[lamford]

---

1NT, weak, was not announced, as required, and South mistakenly thought that EW were playing a strong NT. She doubled, showing majors or minors or diamonds. North correctly thought that EW were playing a weak NT and passed as double would be for penalties. If there had been an announcement, South would have bid 2C, majors, North would have bid 2D and South 2H. That might have been doubled. Nine tricks were made in 1NTx. The TD adjusted to 1NT+2, about average. EW did not appeal. Nor did North-South. Should either have done so?

[blackshoe]

In what jurisdiction did this happen?

[paulg]

Is it only a weak no trump that has to be announced? Or are all one no trump ranges supposed to be announced?

[shyams]

Assuming this is EBU, my firm belief is that E/W should have appealed the ruling.

The Director could have assessed a penalty for the non-announcement by East. There may be other Laws that may affect E/W scores (I'm not a TD).

Having said that, South's action is definitely based on 'own misunderstanding' as per the promulgated Laws and N/S did not deserve a roll back to 1NT +2 undoubled.

[Huibertus]

Makes no sense to me.

Apparently the TD was of the opinion there SHOULD have been an announcement, otherwise he would have let the table result stand. Changing the result is NOT punishment for the missed announcement, it is a way to correct the result to a situation there without the infringement. If a TD does this he should pick a result that could actually happen without the infringement and the most profitable result to NS that is plausible. So that would have been 2♥ plaid undoubled by NS.

Whether or not a punishment is needed on top for EW is a different discussion. I'd say yes, you can't just play weak 1NT and not announce it.

[jillybean]

paulg, on 2025-May-22, 01:43, said:

Is it only a weak no trump that has to be announced? Or are all one no trump ranges supposed to be announced?

This sounds like ACBL. It is becoming the norm to not announce 15-17nt 1nt openings, along with other "standard", although, alertable bids.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2025-May-21, 20:33, said:

In what jurisdiction did this happen?

England. The NT range must be announcead

[lamford]

shyams, on 2025-May-22, 02:01, said:

Assuming this is EBU, my firm belief is that E/W should have appealed the ruling.

The Director could have assessed a penalty for the non-announcement by East. There may be other Laws that may affect E/W scores (I'm not a TD).

Having said that, South's action is definitely based on 'own misunderstanding' as per the promulgated Laws and N/S did not deserve a roll back to 1NT +2 undoubled.

You are thinking of
21A No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

There is plenty of case law that this does not apply if the misunderstanding arose from an opponent's infraction

[lamford]

Huibertus, on 2025-May-22, 04:05, said:

Makes no sense to me.

Apparently the TD was of the opinion there SHOULD have been an announcement, otherwise he would have let the table result stand. Changing the result is NOT punishment for the missed announcement, it is a way to correct the result to a situation there without the infringement. If a TD does this he should pick a result that could actually happen without the infringement and the most profitable result to NS that is plausible. So that would have been 2♥ plaid undoubled by NS.

Whether or not a punishment is needed on top for EW is a different discussion. I'd say yes, you can't just play weak 1NT and not announce it.

Spot on. There was not a world of difference between 1NT+2 and 2H-2, so NS did not appeal

[axman]

Huibertus, on 2025-May-22, 04:05, said:

Makes no sense to me.

Apparently the TD was of the opinion there SHOULD have been an announcement, otherwise he would have let the table result stand. Changing the result is NOT punishment for the missed announcement, it is a way to correct the result to a situation there without the infringement. If a TD does this he should pick a result that could actually happen without the infringement and the most profitable result to NS that is plausible. So that would have been 2♥ plaid undoubled by NS.

Whether or not a punishment is needed on top for EW is a different discussion. I'd say yes, you can't just play weak 1NT and not announce it.

Language is important and worth paying attention:

Do you see the contradiction of <correct the result to a situation there without the infringement.> by <the most profitable result to NS that is plausible.>?


12C1(b) does not say The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek the most profitable result to NS had the infraction not occurred.

[Huibertus]

axman, on 2025-May-22, 08:20, said:

Language is important and worth paying attention:

Do you see the contradiction of <correct the result to a situation there without the infringement.> by <the most profitable result to NS that is plausible.>?


12C1(b) does not say The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek the most profitable result to NS had the infraction not occurred.

Uhm no there is no contradiction, because of the word "plausible" I used. Language is important indeed.

You are right, a TD is NOT obliged to pick the best possible result. But is obliged to pick the best possible result that is plausible, that is just standard practice that ANY TD should know about. Removing the double from 1NT is just not good enough because South already showcased he WAS going to bid majors over a strong NT, so very likely would NOT pass over a weak NT.

The best plausible (again, not the best thinkable) score is justified as a correction, and it ALSO helps to put the onus of a POTENTIAL appeal on the side of the culprits, which is a second good practice TD's should be aware of.

[blackshoe]

Law 12B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.
2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.
C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1.(a) When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.
(b) The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred.

The emphasis in 12C2b is mine, and is intended to dispel the idea that the director should be looking for some "worst" result for the OS or "best" result for the NOS.

I would note further that "damage" depends on the method of scoring. If that method is matchpoints, and the matchpoint result for the "probable outcome of the board" is the same as the matchpoint result obtained at the table, there has been no damage, so there should be no score adjustment.

[mycroft]

In the ACBL (at tournaments at least), we have case law that "100% of 1NT openers require a statement (Announcement or Alert); if you didn't hear it, then there has been an irregularity (either failure to Alert/Announce, or failure to ensure the opponents were aware)."

You don't have to draw attention to the irregularity. Many don't. But if you bid knowing about the irregularity, then your action doesn't depend on the range (because if it did, you'd check). 11A.

Of course, we had at least 10 years where the BOD had to rule on a request to re-exempt "15-17" NTs from Announcement. It was voted down, heavily, every year. If the players decide to make, or play by, a rule that both the C&C and the BOD agree is bad, that's their lookout.

Score stands, at least for N/S. Next time you'll ask, South, won't you? Especially in the EBU where an 11-14-and-forget is within the realm of possibility, and you do in fact play two different defences?

I'm happy to adjust (and I think Law 11A tells me I must) E-W to 150 or some fractions of 150/100 if I can get enough support for "no double, no spade lead, the NOS will scrounge the sixth trick most of the time". And maybe a PP to E-W, *especially* if they play it weak and the "15-17 doesn't need an announcement" disease is hopping the Pond (double especially in the ACBL, where it's *not* reasonable to not assume (yeah, could be 14-16 or "good 14 to flat 17", but whatever), depending on whether there's any wilfulness in causing this problem.

Yes, many clubs - including the ACBL club on BBO - have decided to implement the "you can play the [other country] defence to NT" rule. And I wish them all the joy of that decision. But at tournaments: "they are required to say something. If you didn't hear it and choose to act, it clearly didn't matter to you."

I don't know what the EBU case law is on this; I'm sure GordonTD et al do. Ask them?

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2025-May-22, 15:07, said:

In the ACBL (at tournaments at least), we have case law that "100% of 1NT openers require a statement (Announcement or Alert); if you didn't hear it, then there has been an irregularity (either failure to Alert/Announce, or failure to ensure the opponents were aware)."

An announcement is required in England for all 1NT openers as well. None was made. On the previous board, a 1NT REBID had been explained as 15-17 and South might have been confused by that.

I am more inclined to agree with Hulbertus that, without the infraction, the likely result was 2H-2 and one should revert to that, rather than 1NT+2, which the TD did. Another possible outcome is 3C by West, with East making a takeout double of 2H.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2025-May-22, 14:40, said:

Law 12B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.
2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.
C. Awarding an Adjusted Score
1.(a) When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play.
(b) The Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred.

The emphasis in 12C2b is mine, and is intended to dispel the idea that the director should be looking for some "worst" result for the OS or "best" result for the NOS.

I would note further that "damage" depends on the method of scoring. If that method is matchpoints, and the matchpoint result for the "probable outcome of the board" is the same as the matchpoint result obtained at the table, there has been no damage, so there should be no score adjustment.

I am inclined to not not so believe.

The law merely says there is this thing (with ephemeral qualities) called damage. It does not define damage so that people can know when others see it.

[blackshoe]

If I were on the drafting subcommittee, just for you I'd ensure that the next version of the laws says explicitly that what's written about about damage defines that term.

Yeah, yeah, "until then, yada, yada". Nope.

[mycroft]

I'm confused. In the law quoted and quote-posted:

"Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred."

It's not in the definitions. That's probably a better place for it. But it is absolutely a definition, and one that "people can know when others see it". At least this "people" can.

[mycroft]

So, that's why I was willing to give a fraction of 150 (1NT+2, or 2♥-3) and 100 (2♥-2). I didn't think that 300/500 was appropriate for a pair that caused a problem by failing to do something 100% required.

But I don't feel bad (or think the Law allows for an adjustment, at least with our case law) for South. It's a horrible habit, that has lasted (in the ACBL) 25 years in spite of all knowledge and explanations as to why the regulation is there (it's for your benefit, folks!); and if you're willing to go along with people who do it, well, now you won't. And in this particular case, if South becomes a "I always ask because I was ruled against once" person, I'm good with that.

[smerriman]

OK, so consider the scenario where N/S are perfectly aware that E/W are playing a weak no-trump. For example, a 1NT rebid was explained as 15-17 on the previous board (as lamford said was actually the case).

Can South now freely double on this hand? If 1NT goes down, great; if not, you ask for a correction to 2M.

This seems to be a standard gambling situation which South contributed to by not asking when asking seems automatic, especially given the previous board. And that being the case, we can't conclude what Huibertus did that "South already showcased he WAS going to bid majors over a strong NT, so very likely would NOT pass over a weak NT."; without the double shot South may well have passed an announced strong NT.

If this were an event where "everyone" plays a strong 1NT, and South is a weak player where they would be "confused" by the last hand rather than knowing how weak no-trumps work, so that their failure to ask is understandable (though the fact the meaning was clear to North suggests otherwise), then it seems fine to just adjust the score to either 2♥ or 3♣, depending on whether or not East would come back in (is everyone assuming it would be normal for an 11 count opposite 12-14 to pass out 2♥?).

But otherwise, I would say E/W should be adjusted to some combination of 1N, 2♥, 3♣, the first included if others would pass as South. N/S would also receive a similar adjustment but partially adjusted down to compensate for their own contribution towards 1Nx.

[Huibertus]

smerriman, on 2025-May-24, 14:53, said:

For example, a 1NT rebid was explained as 15-17 on the previous board (as lamford said was actually the case).

I have plaid variable NT openings for many years. 13 of the 16 board would be weak, the others would be strong. So you just need to know every single time.

Apart from that, it's not hard. Weak NT's need to be announced, not just once but when the occur, if you don't bad luck, your fault, learn the rules of the game.