passing over an unalerted artifical bid

[Robert Frick]

2C P 2H(1) P
3C P 3S P
3NT P P P

2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double
negative. The player on lead had

Kxx
1087x
QJx
Kxx

Having a choice between hearts and diamonds, he chose to lead a heart.
This did not work out well and a diamond lead would have set the contract.

He argued that if 2H had been properly alerted, his partner would have not
doubled, suggesting not to lead a heart and he was more likely to lead a
diamond. Which is all true.

It's already a difficult ruling, but in our normal way. Assume for the
sake of argument that you buy into this.


The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2
Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked
well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful
diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead.

Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not
have doubled the 2 Heart bid.

Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he
should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have passed
the 2 Heart bid. (And, ironically, since partner did pass the 2H call,
there are a lot of simple ways to arrive at this position, including not
thinking about anything at all.)

If this latter consideration is correct, there is perhaps no reason to
roll back play.

[Robert Frick]

Thinking about this, it doesn't seem right to adjust. It doesn't seem
right that declarer could lead a heart and then ask for an adjustment if a
diamond lead would have worked better.

Post by Robert Frick
2C P 2H(1) P
3C P 3S P
3NT P P P
2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double
negative. The player on lead had
Kxx
1087x
QJx
Kxx
Having a choice between hearts and diamonds, he chose to lead a heart.
This did not work out well and a diamond lead would have set the contract.
He argued that if 2H had been properly alerted, his partner would have not
doubled, suggesting not to lead a heart and he was more likely to lead a
diamond. Which is all true.
It's already a difficult ruling, but in our normal way. Assume for the
sake of argument that you buy into this.
The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2
Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked
well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful
diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead.
Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not
have doubled the 2 Heart bid.
Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he
should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have passed
the 2 Heart bid. (And, ironically, since partner did pass the 2H call,
there are a lot of simple ways to arrive at this position, including not
thinking about anything at all.)
If this latter consideration is correct, there is perhaps no reason to
roll back play.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Vigfús Pálsson]

Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case. No doubt about that.

That leads us to law 12C

Now we look at law 12C1b.
Did the opening leader do a "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" ???

NO WAY

Score has to be adjusted. Probably weighted score.
Perhaps 50% heart opening lead and 50% diamond opening lead

In this case I allow the opening leader to "eat the cake" and "keep the cake"

Greetings form Iceland

Vigfus Palsson

Post by Robert Frick
2C P 2H(1) P
3C P 3S P
3NT P P P
2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double
negative. The player on lead had
Kxx
1087x
QJx
Kxx
Having a choice between hearts and diamonds, he chose to lead a heart.
This did not work out well and a diamond lead would have set the contract.
He argued that if 2H had been properly alerted, his partner would have not
doubled, suggesting not to lead a heart and he was more likely to lead a
diamond. Which is all true.
It's already a difficult ruling, but in our normal way. Assume for the
sake of argument that you buy into this.
The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2
Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked
well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful
diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead.
Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not
have doubled the 2 Heart bid.
Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he
should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have passed
the 2 Heart bid. (And, ironically, since partner did pass the 2H call,
there are a lot of simple ways to arrive at this position, including not
thinking about anything at all.)
If this latter consideration is correct, there is perhaps no reason to
roll back play.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Robert Frick]

Post by Vigfús Pálsson
Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case. No doubt about that.
That leads us to law 12C
Now we look at law 12C1b.
Did the opening leader do a "serious error (unrelated to the
infraction)" ???
NO WAY
Score has to be adjusted. Probably weighted score.
Perhaps 50% heart opening lead and 50% diamond opening lead
In this case I allow the opening leader to "eat the cake" and "keep the cake"
Greetings form Iceland
Vigfus Palsson

Steve? How do you answer this?

This makes perfect sense to me if the opening leader hadn't found out that
the 2H bid was artificial until after the opening lead..

