[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-11, 12:27, said:

South has also — rather blatantly, imo — violated law 9B2. Unless he is clearly clueless about this law, he has well earned a PP.

South was actually the county captain, cornerstone of the county first team and veteran of many Tollemache matches, making a rare appearance in the C-team as he was in a scratch partnership. I considered giving them a mock lecture on how it was a good job this was the third team as I would consider fining anyone in the first team for making such a fundamental error, but I thought the better of it. It's not really my place as volunteer playing director to fine players. (It might also prejudice my selection for future matches.)

[VixTD]

pran, on 2012-June-12, 06:35, said:

The authized (and important) information is that South had a voluntary raise to partners bid in hearts.

But the players are only entitled to guess what South meant by the insufficient bid. They may choose to assume it shows heart support, but they have no right to know what South intended by the bid.

In any case, even if they guess correctly that it was intended to show heart support, it only shows support to the level of three. That South is prepared to support to the four level is clearly unauthorized.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2012-June-12, 06:35, said:

The authized (and important) information is that South had a voluntary raise to partners bid in hearts.

No. The authorised information is that South bid 3H. The unauthorised information is that South would have been happy to bid 4H. That demonstrably suggests bidding 4H, and if pass is a logical alternative for North (as I suspect it is) we should adjust the result of a successful 4H bid by North.

[Codo]

If the legal information is that south bids 3 hearts, this is a raise or a bid of his own suit- it cannot be anything else, can it?
In the second case, north is surely worth at least a 4 Heart bid , in the first the raise is an AI.

[gordontd]

Does North, with a weak-two in spades on his left, have anything extra for his three-level overcall?

[aguahombre]

pran, on 2012-June-12, 06:33, said:

I consider as authorized to North the information that South has support justifying a voluntare raise in hearts. South may have intended to raise a (mistaken) 2♥ bid to 3♥ or he may have intended to raise the 3♥ bid to 4♥ but misbid.

Consequently I consider it doubtful whether North has received any UI at all, and definitly that the UI received in case did not demonstrably suggest any logical alternative over other available alternatives.

Over an accepted 3♥ insufficient bid I would accept either PASS or 4♥ by North, whichever call selected at his own discretion.

Yes, accepting the IB means it is AI that offender has a heart raise. Even though he really didn't raise hearts, the rules are not designed to arbitrarily penalize; they are designed to give the next player an extra option (accepting the IB and possibly using the extra space available).

In this case, Partner of the IB person has been given an opportunity to forget pard won't get another chance to raise, or to decide his original 3H bid wasn't such a great idea. He could go wrong either way, but whatever he does is o.k. by the rules of the game.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2012-June-12, 01:51, said:

And honestly: I still do not see any problem here, at least nothing that warrants a PP.

This is a judgement ruling. None of us were there, so our judgment may be different than if we were. In any case, South violated Law 9B2, and such a violation should incur a PP "more often than not", so I think you should be looking for reasons not to give a PP, rather than reasons to give one. IMO, "it's a club game" isn't good enough, and besides, this game was at a slightly higher level. "South was definitely ignorant of the requirements of law 9B2" may be, but only after investigation shows this to be the case.

pran, on 2012-June-12, 06:33, said:

I consider as authorized to North the information that South has support justifying a voluntare raise in hearts. South may have intended to raise a (mistaken) 2♥ bid to 3♥ or he may have intended to raise the 3♥ bid to 4♥ but misbid.

Consequently I consider it doubtful whether North has received any UI at all, and definitly that the UI received in case did not demonstrably suggest any logical alternative over other available alternatives.

Over an accepted 3♥ insufficient bid I would accept either PASS or 4♥ by North, whichever call selected at his own discretion.

South may have intended to raise 2♥ to 3, he may have intended to raise 3♥ to 4, he may, however unlikely this one may be, have intended to bid 3 or 4♥ on his own. How do we deal with all these possibilities in determining what UI North may have?

North can be pretty sure South has at least a voluntary raise to 3♥. If this is the case, does the fact that he wanted to correct it to 4♥ suggest anything to North? It seems to me that attempt to correct may suggest that South was willing to bid 4♥ on his own, or it may suggest that he thought 4♥ was his only legal correction of his IB, or he thought the correction would bar his partner and he wanted to do that. The only way to know is to ask South.

VixTD, on 2012-June-12, 06:37, said:

South was actually the county captain, cornerstone of the county first team and veteran of many Tollemache matches, making a rare appearance in the C-team as he was in a scratch partnership. I considered giving them a mock lecture on how it was a good job this was the third team as I would consider fining anyone in the first team for making such a fundamental error, but I thought the better of it. It's not really my place as volunteer playing director to fine players. (It might also prejudice my selection for future matches.)

Not your place?! Whose then? You're the TD, you must follow the laws, Law 81B2 in particular. The Laws (see the Introduction say that a PP should be awarded "more often than not". The late information that this South was much more experienced than he might have been does not suggest to me that he should not get a PP. Furthermore, to not make a ruling on the basis of fear for your future employment is, well, not a good way to approach directing, imo.

gordontd, on 2012-June-12, 07:17, said:

No. The authorised information is that South bid 3H. The unauthorised information is that South would have been happy to bid 4H. That demonstrably suggests bidding 4H, and if pass is a logical alternative for North (as I suspect it is) we should adjust the result of a successful 4H bid by North.

I like this ruling on the possible 4♥ bid, but I'm not sure it's that simple, as I indicated above.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-12, 08:49, said:

Not your place?! Whose then? You're the TD, you must follow the laws, Law 81B2 in particular. The Laws (see the Introduction say that a PP should be awarded "more often than not". The late information that this South was much more experienced than he might have been does not suggest to me that he should not get a PP. Furthermore, to not make a ruling on the basis of fear for your future employment is, well, not a good way to approach directing, imo.

Are you sure? It sounds to me as though he's a player who was asked to give a ruling. His worries were about future selection as a player, not future employment as a director.

That's a rather awkward position to be placed in. I think I would have phoned another director, recounted the facts, and asked him to deal with it.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-11, 12:27, said:

South has also — rather blatantly, imo — violated law 9B2. Unless he is clearly clueless about this law, he has well earned a PP.

In the UK this is a very very common error. Players who make IBs often immediately correct them when it is pointed out.

I think the whole idea of PPs for minor infractions is one that requires consistency. In a club it shoud be normal to give them or not. Similarly at higher levels.

I tend to agree with Ed that the game would be better for everyone with more PPs but it does need players being used to the idea. So I would not give one in this case unless it was normal in this event to do so for this level of infraction.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2012-June-12, 07:49, said:

Does North, with a weak-two in spades on his left, have anything extra for his three-level overcall?

No, not at all.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-12, 08:49, said:

Not your place?! Whose then? You're the TD, you must follow the laws, Law 81B2 in particular. The Laws (see the Introduction say that a PP should be awarded "more often than not". The late information that this South was much more experienced than he might have been does not suggest to me that he should not get a PP. Furthermore, to not make a ruling on the basis of fear for your future employment is, well, not a good way to approach directing, imo.

It seems that people are really reluctant to give a PP when players make extremely common mistakes, even if their experience suggests that they should know better. And self-correcting IBs is one of those things that almost everyone seems to do.

But players will never learn if no one ever gets punished.

[blackshoe]

gnasher, on 2012-June-12, 08:57, said:

Are you sure? It sounds to me as though he's a player who was asked to give a ruling. His worries were about future selection as a player, not future employment as a director.

That's a rather awkward position to be placed in. I think I would have phoned another director, recounted the facts, and asked him to deal with it.

If that's the case, was this one of those EBU events which didn't actually have a director? If not, where was he? If so, why didn't they (or Vix, as you say) call one to deal with this?

There is, I think, a difference between "playing director" and "player who is asked to make a ruling".

