[campboy]

billw55, on 2011-December-16, 08:10, said:

Perhaps a split score is appropriate, if allowed in this jurisdiction. -450 for NS, +420 for EW.

Assuming this happened in Spain we are in weighted score rather than split score territory. A split score would be appropriate in the ACBL (which uses 12C1e rather than 12C1c), though, if you adjust at all.

Personally I think bidding on is suggested so I would adjust. It is true that 5♦ is not likely to work very well even with North's hesitation, but it is more likely to work than it would be without the hesitation.

[wyman]

I'd go so far as to claim that 5D is not a logical alternative for south.

[blackshoe]

The laws are pretty clear. Only the director can determine rectifications (Law 10). There is no obligation to draw attention to an irregularity committed by one's own side (Law 9A4), however, if attention is drawn to one, the director should be called (Law 9B1{a}). When a player has "substantial reason" to believe that an opponent has used UI, he should call the director when play ends (Law 16B3). Note that Law 16B3 does not say anything about the player's estimation of damage. When the law says a player "should" do something, failure to do it is an infraction (Introduction to the Laws). All of this leads to the conclusion that if you believe there has been an infraction, and if attention has been drawn to it, not calling the director is itself an infraction, so call him. If no one has called attention to it, but you have "substantial reason" to believe it has occurred, you should still call him. Your best guess that "only a PP" could be applied is not relevant — even if you're the ghost of Edgar Kaplan. If it's not a UI situation, the law may be less clear, but I think the effect of Laws 9 and 10 is that if you believe an irregularity has been committed by an opponent, you ought to draw attention to it, and once that happens, the director should be called.

I'm not preaching, I'm simply following the logic of the laws.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-16, 08:28, said:

WellSpyder, on 2011-December-16, 03:46, said:

I remember asking once on these forums whether it was considered appropriate to call the TD if the only action they could take would be a PP (as postulated here, I thought oppo had blatantly used UI, but had got a worse score as a result). The consensus appeared to be that people did not agree with calling the TD if there was no damage.

The same ones who preach that the director should be called when there has been an infraction?

An infraction should cause a call for the Director whether or not there is damage.

No player should ever suggest to the Director that he imposes a PP, this is his (and only his) decision after he has been called because of an infraction.

So the alleged consensus quoted above is simply either just plain wrong or revealing contempt of the Bridge laws.

(And yes - I am fully aware of all the smaller, social-like clubs where most irregularities are sorted out in harmony without bothering any director)

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2011-December-16, 11:02, said:

So the alleged consensus quoted above is simply either just plain wrong or revealing contempt of the Bridge laws.

And the quote of me, which you included, was saying the same thing as you say --that failing to call the director is wrong. Where we might disagree is about "revealing contempt of the Bridge Laws". That has already been done quite nicely by South. Failing to call the director is an infraction, an error of omission, and probably a common occurence when the NOS has gotten a better result than they would have. Motive for the NOS, is probably closer to apathy or seeing nothing to gain ---not contempt of the Laws.

[Cascade]

WellSpyder, on 2011-December-16, 03:46, said:

I remember asking once on these forums whether it was considered appropriate to call the TD if the only action they could take would be a PP (as postulated here, I thought oppo had blatantly used UI, but had got a worse score as a result). The consensus appeared to be that people did not agree with calling the TD if there was no damage.

Were they climate scientists?

That is a bad consensus in my view.

The laws are clear. When there is an infraction, and using UI is an infraction, you should call the director.

Technically not calling the director is an infraction.

[Cascade]

pran, on 2011-December-16, 11:02, said:

No player should ever suggest to the Director that he imposes a PP, this is his (and only his) decision after he has been called because of an infraction.

Why on earth not?

Because only the director has the power to impose a penalty does not mean that a player cannot ask for one to be imposed.

[AlexJonson]

Fluffy, on 2011-December-16, 07:33, said:

for this concrete pair of godzillas, they never heard of forcing pass, and 4NT is always blackwood

I'm amazed at this post. Is it not obvious that your weak oppo was considering a penalty double.

His partner has certainly bent well over backwards to avoid advantage. What is your problem - you may have one and I may have missed it.

[pran]

Cascade, on 2011-December-16, 12:37, said:

Why on earth not?

Because only the director has the power to impose a penalty does not mean that a player cannot ask for one to be imposed.

If a player asked me to impose a PP I would tell him to mind his own business.

I am fully capable of judging if an offence justifies a PP and I don't want players to try taking over my job when I am DIC. The players' business is to give me information on what has occurred (including answering my questions).

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2011-December-16, 15:11, said:

If a player asked me to impose a PP I would tell him to mind his own business.

I am fully capable of judging if an offence justifies a PP and I don't want players to try taking over my job when I am DIC. The players' business is to give me information on what has occurred (including answering my questions).