Here, it is awkward that defender's best strategy is to choose the opening
lead that it most likely to result in damage. Here, that is a heart lead,
succeeding whenever a heart or diamond would have worked (if the director
rules the same as you).

Post by Vigfús Pálsson

Post by Robert Frick
2C P 2H(1) P
3C P 3S P
3NT P P P
2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double
negative. The player on lead had
Kxx
1087x
QJx
Kxx
Having a choice between hearts and diamonds, he chose to lead a heart.
This did not work out well and a diamond lead would have set the contract.
He argued that if 2H had been properly alerted, his partner would have not
doubled, suggesting not to lead a heart and he was more likely to lead a
diamond. Which is all true.
It's already a difficult ruling, but in our normal way. Assume for the
sake of argument that you buy into this.
The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2
Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked
well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful
diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead.
Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not
have doubled the 2 Heart bid.
Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he
should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have passed
the 2 Heart bid. (And, ironically, since partner did pass the 2H call,
there are a lot of simple ways to arrive at this position, including not
thinking about anything at all.)
If this latter consideration is correct, there is perhaps no reason to
roll back play.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Steve Willner]

Post by Vigfús Pálsson
Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case.
Score has to be adjusted.

After posting my previous message, it occurred to me to ask whether we
are writing about the same case. In the original story, the MI was
corrected before the opening lead. In that version, opening leader can
assume the auction would not have changed had 2H been timely alerted.
If that's true, an adjusted score shouldn't be needed because we know
the result "had the irregularity not occurred."

Mention of L75B suggests you were writing about a different situation
where the MI wasn't corrected until play ended. In that case -- quite
different -- an adjusted score is more likely. However, I'd still want
to know why OL chose a lead in dummy's presumed natural suit and why a
correct explanation would have made that lead less likely.

In still a third situation, where OL led something other than a heart,
OL's partner would have doubled an artificial heart bid, and the
resulting heart lead would have helped the defense, I expect everyone
would adjust the score (absent some bizarre, unstated further
circumstance). That shouldn't be controversial.

[Herman De Wael]

Post by Steve Willner
After posting my previous message, it occurred to me to ask whether we
are writing about the same case. In the original story, the MI was
corrected before the opening lead. In that version, opening leader can
assume the auction would not have changed had 2H been timely alerted.
If that's true, an adjusted score shouldn't be needed because we know
the result "had the irregularity not occurred."

I don't think it really matters whether the correction has occured or not.

Post by Steve Willner
Mention of L75B suggests you were writing about a different situation
where the MI wasn't corrected until play ended. In that case -- quite
different -- an adjusted score is more likely. However, I'd still want
to know why OL chose a lead in dummy's presumed natural suit and why a
correct explanation would have made that lead less likely.
In still a third situation, where OL led something other than a heart,
OL's partner would have doubled an artificial heart bid, and the
resulting heart lead would have helped the defense, I expect everyone
would adjust the score (absent some bizarre, unstated further
circumstance). That shouldn't be controversial.

Well, just take this case again, and say that 2H IS doubled, after not
being alerted. So the double is negative and a diamond lead is
warranted. What would have happened with an alert? There would not have
been a double, and a diamond lead is still correct.
Now go back to the original case.
2H is not alerted, and not doubled, so a heart lead is advisable.
What would have happened after an alert? There would have been a double,
and the heart lead is still advisable.

The only problem now is that after a non-alert, a non-double is not as
strong as a double is over an alert. The only way of showing diamonds
after a natural call is if we are also willing to play in diamonds. And
we might not be strong enough for that.

So whereas the heart lead after 2H-Alert-X is almost automatic, the
diamond lead after 2H-Alert-pass is not. Which is why the opening leader
still has two options. Should he be allowed to use both? I think he should.

Herman.

