Damage due to non-alert ?

[Chris]

I was called to this hand a couple of weeks ago (I've only just managed to get hold of the hand record) - I'm not 100% sure of the bidding sequence now, but at some stage East bid 3D (showing a diamond stopper) which was not alerted - and West ended up in 3NT.

When North made the opening lead (a club) she was shocked to see a diamond doubleton in dummy and called me, saying that she would have led a diamond if ops had not bid 3D.

E/W made 10 tricks in NT. N/S could have made 4 tricks in diamonds and possibly either a club or a spade (although the squeeze would have been on).

How would you have ruled on this one. I took it back to 3NT making 9 tricks which actually gave them a bottom board as most other E/W's were in 4H making 10 tricks. I didn't make the decision immediately - but discussed it with 2 senior players - do you think the decision was fair?

[Ed Reppert]

My first reaction is to let the result stand, but I haven't reviewed Australian alerting regs, and I should probably do that before making a ruling. In North America it would be "result stands, wtp?" but here the rules are probably different.

[Chris]

The ABF Alerting Regulations - 13.3 says "All conventional calls (other than self-alerting calls) must be alerted.

Then in the Definitions and General Principles 2.1 Convention - "A call that by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to pay in the denomination named".

I feel sure that in the above scenario, the opponents would have been expecting at least 4 diamonds.

[Ed Reppert]

It seems like the question is whether the opening leader would have led a diamond if 3D had been alerted (and presumably the alert questioned and the meaning explained). What she actually said was that she'd have led a diamond if diamonds had not been bid, which is a somewhat different scenario. For one thing, "I have a diamond stopper" doesn't mean "I don't have as many as four diamonds".

[Chris]

Damn - that's true !

.... and yet, it just doesn't seem RIGHT that they get a top board in the room (+430) when just about everyone else is in 4H (+420).

Maybe I should just take a trick off them as a PP for a non-alert

Still so much to learn Ed !!

[Ed Reppert]

There's this thing called "rub of the green". Sometimes someone does a Bad Thing™, but the laws still let them keep their good score.

I was informed today (again!) by one of our more senior (at least in that she's been directing a long time) local club directors that "we don't give PPs in club games". As she also happens to own the club at which I do most of my directing I didn't argue. OTOH, I didn't meekly say "yes'm" either.

[Nick Whitten]

I would adjust as Chris did. Giving North the benefit of the doubt in that she “would have led a diamond if ops had not [apparently naturally] bid 3D”
The introduction to the NZ Alert Procedure (page D38) emphasises the need for FULL DISCLOSURE “disclose as much as you can, as comprehensively as you can” etc etc. I think Australia is the same.
Players who fail to alert are all too common in my area, and I think it helps to be as tough on them as the laws and local standards allow But I don’t like giving out PPs.

[Ed Reppert]

As it happens, I have yet to issue a PP in a club game. But I'm not going to say I won't. OTOH, for most people, club play isn't "serious" bridge — it's a social activity. It ought to be a pretty serious offense by somebody who should know better to rate a PP.

I think the principle of full disclosure is the same everywhere, and I agree that we should be tough on those who don't practice it. There's also the principle that we should tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. On reflection, as EW gained from the failure to alert, one could certainly invoke Law 47E2{b} to adjust the score. I'd still investigate exactly what the opening leader meant by her comment before ruling.

BTW, that director who said "we don't give PPs in club games" is also the only club TD in the 16 years I've been living here who threw a player out of the game - suspended him for 30 days. He deserved it — and when he came back he was a much more pleasant player — but it does make it seem kind of strange that she would be the one to say that. Rather insistently, too.

[Chris]

I've never given a PP either although looking back there was an incident just after I started directing where I probably should have issued one. A senior player in a gold point teams' event argued with me at the table about a revoke decision - he started it up again over the lunch break - and then sent me emails to my home about it. I ended up sending the details of the incident to one of our senior Australian directors (cc to the offending player) - then sent him the reply which backed up my decision.

I never got an apology.

If I wasn't such a pig-headed hussy I probably would have given up directing at that point.

[Ed Reppert]

Lol. Don't give up.

I wouldn't have given him a PP. IMO, arguing with the TD rates a disciplinary penalty.

I've seen this happen:

<argument>
TD: "quarter board disciplinary penalty"
<more argument>
TD: "okay, that's an additional quarter board, total one half a board. would you like to try for a full board?"

The player shut up after that. :-)