[jillybean]

---

Club game, the players are all experienced tournament players
West 700mp, North 5300, East 2300, South 350

2♦ is not alerted
At the end of the auction and after North makes a face down lead, South asks “was all this natural?”
West replies “no, 2♦ was a transfer”, this information was not volunteered before the opening lead was selected.
South says “I need to call the director, I think we may have been damaged.”
West responds loudly and aggressively, implying that South is wrong to call the director.

The director comes to the table, listens to the details, advises North (but not South who was in the passout seat) that they can take back their pass now that they have the correct information, North says no, they would have passed. The director tells South to call at the end of the hand if they feel they have been damaged.

Contract makes and South calls director back and says they would have doubled 2♦ for a ♦ lead had it been alerted. Director advises he will look at the hand and leaves table again, West is again aggressive making comments such as “head's we win, tails you lose” and walks away from the table.

At the end of the round the director advises E/W that the result will be adjusted to -3, then tells N/S (who are still sitting at the table) that the result will be adjusted but that South “has been playing long enough to know that 2♦ was not natural”.

I have my own (strong) views on this but would like to hear what others have to say.

[RMB1]

Did NS tell the director of West comments/behaviour?

[TylerE]

Agree with the ruling. The 2NT makes me suspect even WEST wasn't sure it was a transfer, at the time.

I would also do my damnedest to find grounds for rewarding W with both a PP and a ZT violation.

[blackshoe]

The ruling was incorrect, Tyler, since South was not given a chance to change his (her?) last call.

Nothing further until I know the answer to Robin's question.

[trevahound]

Lots of things going on. The strangest one to me is North's pass of the 1nt overcall. What on earth would he need for a double? 5300mps? My partnerships open very aggressively and this is still a penalty double. Sigh. Until I change the laws, I suppose pass is not technically an infraction.

It's not clear to me from the OP what E/W's agreement was. It's clear E meant 2♦ as a transfer, but if that's news to W, he can hardly announce it. So, step one is try to determine what their agreement actually is.

I'm unfamiliar with overcalling 1nt on the W hand, but the OP didn't mention what the nominal range they were playing was. W clearly at least thought E's bid was forcing, unless the nominal range is so light that W was counter-inviting or accepting. One would presume if W thought E's 2♦ was natural, he'd have further described with 2♠; but I don't know their methods. Step 2 might be to try to determine what West thought their methods were, what he thought E's bid meant, what options he had available, etc...

If there was UI, East was the only one who had it until the end of the auction, correct? And pass was certainly a LA not suggested by the UI available to East. So, this isn't a UI case. It can only be a MI case if we decide what E/W's agreements were. If we decide they were playing transfers here and W forgot, then certainly S can convince me he'd double 2♦ for the lead. What would W do over that? Again, hard to say without determining what West thought they were playing. The director will have to use his best judgement if there was MI to determine how the auction would have continued after S's double. If no MI, though, no adjustment period.

How did the contract make? Seems to me N/S had to have tons of opportunities to switch to a diamond. Did South pitch a diamond on the first couple of clubs? N/S aren't required to defend perfectly (no matter what), but they have to play bridge. I'd love the story of how this contract made at the table. Adjusting to 2nt-3 is very hard for me to see.

All this ignores the behavior problems, which should absolutely not be ignored amongst experienced players. But that's nearly impossible to guesstimate if we weren't there and aren't hearing both sides.

[jillybean]

RMB1, on 2014-October-07, 16:51, said:

Did NS tell the director of West comments/behaviour?

No, the director could have heard a number of the comments.

[Bbradley62]

Has no one (North/South, director, forum responders) asked what was indicated on East/West's convention card?

[PhilKing]

It looks like all four players and the director erred here at least once.

I have no idea how master points are gathered in Canada, but if you never ever bid on a hand, how on earth does one amass 5300mp?

[mamos]

Who are the offending sides?

Well EW and the TD for sure and I haven't made my mind up about NS yet.

From the distance of a large ocean and an entire continent there is an unsavoury smell about all this, which makes me think that some bridge players are odious !&%$s.

These we are told are experienced bridge players, presumably the ones who set an example for newbies and establish the tone of the game.