[Steve Willner]

Post by Robert Frick
2C P 2H(1) P
3C P 3S P
3NT P P P
2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double
negative.
The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2
Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked
well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful
diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead.
Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not
have doubled the 2 Heart bid.
Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he
should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have passed
the 2 Heart bid.

When was the Director called? I'd expect the Director to explain that
the lead should be based on the auction going exactly as it did. If
defenders would have done better in a different auction, they'll get an
adjusted score. No need for OL to work out legal consequences; he just
has to work out bridge consequences.

If the TD wasn't called, I'd normally expect no adjustment. Both sides
knew there was an irregularity. Despite that, it is technically the
bidding side's responsibility to call the TD before correcting the MI,
so if the bidding side is experienced and the defending side is not, I'd
consider an adjusted score on that basis.

[Robert Frick]

Post by Steve Willner

Post by Robert Frick
2C P 2H(1) P
3C P 3S P
3NT P P P
2H was not alerted but before opening lead was explained as a double
negative.
The interesting thing is this. Suppose partner might have doubled 2
Hearts, had he known it was artificial, and this lead would have worked
well. Then the player can safely lead a diamond, as an unsuccessful
diamond lead will be changed to a heart lead.
Therefore, the opening leader can safely assume that partner would not
have doubled the 2 Heart bid.
Hence, if the opening leader has worked all of this out in his head, he
should lead whatever he thinks is best assuming partner would have passed
the 2 Heart bid.

When was the Director called? I'd expect the Director to explain that
the lead should be based on the auction going exactly as it did.

With the same lack of alert and then subsequent explanation? I was
expecting a different answer.

Post by Steve Willner
If defenders would have done better in a different auction, they'll get
an
adjusted score. No need for OL to work out legal consequences; he just
has to work out bridge consequences.

So, off-topic kind of, but if the opening leader decides that declarer
might not have a heart stopper, because of the confusion in the auction,
and leads a heart, and that doesn't work out well, you are going to
protect him?

I think I need more details for your answer.

Post by Steve Willner
If the TD wasn't called, I'd normally expect no adjustment. Both sides
knew there was an irregularity. Despite that, it is technically the
bidding side's responsibility to call the TD before correcting the MI,
so if the bidding side is experienced and the defending side is not, I'd
consider an adjusted score on that basis.

No TD in this case, but again the question is what the TD says (hopefully
not "lead as if the auction was the way the auction was") and then what
happens.

[Steve Willner]

Post by Robert Frick

Post by Steve Willner
I'd expect the Director to explain that
the lead should be based on the auction going exactly as it did.

With the same lack of alert and then subsequent explanation?

Perhaps I was too terse. Opening leader should assume the actual calls
would have been the same, even given proper alerts and explanations. In
this case, he assumes partner would still have chosen to pass even if 2H
had been alerted and explained. The Director should explain this.
(Also, the final pass of the auction is allowed to be replaced, but in
this case it won't be.)

The effect is that opening leader should assume partner could have made
a lead-directing double of 2H but chose not to. However, this is a
bridge inference, and it's not the Director's job to make it for the
player. The Director has a slightly delicate task in phrasing his
explanation -- giving the legal position but not bridge inferences --
but it's possible to do that.

Post by Robert Frick
if the opening leader decides that declarer
might not have a heart stopper, because of the confusion in the auction,
and leads a heart, and that doesn't work out well, you are going to
protect him?

No. Once the legal position and all partnership understandings are
explained, opening leader is on his own. The only protection is if the
auction would have been different without the MI.

There's a separate issue of what to do if the TD was not called at the
right time and therefore the legal position was never explained.
Generally I'd protect beginners -- after advising them always to call
the TD in cases of doubt -- but not players who should have known
better. PPs are certainly possible in addition to or instead of score
adjustment. The position is the same as others in which the TD should
have been called but wasn't.

[Robert Frick]

Nice answer. Now I think we can get serious.

Post by Steve Willner

Post by Robert Frick

Post by Steve Willner
I'd expect the Director to explain that
the lead should be based on the auction going exactly as it did.

With the same lack of alert and then subsequent explanation?

Perhaps I was too terse. Opening leader should assume the actual calls
would have been the same, even given proper alerts and explanations. In
this case, he assumes partner would still have chosen to pass even if 2H
had been alerted and explained. The Director should explain this.
(Also, the final pass of the auction is allowed to be replaced, but in
this case it won't be.)
The effect is that opening leader should assume partner could have made
a lead-directing double of 2H but chose not to. However, this is a
bridge inference, and it's not the Director's job to make it for the
player. The Director has a slightly delicate task in phrasing his
explanation -- giving the legal position but not bridge inferences --
but it's possible to do that.

This seems to be a good idea -- director instructs the players to play as
if the bid had been alerted and everyone had made the same calls. Well, at
least for this situation.

I have never seen this advice. I don't know if I could justify giving it
as a director.

Does anyone direct this way?

Post by Steve Willner

Post by Robert Frick
if the opening leader decides that declarer
might not have a heart stopper, because of the confusion in the auction,
and leads a heart, and that doesn't work out well, you are going to
protect him?

No. Once the legal position and all partnership understandings are
explained, opening leader is on his own. The only protection is if the
auction would have been different without the MI.

The problem here is just that you seem to be contradicting yourself. You
wrote "If
defenders would have done better in a different auction, they'll get an
adjusted score." Then when I give an example of how they would have done
better in a different auction (the 2H bid is immediately alerted), you do
not adjust. Your ruling seems to be write, so I assume you want to take
back your first statement?

Post by Steve Willner
There's a separate issue of what to do if the TD was not called at the
right time and therefore the legal position was never explained.
Generally I'd protect beginners -- after advising them always to call
the TD in cases of doubt -- but not players who should have known
better. PPs are certainly possible in addition to or instead of score
adjustment. The position is the same as others in which the TD should
have been called but wasn't.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Steve Willner]

Post by Robert Frick
The problem here is just that you seem to be contradicting yourself. You
wrote "If
defenders would have done better in a different auction,

What's the contradiction? If correct information wouldn't have changed
the auction, the defenders have all relevant information at the time of
the opening lead, and the table result should be unaffected by MI.

If the auction would have been different, damage might exist. That's
the usual sort of judgment ruling.

Post by Robert Frick
Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case. No doubt about that.
That leads us to law 12C

L75B tells the players what to do after the MI. L40B4 is what sends us
to 12C to rectify damage caused by the MI.

Post by Robert Frick
Did the opening leader do a "serious error (unrelated to the

infraction)" ???

No one thinks so. Even if he did, we'd still adjust the OS score, but
only if the MI caused damage.

Post by Robert Frick
Score has to be adjusted.

Only if there's damage. If the MI is corrected before the opening lead,
and the auction wouldn't have changed with correct information, how can
there be damage?

If you want to say you will give the actual table result as your
adjusted score, I won't argue with you. It seems silly to me, though.

[Vigfús Pálsson]

There was a big damage here. No question about that. Two damages.

1. The player who faced 2H bid missed the oppurtunity to PASS or DOUBLE that artificial bid.
2. The opening leader knew about his partner's lost oppurtunity, and was in complete darkness of what to do.

I do very well understand the opening leader that he did not figure out himself how to handle this situation.

The bidding...

2C - pass - 2H* - PASS
3C - pass - 3S - pass
3NT- all pass

There is a HUGE difference in this bidding sequence, depending on Alert is given or not.
Without alert, the PASS has almost no meaning
With alert, the PASS gives valuable information, which can not be corrected before the opening lead is faced.

I allow the defence to eat the cake and keep the cake in this case.

