Conflicting infractions
#1
Posted 2012-January-15, 03:35
The main question: who is offending and who is non-offending side now and how to adjust? I did't manage to find any guidance in the Law without assistance.
Also:
Should North protect himself by asking questions before bidding? What if any NT range have to be announced instead of alerting according to local regulations but wasn't - does it makes any difference?
#2
Posted 2012-January-15, 09:53
Failure to alert is MI (Law 21B1{a}. Where MI has occurred, and it is too late (same law) for anyone on the NOS to change his call, the TD is permitted to adjust the score (Law 21B3). If, as you say, the second infraction might never have happened because the auction would have been completely different then equity for both sides as of the adjudication of the first offense will not have been disturbed by the second offense, so no rectification needs to be made for that offense. IOW, adjust for the MI and leave it at that.
Should North protect himself? There's no need for that. An announcement, if that's what the regulation requires, would make no difference. Failure to announce, like failure to alert, is MI.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
Posted 2012-January-15, 18:29
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#4
Posted 2012-January-15, 18:42
blackshoe, on 2012-January-15, 09:53, said:
Should North protect himself? There's no need for that. An announcement, if that's what the regulation requires, would make no difference. Failure to announce, like failure to alert, is MI.
Is failure to announce MI? It seems more like "lack of I".
In the EBU NT ranges are announced, and it really has sorted out the problems in this area. In the rare cases responder is in another world and doesn't announce, it is very common to ask. I am not sure, but I believe that a consequence of the regulation is that when one does ask, she is normally not considered to have transmitted UI.
In the OP case, asking would be ludicrous -- should North protect himself by asking the meaning of every unalerted bid?
Anyway I would go along with blackshoe's approach.
#5
Posted 2012-January-15, 18:45
Vampyr, on 2012-January-15, 18:42, said:
I hope it doesn't, since I always ask if they do not announce, and similarly in the ACBL.
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>
#6
Posted 2012-January-17, 17:13
gombo121, on 2012-January-15, 03:35, said:
The main question: who is offending and who is non-offending side now and how to adjust? I did't manage to find any guidance in the Law without assistance.
Also:
Should North protect himself by asking questions before bidding? What if any NT range have to be announced instead of alerting according to local regulations but wasn't - does it makes any difference?
blackshoe, on 2012-January-15, 09:53, said:
Failure to alert is MI (Law 21B1{a}. Where MI has occurred, and it is too late (same law) for anyone on the NOS to change his call, the TD is permitted to adjust the score (Law 21B3). If, as you say, the second infraction might never have happened because the auction would have been completely different then equity for both sides as of the adjudication of the first offense will not have been disturbed by the second offense, so no rectification needs to be made for that offense. IOW, adjust for the MI and leave it at that.
I agree with Ed's basic reasoning. If the TD adjusts for the second infraction, then the effect of his adjustment becomes irrelevant once he also adjusts for the first infraction. Therefore, for East/West the TD should assign a score (or weighted scores, if appropriate) based on the normal consequence of their infraction, i.e. what would/might have happened if 1NT had been alerted.
However, when assigning a score for North/South, the TD also needs to consider Law 12C1b:
Quote
As far as the first infraction is concerned, North/South is the non-offending side. The failure by North and/or South to comply with the UI laws is a wild action and is subsequent to the (first) infraction. Thus North/South should be denied redress to the extent that any of their illegal calls has disimproved their partnership's expected score, considering the effect of each illegal call separately.
The TD should also consider procedural penalties for North/South.
#7
Posted 2012-January-20, 17:22
Vampyr, on 2012-January-19, 06:06, said:
Since you mention it, most of the posts to this topic belong in other threads. Perhaps one of the moderators could set up a new thread about announcements in response to 1NT and move most of the replies there.
It's a shame because the original poster has raised an interesting issue.
#8
Posted 2012-January-21, 16:33
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean