Damage due to non-alert ?

[monty]

Maybe North should be enquiring re the 3D bid before leading? Here in New Zealand a 3 card suit is "natural' under the regulations. So North should be wary that it may not be a 4 card diamond suit----but then again Ax, well, why not?
These regulations also state that----
"When a player claims damage due to failure to alert (but are likely to be aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their claim will be unsuccesful if they fail to protect themselves, because they could have enquired as to the meanig of the call before damage occurred (unless they can demonstrate the inability to enquire because, in so doing, they would have conveyed UI, and/or given opponents information to which they were not entitled)"
So, I would need a lot of convincing to adjust here.
What I would really like seen done in these sort of cases (and there are heaps of them occurring all the time) is for both sides to receive their negative score. In this case, we could award NS -4NT, and EW +3NT.
I'm sure then, both sides get the message and the table result is more meaningful to both parties and the room in general.

[Chris]

I think in this instance the defenders may have left themselves open to a charge of UI as they had 9 top diamonds between them (only missing the A from the honors). I was reasonably confident about my decision at the time - the more I read the less confident I become.

The ABF alerting regulations do say -

Alert - New suit rebids by opener which may be made on a suit of fewer than three cards in a minor or four cards in a major.

and

Convention - a call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named ....

[bluejak]

Originally Posted by Bruce Owen

I want to come at this from a different angle. Nowhere in this thread has the question been raised of whether there ever was a specific agreement on what the diamond bid might have meant. There is nothing wrong with the bid if partner was unaware that it could be a two card suit. Which brings me to another point. I would guess that about 80% of all bridge hands played in clubs are by Junior players playing with a variety of partners with whom thay have only a basic understandings of the system they are playing. The other 20% will be more serious bridge in which regular partnerships could realistically be expected to know what is going on with their partners bidding. I usually state in a posting whether we talking about tournament style bridge, or the more social type as outlined above. I believe there should be far more latitude for the 80% bridge, and am sure that is in fact what most directors practice. One way to loose the junior players is to stick strictly to the laws.

Another way to lose them is not to rule in their favour when an opponent has gained an unfair advantage.

I know this theory of being easier on lesser players. It is often stated, and I think it a load of bull. When you have two sides, often both upset, ruling wrong to keep the peace is not the answer. Rule right, explain, and that will not lose players so much.

[bluejak]

Originally Posted by monty

Maybe North should be enquiring re the 3D bid before leading? Here in New Zealand a 3 card suit is "natural' under the regulations. So North should be wary that it may not be a 4 card diamond suit----but then again Ax, well, why not?
These regulations also state that----
"When a player claims damage due to failure to alert (but are likely to be aware of probable alternative meanings of a call), their claim will be unsuccesful if they fail to protect themselves, because they could have enquired as to the meanig of the call before damage occurred (unless they can demonstrate the inability to enquire because, in so doing, they would have conveyed UI, and/or given opponents information to which they were not entitled)"
So, I would need a lot of convincing to adjust here.
What I would really like seen done in these sort of cases (and there are heaps of them occurring all the time) is for both sides to receive their negative score. In this case, we could award NS -4NT, and EW +3NT.
I'm sure then, both sides get the message and the table result is more meaningful to both parties and the room in general.

I think this a terrible approach. Fortunately, it is completely illegal.

You mean, if my opponents do something wrong, you would deliberately give me a bad result so as to teach them a lesson? How does this help?

-----------------

This answer is a bit simplistic. If you judge the defence's actions were wild, or gambling, or a serious error not related to the infraction then you do split the score. But while it is possible, surely that is not the case here?

NB. In another forum we use the abbreviation SEWoG for a serious error, wild or gambling action.

[bluejak]

Originally Posted by 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?

The big problem with this - and I have read the thread pretty carefully - is that nowhere is there the least idea of the actual bidding sequence. I do not see how anyone can answer the question without it. For example, suppose the bidding sequence was

1H - 1S -
2H - 3C -
3D - 3NT -
- -

it may be true that 3D requires an alert if it is not natural but would any experienced player take it as natural? It is so clearly showing doubt about diamonds: at the very least an experienced player would ask.

Another thing is that nowhere in the thread is there any mention of a weighted score. Under the 2007 Laws, weighted scores are the norm in adjusting [except in Law 12C1E jurisdictions such as North America] and it is difficult for me to envisage an auction where North did not lead a diamond, but would have been 100% certain to lead one if 3D was alerted.

I am sorry, Chris, I have no idea whether your ruling was right or wrong: it is not a case where it is possible to say without knowing the sequence. But my guess is that the defence may have been naive!