Greetings from Iceland

Vigfus Palsson




----- Upprunaleg skilaboð -----
Frá: "Steve Willner" <***@nhcc.net>
Til: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" <***@rtflb.org>
Sent: Sunnudagur, 5. Október, 2014 19:34:53
Efni: Re: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid

Post by Robert Frick
The problem here is just that you seem to be contradicting yourself. You
wrote "If
defenders would have done better in a different auction,

What's the contradiction? If correct information wouldn't have changed
the auction, the defenders have all relevant information at the time of
the opening lead, and the table result should be unaffected by MI.

If the auction would have been different, damage might exist. That's
the usual sort of judgment ruling.

Post by Robert Frick
Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case. No doubt about that.
That leads us to law 12C

L75B tells the players what to do after the MI. L40B4 is what sends us
to 12C to rectify damage caused by the MI.

Post by Robert Frick
Did the opening leader do a "serious error (unrelated to the

infraction)" ???

No one thinks so. Even if he did, we'd still adjust the OS score, but
only if the MI caused damage.

Post by Robert Frick
Score has to be adjusted.

Only if there's damage. If the MI is corrected before the opening lead,
and the auction wouldn't have changed with correct information, how can
there be damage?

If you want to say you will give the actual table result as your
adjusted score, I won't argue with you. It seems silly to me, though.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
***@rtflb.org
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Steve Willner]

Post by Vigfús Pálsson
1. The player who faced 2H bid missed the oppurtunity to PASS or
DOUBLE that artificial bid.

He missed the chance to double, but he did in fact pass.

Post by Vigfús Pálsson
2. The opening leader knew about his partner's lost oppurtunity, and
was in complete darkness of what to do.

No. He assumes partner would have passed and plays accordingly. If
partner would have doubled, there might be damage.

Look at it this way, _if_ you adjust the score, you'll adjust to what
would have happened if the irregularity -- the MI -- had not occurred.
If third hand would have passed (and everyone has proper instruction on
the legal status), the table result tells you what that result would
have been. No need for an adjusted score in that scenario.

[Robert Frick]

Post by Steve Willner

Post by Vigfús Pálsson
1. The player who faced 2H bid missed the oppurtunity to PASS or
DOUBLE that artificial bid.

He missed the chance to double, but he did in fact pass.

Post by Vigfús Pálsson
2. The opening leader knew about his partner's lost oppurtunity, and
was in complete darkness of what to do.

No. He assumes partner would have passed and plays accordingly.

Why?


If

Post by Steve Willner
partner would have doubled, there might be damage.
Look at it this way, _if_ you adjust the score, you'll adjust to what
would have happened if the irregularity -- the MI -- had not occurred.
If third hand would have passed (and everyone has proper instruction on
the legal status), the table result tells you what that result would
have been. No need for an adjusted score in that scenario.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Herman De Wael]

Sorry Steve, but you are missing a point.

Post by Steve Willner

Post by Vigfús Pálsson
1. The player who faced 2H bid missed the oppurtunity to PASS or
DOUBLE that artificial bid.

He missed the chance to double, but he did in fact pass.

Post by Vigfús Pálsson
2. The opening leader knew about his partner's lost oppurtunity, and
was in complete darkness of what to do.

No. He assumes partner would have passed and plays accordingly. If
partner would have doubled, there might be damage.
Look at it this way, _if_ you adjust the score, you'll adjust to what
would have happened if the irregularity -- the MI -- had not occurred.
If third hand would have passed (and everyone has proper instruction on
the legal status), the table result tells you what that result would
have been. No need for an adjusted score in that scenario.

If the MI had not occurred, the pass would have a different meaning.
So the bidding, although the same, would have a different meaning.
I quite understand the possibility of a change from a heart to a diamond
lead as an adjustment.
I don't see why the TD ought to explain anything before the lead, though.
And I accept that a clever player would lead a heart, expecting it to be
a double shot. Opponents just ought to have alerted, that's all.

Herman.

[Steve Willner]

Post by Herman De Wael
Sorry Steve, but you are missing a point.

