[mycroft]

Why can't he ask? He's interested in knowing if they failed to Alert or if the 1NT bidder decided to pull a penalty redouble, isn't he?

As I said, I don't necessarily agree with that argument. I do know it has validity.

As I also said (much earlier), you can attack the legs of "you should have protected yourself"; and the "without prejudice" leg should be easiest. Good luck with that.

[Cyberyeti]

 mycroft, on 2024-November-28, 23:29, said:

Why can't he ask? He's interested in knowing if they failed to Alert or if the 1NT bidder decided to pull a penalty redouble, isn't he?

As I said, I don't necessarily agree with that argument. I do know it has validity.

As I also said (much earlier), you can attack the legs of "you should have protected yourself"; and the "without prejudice" leg should be easiest. Good luck with that.

He's unlikely to pull it to my 4+ card suit (I think his 2♣ was also alerted but not 100% sure)

[barmar]

Was this really "obvious misinformation"? You didn't seem to think so at the time the call was made, or I think you would have protected yourself.

[Cyberyeti]

 barmar, on 2024-November-29, 10:35, said:

Was this really "obvious misinformation"? You didn't seem to think so at the time the call was made, or I think you would have protected yourself.

The problem was that I wasn't sure whether I could ask when it was not my turn, and in that moment while I was thinking about that, P-2♥ hit the table and I lost the chance to protect myself. My only chance of rectifying the situation was with correct info directly over the XX.

[Cyberyeti]

The upshot of this eventually after appeal was an adjustment to 60:40 to us as they weren't sure we'd have bid 3N.

I don't know if this is legal, but it meant we still won the event.

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-December-04, 09:40, said:

The upshot of this eventually after appeal was an adjustment to 60:40 to us as they weren't sure we'd have bid 3N.

I don't know if this is legal, but it meant we still won the event.

It's not legal (Law 12C). They should have awarded a weighed score. Besides, since it's a director's error, both sides should be treated as non-offending (Law 82C) and the result should be Avg+/Avg+ (60%/60%) if it's impossible to establish an outcome.
Anyway congratulations.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2024-December-05, 04:19, said:

It's not legal (Law 12C). They should have awarded a weighed score. Besides, since it's a director's error, both sides should be treated as non-offending (Law 82C) and the result should be Avg+/Avg+ (60%/60%) if it's impossible to establish an outcome.
Anyway congratulations.

I think they effectively did this for all the wrong reasons, said we'd have bid 3N about 1/3 of the time so that would be around the right adjustment.

Not sure it's a director's error, what do you feel he did wrong ?

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2024-December-05, 04:19, said:

It's not legal (Law 12C). They should have awarded a weighed score. Besides, since it's a director's error, both sides should be treated as non-offending (Law 82C) and the result should be Avg+/Avg+ (60%/60%) if it's impossible to establish an outcome.
Anyway congratulations.

But it is possible to establish an outcome here: 33% 3NT making + 66% the alternative(or some split between multiple alternatives). So that is the rectification to this Director error.

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2024-November-28, 05:26, said:

The director did eventually rule, I'm appealing his decision in that he applied the first part of 5H1 but not the second part.

Cyberyeti, on 2024-December-05, 06:39, said:

Not sure it's a director's error, what do you feel he did wrong ?

The appeal was successful, so the director made an error in deciding that you should have protected yourself although you explained that you couldn't ask about the missing alert without putting your side’s interests at risk.

[jillybean]

sanst, on 2024-December-05, 13:11, said:

The appeal was successful, so the director made an error in deciding that you should have protected yourself although you explained that you couldn't ask about the missing alert without putting your side’s interests at risk.

Finally, a sensible ruling !

Congratulations on your win. This shambles must have taken some of the joy from your win but I'm glad it is resolved.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2024-December-05, 15:22, said:

Finally, a sensible ruling !

Congratulations on your win. This shambles must have taken some of the joy from your win but I'm glad it is resolved.

FWIW I don't wholly agree. It was sensible that the win was restored, but the 60/40 ruling makes no sense IMO, looks more like rough justice on BBO.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2024-December-05, 15:24, said:

FWIW I don't wholly agree. It was sensible that the win was restored, but the 60/40 ruling makes no sense IMO, looks more like rough justice on BBO.

Yes, I meant the ruling that the opps not alerting was indeed an infraction, resulting in damage.

The rectification is another thing.