Split, yes. Weighted, no. I don't see splitting this one. Whatever the ruling, the result was earned on both sides.

N/S earned pain/suffering damages.

[ggwhiz]

Looks like 2 infractions here but just one or at least just one that matters.

Is I'm not sure or undiscussed not a legitimate answer? Even if it's classed as MI (although there is no I involved), there is no damage resulting as e/w can otherwise double and get a diamond lead or force them to 5♥ for the same result.

Nothing is worse than a combative player that makes their own rulings. Instead of calling the Director East gave the level of UI that belongs in the kitchen and Wests use of it is worthy of a Quebec politician.

-990 e/w and as serious a PP as I'm allowed to dish out.

[ArtK78]

Furthermore, if East is as good a player as he believes he is, he should know what 4♦ means. The chances that 4♦ is natural as a response to a weak 1NT opening is almost zero - at least he could have asked.

In any event, East has acted in a highly inappropriate manner and should be sanctioned. As for NS, while they were subject to East's rantings, they don't really deserve anything more at the bridge table. They should get the normal +650.

[pran]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-27, 16:16, said:

Furthermore, if East is as good a player as he believes he is, he should know what 4♦ means. The chances that 4♦ is natural as a response to a weak 1NT opening is almost zero - at least he could have asked.

In any event, East has acted in a highly inappropriate manner and should be sanctioned. As for NS, while they were subject to East's rantings, they don't really deserve anything more at the bridge table. They should get the normal +650.

She has difficulty getting East to quiet down.

In such situations when I arrive at the table I give the "loudspeaker(s)" about 1 second to calm down and keep quiet except for answering my questions if (t)he(y) will avoid a PP.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2013-May-27, 14:27, said:

I assume that 4♦ was systemically a transfer, and South's uncertainly was about whether to alert? If so, there has been MI. Without the MI, I assume that East would have doubled 4♦ and folded up his tent, so NS would have played either 4♥ or 5♥ and made eleven tricks. NS +650.

With the auction as it went, West had the UI that East would have doubled 4♦. Obviously that makes West's 5♦ call illegal. Adjusting for the UI would take us back to 4♥x+1. East's double of 4♥ looks like a serious error to me, and it's unrelated to South's infraction. EW receive the score that they would have obtained if West had followed the rules. EW -990.

Yes it was systemically a transfer. The table TD had not thought of scoring it as 4♥X+1. When I pointed out that possibility, she said "that would have fixed him!"

BTW, Texas Transfers were marked on their card.

[blackshoe]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-27, 14:31, said:

I would like to be there when the ruling is given. PP for E/W as well?

Do they allow split rulings in the land of the free?

I suggested a PP, or a DP, but this is a club game in the ACBL. North America is a big place, but around here, PPs or DPs in club games are unheard of.

I'm not sure there's a justification for a split score, whatever the jurisdiction. As someone else mentioned upthread, weighted scores are not allowed.

[mycroft]

Okay, on the first infraction, if they'd called the TD on the "I don't know" answer (to find out if South doesn't know if she has to Announce the transfer, or Alert it, or nothing; or if South doesn't know if 4♦ *is* a transfer, but would rather play 5 indignant diamonds on the 12-card fit than 4 indignant diamonds on the 5-0; or what South doesn't know), and the TD worked out however he does what the agreement actually is, East would have been able to back up the auction and double 4♦. That would get sent back by South I assume, pulled to 4♥, and there it would have sat (I don't assume West would pull to 5♦ after the redouble). No damage, adjust the score to 4♥+1 anyway.

On the second infraction, having not called the TD at the correct time (all 4 players, but East if it were important to him to know), obviously the double can be passed so it must be; and even if it's not passable (given that they have a maximum of 18 high and likely a 4=0 only heart break) 5♦ is right out, given there are two black suits that could easily be a better choice absent the UI. Of course, I don't think anything (4♠ probably) plays better than -650, so no damage there unless pass is reasonable absent the UI.

So, I think I'm ruling N/S +650 (with an explanation to South about the Alerting rules), E/W -990. Should shut both of them up.

As a side note, the club TD should have checked how the auction continued, waiting until the end of the auction if possible at least, before going back to his table. Having done that, he would have realized straight up that 5♦ has to be investigated whether or not the players called him back; having investigated, 990 would rise from the grave all by its little lonesome.

[blackshoe]

Hm. I think South knows (and knew at the time) that if 4♦ is a transfer, it requires an announcement. He didn't forget that, he was not sure (because he hadn't played for a year) whether 4♦ is a transfer in their system (btw, I'm pretty sure they had played together before South's hiatus). What South may not have known is that the Alert Regulation says "when in doubt, alert". Of course, following that rule, he would alert (not announce) 4♦, and if asked explain that he is not sure whether it is a transfer or a natural bid (or possibly, I suppose, something else).

The director was not playing in this session. I am not sure at what point she left the table, but I suspect she did stay until the auction was over, at least. I'll ask.

[Cascade]

ArtK78, on 2013-May-27, 16:16, said:

Furthermore, if East is as good a player as he believes he is, he should know what 4♦ means. The chances that 4♦ is natural as a response to a weak 1NT opening is almost zero - at least he could have asked.

In any event, East has acted in a highly inappropriate manner and should be sanctioned. As for NS, while they were subject to East's rantings, they don't really deserve anything more at the bridge table. They should get the normal +650.

Disagree.

East doubled 4♥. Assuming the double was removed illegally then NS are entitled to and therefore do deserve 4♥X +1.

[mycroft]

I disagree back. N/S deserve +650 only; with correct information, East may have doubled 4♦ and may not have; but in neither case would anybody be doubling 4♥, and worst case (for N/S) the auction would have continued as it did (with West taking the sac, and being pulled).

E/W, however...

[billw55]

For sure -990 for EW. If correct rulings such as this were applied regularly, I bet east (and others) would learn to knock off such nonsense.