If so, I'm afraid I still don't see what it is.

It's pretty common for the declaring side to give MI and correct it
before the opening lead. Often it happens that the defenders were
passing no matter what, and once they have full information for the
defense, nobody even thinks about an adjusted score. Are you suggesting
that practice is wrong? Or is the original case for some reason an
exception to the general practice?

It seems to me that once opening leader knows his partner wouldn't have
doubled (2H in this case) for the lead, he is in the same position
regardless of whether he finds this out during the auction or during the
correction period. Why are you advocating an adjusted score in the
latter case?

[Konrad Ciborowski]

Post by Steve Willner
It seems to me that once opening leader knows his partner wouldn't have
doubled (2H in this case) for the lead, he is in the same position
regardless of whether he finds this out during the auction or during the
correction period.

No, he isn't. If the 2H is alerted in time then partner's pass over 2H
means "I don't have a clear preference for the heart lead".
For example partner cannot have KQJxx in hearts for instance or else he would have
doubled the artificial 2H.
That's why there is a slight preference for selecting a diamond.

As it went the pass over 2H is meaningless. As the opening leader
I appreciate the late correction but now my partner _can_ have
KQJxx in hearts or the like (he couldn't have doubled 2H because he thought
that 2H was natural). So on the bidding there is no preference for
leading either suit.


Best regards,
Konrad Ciborowski

[Robert Frick]

Post by Konrad Ciborowski

Post by Steve Willner
It seems to me that once opening leader knows his partner wouldn't have
doubled (2H in this case) for the lead, he is in the same position
regardless of whether he finds this out during the auction or during the
correction period.

No, he isn't. If the 2H is alerted in time then partner's pass over 2H
means "I don't have a clear preference for the heart lead".
For example partner cannot have KQJxx in hearts for instance or else he would have
doubled the artificial 2H.
That's why there is a slight preference for selecting a diamond.
As it went the pass over 2H is meaningless. As the opening leader
I appreciate the late correction but now my partner _can_ have
KQJxx in hearts or the like (he couldn't have doubled 2H because he thought
that 2H was natural). So on the bidding there is no preference for
leading either suit.

To perhaps paraphrase Steve's position, a pass is a pass. Had the bid been
alerted the player would have done the same thing -- passed.

You and Herman are arguing that a pass over a natural bid is not the same
as a pass over an artificial bid. When I take this player who passed aside
and ask if he would have done something different, does he say, "Yes, I
would have passed to deny a strong interest in a heart lead"?


Konrad, the practical difficulties with your answer, technically correct
or not, seem really large. Right now, if someone forgets to alert
new-minor-forcing (common), I look if the hand behind the artificial bid
and see if they might have doubled instead of passed. Usually not and I go
back to all my other tasks.

You are suggesting that I always have to do a lot more work than this. I
doubt directors do this. I am not fond of the idea.

Bob

[Herman De Wael]

Post by Steve Willner

Post by Herman De Wael
Sorry Steve, but you are missing a point.

If so, I'm afraid I still don't see what it is.
It's pretty common for the declaring side to give MI and correct it
before the opening lead. Often it happens that the defenders were
passing no matter what, and once they have full information for the
defense, nobody even thinks about an adjusted score. Are you suggesting
that practice is wrong? Or is the original case for some reason an
exception to the general practice?
It seems to me that once opening leader knows his partner wouldn't have
doubled (2H in this case) for the lead, he is in the same position
regardless of whether he finds this out during the auction or during the
correction period. Why are you advocating an adjusted score in the
latter case?

Because he DOESN'T FIND out that partner would not have doubled. He does
not know whether partner would have doubled or not. So he is none the
wiser about his partner's preference for hearts or diamonds.
If the call HAD been alerted, his partner would also have passed, but
this is now a pass with a (slightly) different meaning, indicating a
(possibly small) preference for diamonds.

