[shevek]

---

Australia, Butler IMPs
East-West are a decent, established partnership.
East alerted 3♦, no questions asked. System meaning is "mini-splinter".
The auction proceeded quickly in tempo - as is their style - to 5♥ for +450.

I was North. With deep foreboding, I called the director at the end of the play. The other 3 looked quizzical.
I explained what happened.
West said the usual "I realised as soon as i bid it" and "I was always going to bid 5♦."
There was no tempo issue. East was quite within her rights to hedge with 5♥.
After a while the director came back with -100 in 4♠.

They might have been put off by this because they had a bad night, missing qualification for the next stage by one place.
East was emotional and keen to appeal but the Appeals advisor talked her out of it.

The fallout was unpleasant. EW no longer talk to me. Though they understand the ruling, they believe I should not have called the director.
Maybe they think that I should not take advantage of my superior knowledge of the Laws.
Perhaps opponents have often bid this way against them and they've let it go.
We were non-contending and had nothing to gain, it seemed spiteful.
Doubtless West did appreciate the implied criticism of her ethical standards.

It's a cultural issue.

Advice please!

[Phil]

I'm sympathetic to a point, but rules are rules. If your friends are true sportsmen, they should understand and accept it. If they aren't speaking to you its unfortunate but they will get over it.

Imagine if your friends missed qualifying by one place and they heard at the bar about another table where they were allowed to play 5♥ after a mini-splinter mixup and the director wasn't called because of a 'cultural issue'. How would they feel then? I'd be hopping mad.

FWIW, I agree with the ruling.

[dburn]

shevek, on 2011-April-05, 19:47, said:

Advice please!

If you live as humans do, it will be the end of you.

James Thurber

[inquiry]

Ruling is correct (well, could be down more I guess, we can't see the other hands). EW need to grow up. This ruling looks automatic to me and they EW should realize and accept it.

[Cascade]

inquiry, on 2011-April-05, 20:49, said:

Ruling is correct (well, could be down more I guess, we can't see the other hands). EW need to grow up. This ruling looks automatic to me and they EW should realize and accept it.

The ruling is soft.

I am increasingly of the opinion that not only should the score be adjusted but that the offenders should be issued with a penalty.

The laws require that a player "must carefully avoid taking any advantage" in these situations. "Must" is a very strong directive. The lesser directive "shall", when ignored, by law requires a penalty more often than not. Therefore by extrapolation "must", when ignored, should almost always be penalized.

In this case bidding 5♦ was clearly and deliberately trying to take advantage of the unauthorized information. From west's point of view after showing a game force with hearts and diamonds (and only 17 hcp) partner has insisted on spades. There is no reason to believe that 5♦ will lead to a better contract except that west has available unauthorized information. Taking advantage of that is blatantly illegal.

[gnasher]

shevek, on 2011-April-05, 19:47, said:

The fallout was unpleasant. EW no longer talk to me. Though they understand the ruling, they believe I should not have called the director.

Why do you care? They don't sound like the sort of people anyone would want as friends anyway.

[mrdct]

inquiry, on 2011-April-05, 20:49, said:

Ruling is correct (well, could be down more I guess, we can't see the other hands). EW need to grow up. This ruling looks automatic to me and they EW should realize and accept it.

From the recap of board 1 it looks quite a bit worse than -100 on a ♦ lead so perhaps your opponents should consider themselves lucky, but I guess they are only 50s so it may not have made any imp difference.

[bluejak]

East/West's approach is unsportsmanlike and unsporting. I think you should be happy they no longer talk to you.

For the pedants: East/West's approach is unsportsmanlike and West's approach is unsporting.

[blackshoe]

Heh. I suppose I'm going to have to spring for an OED. My dictionary defines "unsporting" as "unsportsmanlike".

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-April-06, 06:49, said:

East/West's approach is unsportsmanlike and unsporting. I think you should be happy they no longer talk to you.

For the pedants: East/West's approach is unsportsmanlike and West's approach is unsporting.

In most sports the two words seem to be interchangeable. I would also be considering a PP for West here and agree with the points cascade makes.

[gordontd]

shevek, on 2011-April-05, 19:47, said:

East was quite within her rights to hedge with 5♥.

In some jurisdictions it might be seen as fielding a misbid.

[Jeremy69A]

I ruled, on appeal, on a "I realised as soon as I had bid it" case. The player then doubled the oposition contract so as to avoid his partner bidding on viewing that 590 was better than a four figure penalty. The director overturned this and made it 1100 at the 5 level. They decided to appeal and I ruled it to 1400 thanks to Deep Finesse plus a double disciplinary penalty(the player concerned was very experienced and had played for England). He was not happy with me nor were his team mates.

In the case cited above I think the side that bid 5D not only had their score rightly returned to 4S but the player concerned also deserved a penalty for his blatant use of UI. If they are not talking to you then that is their loss/your gain as others have said.

[Cyberyeti]

I would have asked a few other questions about the auction before making the ruling, but I think it's correct unless I get unexpected answers.

1. were they playing strong or weak jump shifts ?
2. if 3♦ is natural, is 3♠ better/worse than 4♠, or indeed is 4♠ natural at all (I would have to bid 3♠ then 4♠, 4♠ would be kickback).
3. what is their cue bidding style ?

3 is interesting. Why on earth did E bid 5♥ (unless it's a negative cue), it would appear that if they play normal 1sts and 2nds cueing, 5♠ should be his bid, if they play firsts, he's on a guess as to whether partner has K♣ as to whether to bid 5 or 6♠. Did he pick up some body language that all was not well with his partner ?

[jallerton]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-April-06, 09:45, said:

I would have asked a few other questions about the auction before making the ruling, but I think it's correct unless I get unexpected answers.

1. were they playing strong or weak jump shifts ?
2. if 3♦ is natural, is 3♠ better/worse than 4♠, or indeed is 4♠ natural at all (I would have to bid 3♠ then 4♠, 4♠ would be kickback).
3. what is their cue bidding style ?

Before asking any of those questions, you should first ask West why he bid 5♦. If he explains that he was cue bidding in support of spades, proceed with your questions above; if instead he admits that he was "using" the UI then your questions are not really relevant.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2011-April-06, 06:58, said:

Heh. I suppose I'm going to have to spring for an OED. My dictionary defines "unsporting" as "unsportsmanlike".

Make sure you get the one of the larger editions. The free online OED won't enlighten you.

I agree with David that there's a difference between the two, but I think he's got them the wrong way around: West's actions at the table were unsportsmanlike (dishonourable); the East-West players' later behaviour was unsporting (ungenerous).

Jeff Rubens apparently agrees - I've never seen an editorial arguing in favour of "sporting dumping".

[MrAce]

I agree that EW should feel lucky due to not recieving any PP and that the ruling was soft.

[Cyberyeti]

jallerton, on 2011-April-06, 15:42, said:

Before asking any of those questions, you should first ask West why he bid 5♦. If he explains that he was cue bidding in support of spades, proceed with your questions above; if instead he admits that he was "using" the UI then your questions are not really relevant.

Questions not entirely irrelevant, you might be about to allow an illegal 5♦ bid and force his partner to bid 5 or 6 spades if there was any body language going on.

[AlexJonson]

Shevek

You have universal support, and your table mates should have been heavily penalised,perhaps,
and you should be delighted to consign them to the outer darkness,perhaps.

How do you personally feel about this episode, in the light of the comments you have, and what do you want your relationship with the opponents to be in future.

[shevek]

AlexJonson, on 2011-April-07, 13:36, said:

Shevek

You have universal support, and your table mates should have been heavily penalised,perhaps,
and you should be delighted to consign them to the outer darkness,perhaps.

How do you personally feel about this episode, in the light of the comments you have, and what do you want your relationship with the opponents to be in future.

The support comes from people with good knowledge of the Laws. The knowledge of many players is sketchy at best. West probably thought that she was okay because she'd remembered prior to partner's prompt. I would tend to believe her. When the director pointed out that was not germane, she thought we were saying that we didn't believe her. I think she thought that I should have asked her about that before calling the director.
The bridge culture in Australia reflects the national psyche. We distrust authority, preferring to sort out disputes ourselves. Directors here are underworked.
After all, "We all live in a convict colony, convict colony."

[Bad_Wolf]

"The bridge culture in Australia reflects the national psyche. We distrust authority, preferring to sort out disputes ourselves. Directors here are underworked.
After all, "We all live in a convict colony, convict colony."

Oh how I wish this was true in NZ, at least in one respect - if you say the slightest thing out of place here that could be regarded as 'rude', they all run to mummy like a three year old with a boo-boo.