South makes an ordinary enough opening - so far so good. West overcalls 1NT on a hand which appears well understrength to my limited understanding. North has a pretty good hand in the context. I don't understand Pass at all. Was there history between these players? Is there a serial puerile feud going on? North appears to have "allowed" for a pretty weak opening in the South. East starts off OK too with a pretty normal transfer response, but falls from grace pretty soon after when he fails to draw attention to his partner's failure to alert and appears to take advantage of the UI following the failure to alert and what would presumably normally be a transfer break

And then there's the TD. I assume the Club was burgled overnight and that the precious Law Book was stolen. The wrong player is offered the opportunity to change a call and apparently no one is told the correct time to correct misexplanations such as failure to alert. There was apparently no reference to UI nor to its blatant use.


As for whether the TD was told about all the bad behaviour we don't know, but It seems difficult to believe that a competent TD would not have been alert to the atmosphere at the table and in a good position to witness this. If NS didn't draw it to his attention they have not really anyone to blame but themselves. Players cannot expect Tds to deal with bad behaviour if they themselves don't draw attention to it at the time.

As for the ruling - done by the end of the round? doesn't seem to have been much considered but hey perhaps the Td was fed up with this lot and wasn't prepared to join in their games.

NS 5/10 EW 2/10 (and maybe less unless East has a good reason for passing 2♥) TD 0/10 and perhaps less on appeal

Mike

[blackshoe]

What should have happened:

1. When the director arrived at the table, he should have been informed about West's bad behavior, failure to announce "transfer" when 2♦ was bid, and the failure of both East and West to call the director and correct the failure to announce - East before the opening lead was chosen, and West as soon as he realized he'd failed to announce it properly.

2. The director should have explained the UI ramifications of the failure to alert, ascertained the meaning of 2NT, and if it appears that UI may have been used either in bidding 2NT or in passing it, that whatever happens, he might adjust the score afterwards. Then he should give South, not North, the opportunity to change his final pass. Also West rates a ZT penalty (1/4 board) for his behavior.

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.

4. Looks to me like on best defense EW are down 4 in 2NT doubled.

5. I don't think the director's comment to south about how long he's been playing should have been made. The TD is pretty clearly thinking about the "failure to protect oneself" business, but IMO in this case that doesn't apply. At the very least it is mitigated by the fact that South is by far the least experience player at the table.

Note that the ZT policy doesn't give the TD options - if he finds that someone has violated the policy, that player gets a 1/4 board penalty for a first offense. This applies to each player found to be in violation, so a side — or both sides — can get a total 1/2 a board penalty. And ejection for the second offense is mandatory. If the TD feels uncomfortable doing this, he should tear up his TD card and take up knitting.

I I were the DIC at this event, called in after the fact but within the correction period, I would immediately apply the ZT penalties, and I would correct the table ruling under Law 82C, director error. Then the table director and I would have a serious chat about how he performs his duties.

NB: Investigation might turn up additional facts and such facts might lead to different rulings on any or all of the counts above, and might turn up new counts. If so, the final ruling on this case would likely be significantly different to the above. I'm not going to speculate on what it might have been, only rule on the facts as given.

[pran]

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

What should have happened:

1. When the director arrived at the table, he should have been informed about West's bad behavior, failure to announce "transfer" when 2♦ was bid, and the failure of both East and West to call the director and correct the failure to announce - East before the opening lead was chosen, and West as soon as he realized he'd failed to announce it properly.

2. The director should have explained the UI ramifications of the failure to alert, ascertained the meaning of 2NT, and if it appears that UI may have been used either in bidding 2NT or in passing it, that whatever happens, he might adjust the score afterwards. Then he should give South, not North, the opportunity to change his final pass. Also West rates a ZT penalty (1/4 board) for his behavior.

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.

4. Looks to me like on best defense EW are down 4 in 2NT doubled.

5. I don't think the director's comment to south about how long he's been playing should have been made. The TD is pretty clearly thinking about the "failure to protect oneself" business, but IMO in this case that doesn't apply. At the very least it is mitigated by the fact that South is by far the least experience player at the table.

Note that the ZT policy doesn't give the TD options - if he finds that someone has violated the policy, that player gets a 1/4 board penalty for a first offense. This applies to each player found to be in violation, so a side — or both sides — can get a total 1/2 a board penalty. And ejection for the second offense is mandatory. If the TD feels uncomfortable doing this, he should tear up his TD card and take up knitting.