Post by Steve Willner
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml

[Steve Willner]

Post by Herman De Wael
Because he DOESN'T FIND out that partner would not have doubled.

This is where we disagree. In my view, once the MI is corrected, the TD
explains that the NOS should _assume_ that the auction would be
unchanged. If the auction would have changed, of course the NOS are
protected.

[Steve Willner]

Post by Herman De Wael
I don't think it really matters whether the correction has occured or
not.

So why ever bother correcting MI? Just stop play and give an adjusted
score.

Post by Herman De Wael
And I accept that a clever player would lead a heart, expecting it to
be a double shot.

As far as I can tell, in your view it doesn't matter what the lead is.
You are giving the NOS the benefit of the best double-dummy defense.
Why play the deal at all?

[Volker Walther]

I love Steves approach of the problem, and I think it is the right one.

The problem arises because a meta-information is passed: A player
receives the information, that his partner was not completely informed
about a bid that opponents made when he passed. In fact I am not sure
whether this is an allowed information.

To make things clear it might be helpful to imagine we are playing with
screens.
N E S W
2C - pass - 2H* - PASS
3C - pass - 3S - pass
3NT- all pass

*Alerted and explained the by North, unalerted by West.


Before the opening lead is made South calls the TD and explains that he
did not alert and explain the 2H bid.
Every TD will check whether damage arouse from West not knowing the
meaning of 2H.
Maybe West will be allowed to redraw his final pass.
But I see no reason why a TD should go around the table an inform East,
that West lately received the correct information of 2H.

But surely we would adjust, if we see the possibility that a correctly
informed West would have made other calls and these modified bidding
gives East the information for a better lead.

That is exactly what Steve suggests!
East should act as if Wests action are based on correct information and
ignore the (unauthorized) meta-information which he would not have
behind screens. We only adjust if West might have acted different with
correct explanation.

Greetings,

Volker Walther

Post by Vigfús Pálsson
There was a big damage here. No question about that. Two damages.
1. The player who faced 2H bid missed the oppurtunity to PASS or DOUBLE that artificial bid.
2. The opening leader knew about his partner's lost oppurtunity, and was in complete darkness of what to do.
I do very well understand the opening leader that he did not figure out himself how to handle this situation.
The bidding...
2C - pass - 2H* - PASS
3C - pass - 3S - pass
3NT- all pass
There is a HUGE difference in this bidding sequence, depending on Alert is given or not.
Without alert, the PASS has almost no meaning
With alert, the PASS gives valuable information, which can not be corrected before the opening lead is faced.
I allow the defence to eat the cake and keep the cake in this case.
Greetings from Iceland
Vigfus Palsson
----- Upprunaleg skilaboð -----
Sent: Sunnudagur, 5. Október, 2014 19:34:53
Efni: Re: [BLML] passing over an unalerted artifical bid

Post by Robert Frick
The problem here is just that you seem to be contradicting yourself. You
wrote "If
defenders would have done better in a different auction,

What's the contradiction? If correct information wouldn't have changed
the auction, the defenders have all relevant information at the time of
the opening lead, and the table result should be unaffected by MI.
If the auction would have been different, damage might exist. That's
the usual sort of judgment ruling.

Post by Robert Frick
Here is a irregulaty and law 75B is our case. No doubt about that.
That leads us to law 12C

L75B tells the players what to do after the MI. L40B4 is what sends us
to 12C to rectify damage caused by the MI.

Post by Robert Frick
Did the opening leader do a "serious error (unrelated to the

infraction)" ???
No one thinks so. Even if he did, we'd still adjust the OS score, but
only if the MI caused damage.

Post by Robert Frick
Score has to be adjusted.

Only if there's damage. If the MI is corrected before the opening lead,
and the auction wouldn't have changed with correct information, how can
there be damage?
If you want to say you will give the actual table result as your
adjusted score, I won't argue with you. It seems silly to me, though.
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml