[blackshoe]

This forum is about rulings. It is not about how bad some player's bidding or play may be, unless it's so bad as to affect the ruling. That is not the case here.

[blackshoe]

 helene_t, on 2014-October-08, 10:58, said:

You can look at their CC to see what the bid means. If they don't have a CC then it really isn't your problem.

RHO bids 2♦, you ask "may I see your card, please?" This doesn't convey the same UI that asking "what does 2♦ mean?" or similar?

[trevahound]

You're not at all concerned with the defense to 2nt undoubled? I would be, if I determined there was MI and I was considering what adjustment might be appropriate. Is that wrong?

I have been ruled against multiple times in ACBL land by directors telling me I should have protected myself (or worse, my partner should have protected me) by asking about unalerted calls when they could have potentially been conventional.

Has anyone established that E/W had the agreement E thought they had?

[blackshoe]

 helene_t, on 2014-October-08, 02:41, said:

Is it really not possible to give more than 25% DP penalty to W? I would like to give him 100% if possible.

The ZT policy is very specific. However, I think the (again, very specific) punishment for the second offense makes "25% is not enough" moot.

[weejonnie]

 trevahound, on 2014-October-08, 12:26, said:

You're not at all concerned with the defense to 2nt undoubled? I would be, if I determined there was MI and I was considering what adjustment might be appropriate. Is that wrong?

I have been ruled against multiple times in ACBL land by directors telling me I should have protected myself (or worse, my partner should have protected me) by asking about unalerted calls when they could have potentially been conventional.

Has anyone established that E/W had the agreement E thought they had?

I would look at the possible MI - however if South knew that 2♦ was a transfer and would have doubled then EW would probably not arrive in 2NT. Where they would have arrived depends on partnership understandings about 'system on' and 'system off'. e.g. would 2NT after the double be a super accept of hearts? East may have UI due to the non-alert of 2♦ It is not impossible that West thought East was showing diamonds and would have raised pre-emptively to stop North showing hearts.

[mycroft]

1) Unfortunately (as a weak NT, no transfers player, *and* one who tends to play Cuebid Stayman, all else NAT over NT overcalls), the way things seem to be ruled in the ACBL is that "it is very likely that that is a transfer, and if you do not ask, we're not going to help you." I am uncomfortable about this, as if you ask all the time you annoy everybody (especially me, whose standard response(*) is "well, if it wasn't natural I'd have to have said something, wouldn't I?"), and if you don't, partner "magically" finds the diamond lead that sets this hand.

2) Snarky comments are way out of line - especially as my standard response(*) to the "doesn't everybody play transfers?" is "No. Actually I find Cuebid=Stayman is a much better treatment, for instance", never mind "whether everybody you know plays it that way or not, it is Announceable, and you are required to do so, *and* to correct any failures to do so at the appropriate time"... Snarky comments after the TD leaves should bring the TD back, "My opponent seems to still have an issue." (**)

3) If I'm expected to know that 2♦ is clearly a transfer, then am I not allowed to assume that 2NT is clearly a superaccept of some sort? So why did East pass it? Whether I am going to give recompense to South or whether I'm going to rule "should have protected", I am definitely going to look at the potential use of UI from passing 2NT. Now, it could be that they play 2NT as super-deny, and I'm sure they'll have notes to that effect. (another standard response(*): "Remember, all MI calls have a UI component that must be checked, even if the players don't mention it - and frequently vice versa.")

4) Yeah, I think that failing to double 1NT by N is pretty horrible, assuming N/S are playing some sort of standard openings. If they open most 10s, okay, maybe not. But that's not a legal issue - you're allowed to bid not like me.

5) Even if I don't protect South who "should have known", and even if I don't assign a result based on East returning to 3♥ over the superaccept, I'm still allowed to rule that failing to ask is a Serious Bridge Error (or the ACBL's "Failure to Play Bridge"), and adjust the score for E-W based on a diamond lead.