I I were the DIC at this event, called in after the fact but within the correction period, I would immediately apply the ZT penalties, and I would correct the table ruling under Law 82C, director error. Then the table director and I would have a serious chat about how he performs his duties.

NB: Investigation might turn up additional facts and such facts might lead to different rulings on any or all of the counts above, and might turn up new counts. If so, the final ruling on this case would likely be significantly different to the above. I'm not going to speculate on what it might have been, only rule on the facts as given.

Me thinks you summed it up pretty well

[mcphee]

West would be placed on my toilet paper list for being a jerk. As south I would stop playng with N who it appears is still learning the fundamentals of the game failing to double 1NT. The S player NEW it was a trasnfer looking at his hand, but lets allow some room there, it was possible it wasn't, although unlikely.

I feel that west was the real problem here as they sound like a bit of a bully. I do not understand how players can not just shut up and let the director deal with things. They could begin giving West a 1 month vacation from the club for his actions.

[helene_t]

I find it difficult to adjust this board. If 2♦ was alerted and doubled, I don't believe W would bid 2NT. Maybe N would bid 3♦ over 2♥ so 130 for NS is possible. Alternatively, if the transfer was not alerted but E didn't take advantage of te UI and duely retransfered, then 3NTx-5 or 3♥x-2 or 4♥x-3 may be possible outcomes.

Probably we should assume that their agreement is to play transfers since W didn't object to E's clarrification but I suppose W was in such an emotional state that he might have forgotten that detail.

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

[sanst]

The question in the heading is easily answered: EW are offending. NS might not have played the best bridge in the world, but their actions most certainly can not be qualified as a serious error. You must do something really stupid to earn that mark.
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.
As others have writen: the director made more than one mistake here. S should have been given the opportunity to change his last pass, although I fail to see to what. And the problem of adjusting is clearly explained by helene_t. The 2NT-3 seems to me a too easy way out by the director.
That W's behaviour is beyond contempt, is clear to all. A serious PP is in order.

[jillybean]

mamos, on 2014-October-07, 18:14, said:

South makes an ordinary enough opening - so far so good. West overcalls 1NT on a hand which appears well understrength to my limited understanding. North has a pretty good hand in the context. I don't understand Pass at all. Was there history between these players?

No

mamos, on 2014-October-07, 18:14, said:

Is there a serial puerile feud going on?

No

mamos, on 2014-October-07, 18:14, said:

North appears to have "allowed" for a pretty weak opening in the South.

Incorrect

[jillybean]

mcphee, on 2014-October-08, 02:18, said:

West would be placed on my toilet paper list for being a jerk. As south I would stop playng with N who it appears is still learning the fundamentals of the game failing to double 1NT. The S player NEW it was a trasnfer looking at his hand, but lets allow some room there, it was possible it wasn't, although unlikely.

I'm South and I KNEW it was a transfer, although with the failure to alert I can't be 100% positive.
Please tell me what I should have done with this knowledge?

[jillybean]

I made an mistake in the OP, it was EAST who responded 'No, 2♦ was a transfer' when asked 'is all this natural?' and it was EAST who made the comments and left the table.
I don't think this would change any replies and I won't correct the OP as it will make the remainder of the thread difficult to follow.

[billw55]

In fact, the non-alert of 2♦ amounts to an assertion that it is natural. However, the issue here is what their *agreement* is, not whether east intended a transfer. If transfer is the agreement, then there has been an infraction, and NS are clearly damaged. If there is no agreement, then rub of the green.

Assuming that transfer was the actual agreement, then director was right to adjust the score. Director may also have been wrong - should south should be allowed to double 2♦? Not sure.

East deserves a PP for behavior regardless.

North's passes may be bad bridge, but that is not an infraction. His cards, his choice.

[jeffford76]

Unfortunately the ACBL doesn't have a sensible rule for the situation where you are pretty sure the opponents have failed to alert. If you ask and it turns out that they were in fact playing natural you have given a huge bundle of UI to your partner. If you don't ask and it turns out the bid was artificial you are told you should have known and protected yourself. Far better is the English rule that elaborates that while in general experienced players are expected to protect themselves, situations like this one with potential UI are an exception.

[helene_t]

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.