[Zelandakh]

The following occurred in a German club pairs game. All of the players involved are good intermediate to advanced in standard. The bidding runs:-

---

After 3♠ the East player says thoughtfully "400 or 500" and then pulls out the double card. South turns to East and says "You really cannot say that". At this point the Director happens to be wandering by and is asked for a ruling. He ascertains the facts are as above, South adding that they believe this has communicated information to West and East saying that they spoke for their own benefit and not for their partner's. The Director rules that everything is OK and play continues.

The penalty from 3♠X is easily enough to give E-W a top. It turns out that South has made a poor bid with ♠J9xxx and an outside ace and North has raised with 8xx. East now thinks South was being cheeky in calling the Director over the double after overcalling with this hand. South in turn thinks the table result should stand but is openly angry that E-W have not received any penalty.

Was the Director's ruling correct? Should East and/or South be penalised for their actions?

[Cyberyeti]

Provided the double is 100% unambiguously penalty (which it clearly was after the tabletalk) and W is not so distributional he should be pulling it, there's clearly no adjustment. The tabletalk should be penalised in some way probably merely by a reprimand with explanation as to why it might have caused a much bigger problem than it did in this case in a club setting.

One of the bugbears of my life is that where I come from (local clubs not national events), you will never ever win a ruling after you've psyched or bid very light however egregious opponents' behaviour, and E's reaction typifies this.

[helene_t]

I think East's behaviour is outrageous and he deserves a steer warning.

Whether South's overcall was a SEWoG doesn't matter as I understand it as it took place before the infraction. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Even so, unless it is plausible that East's double could have been interpreted as "action" I don't think table result can be adjusted. EW gets the maximum procedural penalty, though.

[mgoetze]

Zelandakh, on 2011-August-25, 02:20, said:

After 3♠ the East player says thoughtfully "400 or 500" and then pulls out the double card. South turns to East and says "You really cannot say that". At this point the Director happens to be wandering by and is asked for a ruling. He ascertains the facts are as above, South adding that they believe this has communicated information to West and East saying that they spoke for their own benefit and not for their partner's. The Director rules that everything is OK and play continues.

The penalty from 3♠X is easily enough to give E-W a top. It turns out that South has made a poor bid with ♠J9xxx and an outside ace and North has raised with 8xx. East now thinks South was being cheeky in calling the Director over the double after overcalling with this hand. South in turn thinks the table result should stand but is openly angry that E-W have not received any penalty.

Was the Director's ruling correct? Should East and/or South be penalised for their actions?

"Everything is OK" is technically not really a ruling, is it? What the TD should have done is (a) explain to East that this kind of table talk is definitely not OK, perhaps threatening a PP if he does it again; (b) explain to West that he has UI and how he is constrained by it and © look at West's cards afterwards to see whether the UI was abused.

What is the UI here? Two parts: East does not have a heart fit (otherwise he would surely have mentioned "420") and East believes the most likely result in 3♠ is down 2. Both of these suggest passing rather than pulling. Thus the TD should determine whether West had any logical alternatives other than pass and, if so, correct the score.

[Bbradley62]

Helene: Which is it?

helene_t, on 2011-August-25, 03:46, said:

I think East's behaviour is outrageous and he deserves a steer warning.

or

helene_t, on 2011-August-25, 03:46, said:

EW gets the maximum procedural penalty, though.

I'm intrigued by the comparison of responses in this thread to the ones in another recent thread:
http://www.bridgebas...-an-accusation/
In that one, the majority seemed to think it was inappropriate for a player to make a comment about the actions of another, but no one seems to think that this time.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2011-August-25, 03:46, said:

EW gets the maximum procedural penalty, though.

There is no maximum procedural penalty. In practice, of course, at match points, once you've awarded a large enough penalty to negate any possible positive score for the event, it's pointless to increase it. That said, it would be rare, I think, to award more than 100% of a top.

I don't make threats. If I decide to issue what one author here in the US calls a "PP(Warning)" it will include the information that any future transgression will result in a PP in match points. Not a threat, but a promise, and one that I will keep.

East's level of experience will affect whether I would give a PP in matchpoints or a PP(Warning).

If the director involved thinks "everything is ok" here, he needs some remedial training.

[mgoetze]

Bbradley62, on 2011-August-25, 06:04, said:

I'm intrigued by the comparison of responses in this thread to the ones in another recent thread:
http://www.bridgebas...-an-accusation/
In that one, the majority seemed to think it was inappropriate for a player to make a comment about the actions of another, but no one seems to think that this time.

The key difference is that the TD was involved.

[Bbradley62]

mgoetze, on 2011-August-25, 07:08, said:

The key difference is that the TD was involved.

No, that was yet a third thread, and not one of the two I am comparing here.

[mgoetze]

Bbradley62, on 2011-August-25, 07:20, said:

No, that was yet a third thread, and not one of the two I am comparing here.

Sorry, "involved" as in "called to the table".

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2011-August-25, 03:46, said:

I think East's behaviour is outrageous and he deserves a steer warning.

I agree it is outrageous, but threat of castration seems too harsh a punishment.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2011-August-25, 08:13, said:

I agree it is outrageous, but threat of castration seems too harsh a punishment.

... but not by much