6) I'll probably be discussing this hand in the bar/Director's group after the game. I'm not suggesting that's a *good* thing...

(*) "standard response" - I know I have snark level way-too-high, and winning the snark battle is still illegal. Standard responses are for the bar afterward, not for the table.

(**) People around this area know what that means when I say it, and those who have been reading the Jinksy thread also do.

[jillybean]

 mycroft, on 2014-October-08, 14:12, said:

5) Even if I don't protect South who "should have known", and even if I don't assign a result based on East returning to 3♥ over the superaccept, I'm still allowed to rule that failing to ask is a Serious Bridge Error (or the ACBL's "Failure to Play Bridge"), and adjust the score for E-W based on a diamond lead.

Hi Michael.
Please confirm, do you mean that south has committed a SBE by not asking about the 2D bid and you will adjust based on a diamond lead, or that the SBE is East's failure to announce the transfer before the opening lead.?

[barmar]

 sanst, on 2014-October-08, 04:16, said:

What S could have done differently? Asking about the 2♦ bid and passing, beacause it's explained as a transfer, gives UI to N, wich would lead to trouble when N leads a ♦, not to mention the AI it gives to EW.

If South asks, is told that it's a transfer, and then doubles, there's no UI problem. The double shows stuff in diamonds

It could be an issue if the answer is that it's natural, though.

[Jinksy]

 blackshoe, on 2014-October-07, 23:21, said:

3. When the director leaves the table after telling South he'll "look at the hand", and West starts being snarky again, South should call the director back. This second offense rates ejection from the event and disqualification from winning any masterpoints therein.

I'm still slightly confused about what you're supposed to say to the director (and, while waiting for them to arrive, the opps) in this sort of scenario. If it's "just the facts" in the most parsimonious sense - ie no mention of 'aggressive manner' and such subjective judgements, what do you actually say, assuming they haven't used any phrases which are unambiguously hostile*? Are you explicit that you're reporting them for bad behaviour?

How would you describe the behaviour if it didn't entail clearly offending phrases? Or do the facts include such things as subjective experience? Ie 'I found E's manner very unpleasant'?

There's a spectrum of grounds for complaints about bad behaviour that directors must have to deal with and which, as a player, I'd like to help them gauge the position on, from a player throwing explicit abuse/pulling a gun on someone through to having an innocent verbal or facial tic that the complainer has misinterpreted. Somewhere in between these extremes lie the majority of most bad experiences at the bridge table'. I am pretty sure someone could read the rules and laws of bridge from beginning to end and then still deliberately make another player's life miserable at the bridge table without violating the letter of any one of them. Having not read them in such depth

* I'm not even sure such phrases exist. Almost any term of abuse can be sincere, friendly banter or even - more rarely - neutral.

[RMB1]

 Jinksy, on 2014-October-09, 09:07, said:

How would you describe the behaviour if it didn't entail clearly offending phrases? Or do the facts include such things as subjective experience? Ie 'I found E's manner very unpleasant'?

"East still has some problem with what has happened and I found what he said objectionable".

Then the TD can then investigate what was said and how it was said, and deal with the bad behaviour.

[mycroft]

 jillybean, on 2014-October-08, 18:06, said:

Hi Michael.
Please confirm, do you mean that south has committed a SBE by not asking about the 2D bid and you will adjust based on a diamond lead, or that the SBE is East's failure to announce the transfer before the opening lead.?

If I rule that it was a bridge error for South to fail to protect herself, then I can still adjust, and state that the entire difference between adjusted result and table result was a function of the bridge error, and assign accordingly. Basically, South still needs to protect herself, but E/W don't gain from deliberate and knowing failure to follow Procedure (and if 2300 monsterpoints doesn't know how a 20-year-old Alert process works, he will now that it actually matters to him!)

But my guess would be that I wouldn't get there. Frankly, that pass of 2NT is a big flag, and that will be my second priority after settling the table. Especially from someone in flight A who would say "everyone knows that that's a transfer", failing to treat it as a strong bid is at least massively suspicious. I guess if he convinces me that that shows "maximum overcall, fewer than 3 hearts", and if he convinces me that that is not sufficiently unusual enough to be Alertable, then passing is fine. Otherwise, why would you ever want to be in NT with that hand and a known heart fit?

Actually, now that I look at the hand again, it looks like you're only entitled to three diamonds, the ♥K and the ♣A in 3♥. So maybe we're back to deciding whether the MI caused problems, and to whom. *North* may have an issue at the opening lead, even with no double.

One more thing - so let's see what happens if South doesn't have to protect herself in this auction, and is entitled to the Announcement. She doubles, West passes (2♦X seems to be our best spot), and East Alerts the pass and explains it (to N/S, West doesn't hear it) as "only 2 hearts". East bids 2♥ (what else is he going to do?), West likely wakes up after that, and nobody has much to say (maybe North bids 3♦ - that seems to make after ♠A, ruff, heart to the A, spade, ruffed (or overruffed), and game over; maybe North doubles, but they're the NOS, so I'm not handing out -670s). I can't see them ever getting to 2NT with a double of 2♦, so we're talking about -110/+110 as potential adjustments, or -150 with the MI having caused North to avoid the diamond lead, but not +500 on a diamond lead in to 2NTx.

2NT double "lead dummy's suit"? well, with the *right* information, that suit is hearts; with the wrong information, well South didn't in fact double at the table, so nothing there.

[Ooh, I like this...Award 2NT-3 on a diamond lead that was discouraged by the failure to Announce. Point out that East, by Law, is both required to correct the failure to Announce and avoid using the UI, correcting to the superaccepted suit instead of passing 2NT; and if he had followed the Laws, he'd have got -50 there, -100 if he was really unlucky. But since his side committed 3 infractions, we'll go with 2NT-3. "Have I mentioned I'm passive-aggressive lately?"]

 Jinksy, on 2014-October-09, 09:07, said:

I'm still slightly confused about what you're supposed to say to the director (and, while waiting for them to arrive, the opps) in this sort of scenario. If it's "just the facts" in the most parsimonious sense - ie no mention of 'aggressive manner' and such subjective judgements, what do you actually say, assuming they haven't used any phrases which are unambiguously hostile*? Are you explicit that you're reporting them for bad behaviour?

Well, you heard what I'd say, above - "My opponent still seems to have an issue." If the TD asks them what it is, they get to play that game to the TD. If the TD doesn't get what she wants from them, she'll likely ask you, and you can say what you were told. [Edit: I like RMB's line; it's less passive-aggressive. OTOH, it's more straight up aggressive and may get a stronger reaction from East - but at least the TD will, guaranteed, investigate what was said and how.]

If, when the TD leaves again, the comments start up again, lather, rinse, repeat. Eventually at least one of the people involved will get it, and the next hand will be played (perhaps VERY silently, but oh well). You are now known as one of those players up with these games you will not put, nor will you get rattled.

In my experience (apart from me, I have no people skills™), ACBL TDs are neither socially stupid nor inference-blind, and do not need to be led by the nose to the [redacted] being pointed out. Clubs are a different story, and what you do is a question of whether you want the offender punished, whether you want the behaviour curtailed in future, and/or whether you are willing to go somewhere else in future should the TD not care/not be aware/not understand the issue/still live in the 70s when this was standard practise.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER: Although I (rarely) work for the ACBL, I do not speak for them in any way.

[Jinksy]

I just realised no-one has commented on this line:

Quote

West responds loudly and aggressively, implying that South is wrong to call the director.

Am I right in thinking that (even volume and aggression aside), this is basically always false, since in case of a disagreement - which 'whether it's wrong to call the director' obviously is - it's always correct to call the director?

[helene_t]

Yes it can never be wrong to call the director (OK: "TD, could you bring me a beer?" would be an unjustified TD call).

