[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2020-October-08, 11:13, said:

Lamford bribes the club management, as he won't have anything to post without SB's antics.

LOL!

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2020-October-08, 11:43, said:

Because he is scrupulously honest and is useful on other rulings, despite his obnoxious manner. As he points out, the etiquette clauses have a plethora of "shoulds" in them, not "musts", and he elects not to follow them.

Tell SB to read the Introduction to the Laws. Failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction. He doesn't have the authority to not follow them.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2020-October-08, 12:04, said:

They're SHOULD rather than a MUST, but he has repeatedly violated 74A1 and 74A2. While the laws say that these violations are not often punished, I think a history of consistent violations would constitute sufficient reason to punish them.

So do I.

[pran]

lamford, on 2020-October-08, 19:07, said:

RR did not mention spades in his remark, only hearts. His remark suggests that he had five hearts and that they might have had a heart fit. He does have five hearts. I cannot see how anyone would try to convince me (as director) that it suggested in any way that he had four spades. If he has five hearts he won't have four spades.

Why should a player holding only ♠98 and ♥T98 ever have any reason to bid Stayman when his partner opens 1NT? RR made his remark after seeing dummy.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2020-October-09, 00:05, said:

Why should a player holding only ♠98 and ♥T98 ever have any reason to bid Stayman when his partner opens 1NT? RR made his remark after seeing dummy.

RR briefly thought they were playing 5-card Stayman, rather than simple Stayman. Not simple enough clearly.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2020-October-08, 20:41, said:

Tell SB to read the Introduction to the Laws. Failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction. He doesn't have the authority to not follow them.

You know he has read the Laws in full. He accepts any PP for any breach of the “should” laws provided others, as here, get PPs for breaches of the “must” laws.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2020-October-09, 05:20, said:

RR briefly thought they were playing 5-card Stayman, rather than simple Stayman. Not simple enough clearly.

A very questionable explanation. (Frankly I have never heard of 5-card Stayman?)

How does players using 5-card Stayman find 5-3 and 4-4 fits while avoiding 4-3 fits?

More specifically: What is the 1NT opener's answer bid after 1NT - 2♣ for each of the following alternatives when he holds:
a: 2-2 in majors
b: 2-3 or 3-2 in majors
c: 2-4 or 4-2 in majors
d: 2-5 or 5-2 in majors
e: 3-3 in majors
f: 3-4 or 4-3 in majors
g: 3-5 or 5-3 in majors
?????

[nige1]

pran, on 2020-October-09, 08:32, said:

A very questionable explanation. (Frankly I have never heard of 5-card Stayman?)

How does players using 5-card Stayman find 5-3 and 4-4 fits while avoiding 4-3 fits?

More specifically: What is the 1NT opener's answer bid after 1NT - 2♣ for each of the following alternatives when he holds:
a: 2-2 in majors
b: 2-3 or 3-2 in majors
c: 2-4 or 4-2 in majors
d: 2-5 or 5-2 in majors
e: 3-3 in majors
f: 3-4 or 4-3 in majors
g: 3-5 or 5-3 in majors
?????

I'm sure that Pran is aware that, over 1NT (and 2NT), lots of 5-card Stayman versions are available e.g. Muppet, Puppet, Crowhurst. Some Muppet variations find all 4-4, 5-3, and 3-5 major fits, right-siding them all. Over partner's 1NT opener, some play

• 2♣ = Ordinary Stayman. Some hardy souls are not averse to 4-3 fits. e.g. they venture 2♣ with, say, ♠ Q x x ♥ x x x x ♦ J x x x x ♣ x
• 2N or 3♣ = Muppet/Puppet/Crowhurst or whatever

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2020-October-09, 08:32, said:

(Frankly I have never heard of 5-card Stayman?)

Ron Klinger wrote a book on it.

[mycroft]

There's no violation of any MUST clause. The Rabbit attempted to correct the misinformation as soon as he was aware of it. Which, if it had been at the proper time, instead of with the TD at the table after the hand and SB all up in his grill, would have cleared everything up nicely for SB and he could have defended to the best of his ability.

Oh, I'm sorry, this *is* the best of his ability - hope RR screwed up and actually did have 15, has missed slam, and then ask the TD to cover for his failure to play bridge later. I mean, he could always have asked about the (again, known to him) misinformation before making the fatal defensive play, at a much safer time to him than in the auction.

This trick could only work on someone who is known not to follow the laws when it's in his best interest to do so. Which is pretty much the definition of not a "non-offending contestant". Therefore, not L72C either.

I trust the Rabbit not to lie, especially about something that shows him in a particularly rabbit-like light. If SB wishes to insinuate that this is not the case - that RR is lying to him, to the TD, and to the club management about when he noticed his error - well, he'd better have CAT-level proof of that, or it will be treated as any other such allegation. I note that in the white book "completely satisfied" is the level of proof required.

(as is "not talking to [his Watson] or on social media", but I will absolve everyone preemptively of this to preserve the conceit.)

[mycroft]

lamford, on 2020-October-08, 19:12, said:

And he does get (and accepts and gloats about) the occasional PP. OO gave him one for "addressing the director in a boorish manner" a while back. How this amounts to expulsion from the club is beyond me.

Well, here's what happens at a tournament:

Quote

The Board of the English Bridge Union will not tolerate abusive behaviour, whether verbal, written or physical, by any member of the English Bridge Union towards any of its staff, Tournament Directors or voluntary workers. If a member behaves in such a way, the EBU will cease to deal with the individual concerned and may implement its disciplinary process which can result in expulsion from the Union.

I know for a fact that at any venue I have directed, club, tournament, or home game, if I was treated the way SB treats directors, Management would assist me in throwing his **** out. I know there are clubs that wouldn't, which is why I'm glad I've never directed at one. I'm reasonably certain that appeals against said decision to the EBU would be met with "if you did that at any of our events, we'd do that too, and expel you from the Union. Next!"

If, after being warned by me against this behaviour (to me or to players), he didn't immediately and eternally change it, which I am required to do by L81C(1 and 6 in particular), it would be my responsibility from L81C(4 and 7, this time), to penalize (L90B8 and many instances of "not limited to"), and I might, in order to "maintain order and discipline", have to L91A. I might check with Club Management about L91B as well (as I said, the places I've worked, the only time this was relevant, I was just shooting the breeze with my fellow TDs (and, in this case, club owners) before a game, and their response to "wanna hear what this person tried to pull on me last week?" story was a 3-month suspension that I neither intended nor asked for. YClub'sMMV).

I note that the model EBU club constitution (which I'm sure does not bear much resemblance to the North London club's constitution, because it was chartered well before the EBU, but still), states:

Quote

Each member of the Club shall be required, whether at or away from the bridge table, to conform to the standards of fair play, courtesy and personal deportment prescribed by the Bye Laws and regulations for the time being of the EBU, including the fundamental principle set out in the EBU’s “Best Behaviour at Bridge”.

The Club shall have the powers and the procedures for the enforcement of the [above]requirement [].

[Said enforcement, if the complaint is upheld, can be penalized with]

• [A] written reprimand to the offending member(s),or
  
• Suspend the offending member(s) from all or some of the competitions sponsored or licensed by the Club for such period as it shall determine.
  
• Expel the offending member(s) from the Club.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2020-October-09, 11:05, said:

Well, here's what happens at a tournament:

I know for a fact that at any venue I have directed, club, tournament, or home game, if I was treated the way SB treats directors, Management would assist me in throwing his **** out.

SB has never been abusive. His last three PPs have been for making his own ruling, for mimicking the TD's stutter and for calling the TD too loudly.

And please don't waste my and everyone else's head space trying to get a mythical character banned. I am fed up of responding to it.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2020-October-09, 10:41, said:

If SB wishes to insinuate that this is not the case - that RR is lying to him, to the TD, and to the club management about when he noticed his error - well, he'd better have CAT-level proof of that, or it will be treated as any other such allegation.

He made no such insinuation. You did, and if you were to continue, and were SB not to be a mythical character, he would send you a solicitor's letter. SB just asked for a ruling. He had one, that there was MI, and that he would have switched to the jack of clubs half the time based on those polled. FWIW the TD decided that SB had absolutely no obligation to enquire about the announced NT range. A weighted score of 50% of 3NT= and 50% of 3NT-2 was ruled on and neither side appealed. The TD declined to give a PP to RR.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2020-October-09, 09:20, said:

I'm sure that Pran is aware that, over 1NT (and 2NT), lots of 5-card Stayman versions are available

He stated that he had never heard of five-card Stayman. Are you saying he is lying?

[nige1]

lamford, on 2020-October-09, 17:24, said:

He stated that he had never heard of five-card Stayman. Are you saying he is lying?

So far, I haven't accused any BBOer of lying. I've no intention of so-doing, in the future. Here, it might be a question of nomenclature. Or perhaps Sven is mistaken. As I am, sometimes

mycroft, on 2020-October-09, 10:41, said:

I trust the Rabbit not to lie, especially about something that shows him in a particularly rabbit-like light. If SB wishes to insinuate that this is not the case - that RR is lying to him, to the TD, and to the club management about when he noticed his error - well, he'd better have CAT-level proof of that, or it will be treated as any other such allegation.

Another Strawman. RR isn't lying, either. His infraction is an honest mistake and he accepts the adverse MI ruling with good grace.

[mycroft]

Okay, this is unbelievable.

Someone misspeaks, you know they misspoke because have evidence of it, you are required to clarify it if you can do so without damaging your side, you choose not to do so, you chose the obviously least likely option, and there's damage? There was MI, I absolutely agree, but there's damage? Pull the other one, it doth have bells on.

As soon as there's an attempt to use L72C, you have to show that any reasonable player could have known, *at the time they misAnnounced*, that this could possibly damage the opponents. How? Without active malice, I mean.

Rabbit violated a MUST clause. The only MUST clause in play here is one that is adequately refuted by "Oh, did I say that? It must have been a braino from my partner's comment." and satisfied by the obvious next sentence: "I meant 12-14, like I've played for the last 40 years, with all 5 of you."

