[barmar]

The only time I can imagine comments like "It would be a mistake for you to bid here" or "you can't pass, that was a forcing bid" being appropriate is if you're acting as a mentor in a beginner game, where advising players may be part of the learning process. In a regular game or tournament, it just seems totally out of line to me, regardless of good intentions. As most have said, just correct your failure to alert, and then let the opponent make his own decision. If he can't figure out that he shouldn't reopen after you passed a forcing bid, he deserves to lose the board.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-May-29, 17:34, said:

Most puzzling to me is why this particular situation ever occurred.

Isn't passing a forcing bid the usual indication that you psyched earlier?

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-May-30, 13:57, said:

Isn't passing a forcing bid the usual indication that you psyched earlier?

It is...remembering back to when I did that. But, I doubt that is what happened here unless OP failed to mention that little fact and South was truly intending his comments as intimidation rather than disclosure---in which case, jumping to a huge DP (forget PP) would be in order.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-May-30, 01:07, said:

South may have benefited from his breach of procedure, and he could have known that this would occur, so the director should definitely consider an adjustment. He does that in the normal way, by considering what West might have done differently without South's infraction, and what North and South might have done after each of West's possible actions. He should remember that North would have had the UI that South knew what 2♠ meant, so North would have been constrained by Law 16.

gnasher, on 2012-May-30, 09:37, said:

If you knew that South's actions did not constitute compliance with the Code of Active Ethics, why did you say that "To assign a PP ... amounts to punishing active ethics"?

Agree with Gnasher that South's patronising behaviour is hardly "active ethics". "Zero-tolerance" legislation seems more relevant.

[Coelacanth]

nige1, on 2012-May-30, 18:49, said:

Agree with Gnasher that South's patronising behaviour is hardly "active ethics". "Zero-tolerance" legislation seems more relevant.

Odd that you should mention ZT. Part of South's desire to be "overly helpful" on this hand may be related to the previous hand, where I very nearly called the TD over to enforce ZT. On the previous hand, the auction went

---

South, holding a weakish (in the context of having made an overcall at the 3-level) hand with 0724 shape, bid 4♣. This resulted in his side's reaching a hopeless 6♣ instead of 3NT or 4♥, either of which is cold for 11 tricks. (North was 4234). This poor result was, in South's opinion, entirely North's fault, a fact which he was continuing to point out right up to the point where he passed his partner's forcing call on the subsequent hand.

[mycroft]

Well, that's your problem right there. It's Just Not Fair for Weaker Players to get Good Scores against Us. :-)

[bluejak]

mycroft, on 2012-May-31, 11:09, said:

Well, that's your problem right there. It's Just Not Fair for Weaker Players to get Good Scores against Us. :-)

If I may be allowed a digression .........

I have just played in the Liverpool Open Pairs, a sadly minor event [used to be quite important]. Ted Reveley, one of the top players in our area [and famous for the Reveley ruling of several years ago] was playing. On one hand he complained that "It wasn't fair" and for once I had sympathy. East-West have 13 tricks in spades, five spades, five diamonds, two aces, and two ruffs in dummy. Yes, I know that's 14, but you really do have a trick to spare. Of course you have to find the ♠ Q, but since AKJxx is over Qx that should not be difficult.

Ted's opponents played in 4♠, making only 12 tricks. No matchpoints for Ted.

The other two scores were 4♠ making 11 tricks and [against us] 6♠ making 11 tricks. The play could merely be described as horrific.

We told Ted it was an awful shame these nasty opponents getting good boards against him.

[barmar]

This kind of stuff happens often enough that we have a word for it: getting "fixed".

[billw55]

billw55 said:

However, everything else south said is simply disclosure of facts, made with full expectation that only the opponents (perhaps less experienced) could benefit. Absent some other information, I believe that south's remarks were motivated by sportsmanship and active ethics, and that therefore a procedural penalty would be grossly inappropriate.

Coelacanth said:

Odd that you should mention ZT. Part of South's desire to be "overly helpful" on this hand may be related to the previous hand, where I very nearly called the TD over to enforce ZT. On the previous hand, the auction went

---

South, holding a weakish (in the context of having made an overcall at the 3-level) hand with 0724 shape, bid 4♣. This resulted in his side's reaching a hopeless 6♣ instead of 3NT or 4♥, either of which is cold for 11 tricks. (North was 4234). This poor result was, in South's opinion, entirely North's fault, a fact which he was continuing to point out right up to the point where he passed his partner's forcing call on the subsequent hand.

Well this certainly qualifies as more information. Now I will consider that perhaps south's intent was to punish his partner, rather than help the opponents.