Here it is obvious that there has been an irregularity so it must be right to call the TD. But even if W thought there was no irregularity, it is still the right thing to do to call the TD if S thought there might have been an irregularity.

[jeffford76]

 helene_t, on 2014-October-10, 06:52, said:

Yes it can never be wrong to call the director (OK: "TD, could you bring me a beer?" would be an unjustified TD call).

Clearly you play in the wrong clubs.

[VixTD]

 Jinksy, on 2014-October-10, 06:26, said:

Am I right in thinking that (even volume and aggression aside), this is basically always false, since in case of a disagreement - which 'whether it's wrong to call the director' obviously is - it's always correct to call the director?

I consider objecting to an opponent's call for the director to be a serious offence, particularly if it's done in an aggressive or intimidating manner, and I'd make it clear to everyone that it's not acceptable.

I'm sure a lot of bad behaviour goes unpunished because the TD doesn't get to witness it. If I'm called to the table where a fracas is occurring I often find it difficult to establish exactly what's happened and who's caused the offence. In many cases the other side has been goaded into an unwise retort, and it's difficult to fine one side without also fining the other.

If a player calls me to report offensive behaviour I would ask the accused to repeat verbatim what they said if that seems to be pertinent, but even if they do it's not always easy to know whether it was a jocular remark that was misinterpreted. I often get a toned-down version of events, or a counter-accusation to go with it, and the best I can do is calm them all down, firmly remind them of correct procedure and behaviour, dish out a warning and get the game underway again. I will only fine the accused if I am satisfied they have committed a penalisable offence, so I'm sure a lot of the time if the claim was genuine the non-offenders feel aggrieved that their opponents have been nasty and got away with it. If I do fine them and it was an innocent remark, or a case of "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other", the side wrongly accused will justifiably feel hard done-by.

If I find myself as a player angrily accused of some misdemenour (usually something like misinforming the opponents, or "hesitating" with a singleton at trick one), I call the director and say something like "I think this gentleman wishes to make a complaint" and leave it to him to explain the problem. If the accuser does so in outraged tones, it gives the TD a picture of what might have been said before they arrived. It gives the TD a chance to explain the legality of the situation ("well, we don't have any evidence yet that it's the explanation that's wrong", "actually, he's quite right to alert that call", "taking time to think at trick one is recommended practice and not an offence", etc.).

[mycroft]

I was going to say the same thing (well, "you direct in the wrong clubs", but still).

I did teach them to call for "Bartender" though, if that's what they needed, as I'd get to the table in "solve this" mode and be asked for a Caesar, and have to massively context switch. I remember we had a rare guest, and got a Bartender call; the guest said "that wasn't a nice thing to call the TD"; the reply of "That's what he wants, so he knows who he is" I guess made sense.

[chrism]

 mycroft, on 2014-October-10, 12:01, said:

I was going to say the same thing (well, "you direct in the wrong clubs", but still).

I did teach them to call for "Bartender" though, if that's what they needed, as I'd get to the table in "solve this" mode and be asked for a Caesar, and have to massively context switch. I remember we had a rare guest, and got a Bartender call; the guest said "that wasn't a nice thing to call the TD"; the reply of "That's what he wants, so he knows who he is" I guess made sense.

The correct form of the request is "Director, it's my round - what are you having?"

[Vampyr]

 jillybean, on 2014-October-07, 16:46, said:

South “has been playing long enough to know that 2♦ was not natural”.

Really. I have even playing a lot longer than South, and my regular partner and I play weak takeouts here.

[Bbradley62]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-10, 17:10, said:

Really. I have even playing a lot longer than South, and my regular partner and I play weak takeouts here.

I suspect that if you played in the same club where this hand was played, you'd know that "everyone" there plays "systems on" in this situation.

[jillybean]

 Vampyr, on 2014-October-10, 17:10, said:

Really. I have even playing a lot longer than South, and my regular partner and I play weak takeouts here.

Terrible way to post this quote, it appears that I said said “has been playing long enough to know that 2♦ was not natural”