The problem in this case (if the NOS were already plus 800) is that you should still have been called to the table. It sounds as if your indignation would sway your judgement. It just doesn't matter if they mention PP or not; you have a job to do. And hopefully part of that job will not be asking the NOS if they would prefer the auction rolled back to a less favorable result.

It will be a case of knowing why you were called and making your judgement. If you seem to not comprehend why you were called, the NOS mentioning PP might wake you up.

[Cascade]

pran, on 2011-December-16, 15:11, said:

If a player asked me to impose a PP I would tell him to mind his own business.

I am fully capable of judging if an offence justifies a PP and I don't want players to try taking over my job when I am DIC. The players' business is to give me information on what has occurred (including answering my questions).

I assume you are fully capable of imposing a penalty for a revoke do you tell players to mind their own business when they ask for a revoke penalty.

I think I am fully within my rights as a player to ask for a director to impose a penalty or rectification under any law. The attitude that a player is taking over your job when that players asks for some action to be taken seems a little over the top to me.

[Cascade]

AlexJonson, on 2011-December-16, 14:27, said:

His partner has certainly bent well over backwards to avoid advantage. What is your problem - you may have one and I may have missed it.

I don't think i would describe rebidding freely a five-card suit at the five-level as bending over backwards to avoid damage. The hand is a normal (WTP?) pass. Anything else given there is UI could be construed as attempting to take advantage of that UI even if the player happens to have guessed badly and potentially not gained an advantage.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2011-December-16, 15:40, said:

The attitude that a player is taking over your job when that players asks for some action to be taken seems a little over the top to me.

I agree with this. OTOH, I've had quite a few players try to tell me what my ruling should be, and that is also "over the top".

[Cyberyeti]

OK, so what if one of the NOS says to the director:

"Well I was going to double, but after that hesitation I was sure he had to have something spectacular to bid again so I didn't".

[Fluffy]

AlexJonson, on 2011-December-16, 14:27, said:

I'm amazed at this post. Is it not obvious that your weak oppo was considering a penalty double.

His partner has certainly bent well over backwards to avoid advantage. What is your problem - you may have one and I may have missed it.

You assumed something wrong, nobody at the table was my opponent that day.

[AlexJonson]

Fluffy, on 2011-December-16, 16:39, said:

You assumed something wrong, nobody at the table was my opponent that day.

I commented and assumed nothing about you or anyone else - the 'your etc' is just a way of talking about the hand.

And given I judged that no-one did anything wrong, your comment is hard for me to understand.

[pran]

aguahombre, on 2011-December-16, 15:38, said:

The problem in this case (if the NOS were already plus 800) is that you should still have been called to the table. It sounds as if your indignation would sway your judgement. It just doesn't matter if they mention PP or not; you have a job to do. And hopefully part of that job will not be asking the NOS if they would prefer the auction rolled back to a less favorable result.

It will be a case of knowing why you were called and making your judgement. If you seem to not comprehend why you were called, the NOS mentioning PP might wake you up.

When I arrive at a table my very first action is always to ask "How can I help you?", and if relevant clarify which of the four players actually requested my assistance. (That is not neccessarily the player who shouted "Director"!)

If then a player asks me to issue a PP on one of the other players I should answer "that is my business, not yours. Please just tell me what has happened." And of course I shall hear all four players if they want to say something.

Now where does this leave the player who asks for a PP? It is just none of his business.

[campboy]

Cascade, on 2011-December-16, 15:40, said:

I assume you are fully capable of imposing a penalty for a revoke do you tell players to mind their own business when they ask for a revoke penalty.

I think I am fully within my rights as a player to ask for a director to impose a penalty or rectification under any law. The attitude that a player is taking over your job when that players asks for some action to be taken seems a little over the top to me.

Asking for a revoke penalty rectification is rather different as it changes your score, not just your opponent's. In any case, people normally just tell the director that a revoke occurred rather than suggesting that he might like to transfer some tricks. I agree that telling the player to mind his own business is over the top, though.

[campboy]

AlexJonson, on 2011-December-16, 14:27, said:

I'm amazed at this post. Is it not obvious that your weak oppo was considering a penalty double.

His partner has certainly bent well over backwards to avoid advantage. What is your problem - you may have one and I may have missed it.

In my experience a hesitation when partner responds in a new suit and RHO jumps to game often means the player was considering raising, as indeed seems to be the case on this hand.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2011-December-15, 22:56, said:

Law 16 disallows logical alternatives that have been demonstrably suggested.

Looking up Laws is somewhat better than making them up, because people may assume that a poster is actually quoting a Law rather than inventing one. "Could demonstrably have been suggested" is very different to "have been demonstraboy suggested".