Some people want to be allowed to turn their brains off as soon as their opponents say anything, even if it clearly makes no sense, or if it contradicts what they heard 20 seconds before. Luckily, the laws and regulations say otherwise, so far.

I don't hold with "they did something wrong, we get a good score", and neither do the lawmakers. If you think the laws or regulations should be more clear on that point, fine. That's an excellent reason for a North London story.

Anybody who wants a ruling out of this one deserves the stories that will be told behind their back at the bar; anyone who gives them one should also.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2020-October-09, 21:22, said:

... Anybody who wants a ruling out of this one deserves the stories that will be told behind their back at the bar; anyone who gives them one should also.

Such tittle-tattle is abhorrent and disgraceful: If attention is drawn to an infraction, then the law obliges players to call the director; but, in any case, you shouldn't criticise a player for calling the director; also, directors are human and prone to errors of judgement; although, here, the director's adjustment seems equitable.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2020-October-10, 03:38, said:

Such tittle-tattle is abhorrent and disgraceful: If attention is drawn to an infraction, then the law obliges players to call the director; but, in any case, you shouldn't criticise a player for calling the director; also, directors are human and prone to errors of judgement; although, here, the director's adjustment seems equitable.

I agree wholeheartedly. In this case, I would have called the TD myself and accepted whatever ruling he gave. If someone cannot announce their no-trump range correctly they deserve everything they get. And if I (accidentally) found myself in an event directed by mycroft, I would withdraw, and encourage others to do the same.

[mycroft]

I agree. I would have called the TD (when I was made aware that there was misinformation), and would accept the ruling given.

I would not have done what SB did, nor would I argue the ruling after it was given - it sure looks like it isn't being accepted.

That's fine.

As I said, the TD call was appropriate. The ruling: "you are obligated to clear up misinformation you are known to have, at a time that is not damaging to your side. You had ample opportunity at the end of the auction. You chose not to do so. Any damage caused by the misinformation - which, I remind you, you were entirely aware of - is not a result of the misinformation, it is a result of you not following procedures that would have cleared up the misinformation. Score stands."

Listen, if this had been board 8 of the match, that's different. If it was board 2, even that might have been different. If this wasn't someone who has played against this player for decades, knowing he's never played a strong NT, that might change the ruling. But anybody who says that having just heard "weak NT, 3 weak 2s" and seeing "15-17", that they were not aware that one or the other statement was wrong, and they might want to find out which, is at best trying one on. Anybody who then goes on to say "of course, everything I did was totally innocent, but it is likely that my opponent knew when he misspoke that misspeaking could damage me" and not expecting "tell me. Does not 'failing to clarify misinformation known to you, and then choosing a line from two based not on the agreement, but which one could have been dissuaded by the right version of that misinformation' meet 'a player could have known, at the time of the irregularity, that this could damage his opponent'?" is, of course, a total innocent who should be believed unquestioningly.

There absolutely was misinformation. There was no damage caused by the misinformation that would not have been cleared up by SB - or his partner, who's also seen "15-17" pop up on the screen - calling the TD at the end of the auction *as required by regulation*.

As an example of how far this goes, I reiterate that where I live, if the auction goes 1♥-p-3♦ unAlerted(*) - p; p and I don't clarify the known misinformation - whether I have looked at their card and seen weak jump shifts, or not - that *my partner* has no recompense if she'd been damaged by the failure to Alert. I found that (and still do find that) a little excessive, but the same argument applies. "You had the opportunity with [no|some] damage to your side, to clarify the misinformation, and you didn't. You are responsible for the damage. Score stands."

(*) Please note, this Alert is not long for the ACBL (I am very much in favour of this change). But for the last 20 years, it has been required, no matter how stupid.

[mycroft]

mycroft, on 2020-October-09, 21:22, said:

Anybody who wants a ruling out of this one deserves the stories that will be told behind their back at the bar; anyone who gives them one should also.

nige1, on 2020-October-10, 03:38, said:

Such tittle-tattle is abhorrent and disgraceful: If attention is drawn to an infraction, then the law obliges players to call the director; but, in any case, you shouldn't criticise a player for calling the director; also, directors are human and prone to errors of judgement; although, here, the director's adjustment seems equitable.

First, clearly I did not mean "don't call the TD", I meant "expect a ruling other than 'Score stands'." OF COURSE, you call the TD (although, OF COURSE, you call the TD when required by regulation by preference, rather than taking the "who's the bastard in the black" doubleshot). Such sophistry is beyond this bird (remind me again, what's my "North London persona" CV?)

Second, I notice that I made no mention of what the "stories" would be. I mean, I'm sure they'll be all "hey, did you hear about that row at RR's table? Isn't it great that SB is finally getting what we all deserve when players misspeak? He deserves a drink when he comes in", or "you know I'm glad to see that some directors actually listen to players, especially players who know how to actually play the game. Wouldn't it be better if more were like that?". And what's wrong with that?