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-12, 09:12, said:

If that's the case, was this one of those EBU events which didn't actually have a director?

Yes, i would think so. It is actually very common for these county matches to be played without a TD, with the expectation that if a ruling is needed there will someone available from one side or the other (normally the home team in the first instance) with enough knowledge of what is needed to be able to make a ruling with the aid of the lawbook. With 3x8 players on each side this usually works well enough, since "book" rulings can be read out, and judgment rulings discussed with other senior players at the end of the set.

VixTD's county is perhaps fortunate in that he is at least a qualified TD. In our last county match I had to give 3 rulings, very unusually, and I have no such qualifications....

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-12, 08:49, said:

Not your place?! Whose then? You're the TD, you must follow the laws, Law 81B2 in particular. The Laws (see the Introduction say that a PP should be awarded "more often than not". The late information that this South was much more experienced than he might have been does not suggest to me that he should not get a PP.

This was, in effect, a match played privately with no director. As Wellspyder says, in such situations somebody does their best to deal with infractions, book rulings are generally accepted if given by a competent person, and judgement rulings are discussed with the team captains or at least with a representative from each team. The final decision lies with the team captains, and they can telephone or e-mail an independent TD if they wish. No, it's not my place to give out penalties, although I might have done so in this case had I been a paid non-playing director. I have on occasion tried to persuade the team captains to agree to penalise a player (for rather more serious offences than this), but they weren't ever interested, and I didn't really expect them to be.

The future format of these matches is under discussion at the moment (in the Midlands region, at least), as some counties are finding the cost and time for travelling and playing onerous. I think it's great that 48 players can meet at a private venue, without the added cost of a TD and administration and have a good afternoon's competitive bridge in a very friendly spirit. We have a telephone list of directors, and another list of appeals referees in case anything arises which we can't cope with. They can of course apply penalties if they see fit, and it's right and proper that they can do so. But I think it's sad that anyone would approach this kind of tournament with the thought uppermost in their mind "but whose job is it to dish out the procedural penalties?"

blackshoe, on 2012-June-12, 08:49, said:

Furthermore, to not make a ruling on the basis of fear for your future employment is, well, not a good way to approach directing, imo.

I wasn't employed as a TD.

I was referring to my place in the team.

I was also JOKING.

[barmar]

With directing conditions like this, I imagine that PP's are extremely rare.

[blackshoe]

Sorry, Vix. Your "not my place" comment caught me by surprise, and I had forgotten this aspect of English bridge. I remembered in the car a little while ago, on the way home from my afternoon game, where the worst thing that happened at my table was when hubby (my LHO) opened 1♠, his wife (RHO) responded 1NT, he announced "15 to 17" and she exploded "WHAT?!?" Under the actual circumstances in your case, I understand your reluctance to issue PPs.

Quote

But I think it's sad that anyone would approach this kind of tournament with the thought uppermost in their mind "but whose job is it to dish out the procedural penalties?"

Yes, it would be sad, but if you're attributing that thinking to me, you're mistaken.

[Lanor Fow]

I found this an interesting one, so I gave the auction, including the insufficient bid and the pass accepting it to some freinds to get their opinoin on the next call. I didn't mention anything abotu 4H (or even that the director was called, just that the insufficient bid was accepted).

Would people agree that this is the correct way to do a poll on this, or are there improvements, were one to be in a position to do one before ruling on this?

[gordontd]

Yes, that sounds like the right way to do it, and I'd be interested in the results. Of course, it won't mean anything to those like Pran who don't think there's any UI to be used.

[WellSpyder]

Lanor Fow, on 2012-June-13, 04:10, said:

Would people agree that this is the correct way to do a poll on this?

Yes.

[pran]

Lanor Fow, on 2012-June-13, 04:10, said:

I found this an interesting one, so I gave the auction, including the insufficient bid and the pass accepting it to some freinds to get their opinoin on the next call. I didn't mention anything abotu 4H (or even that the director was called, just that the insufficient bid was accepted).

Would people agree that this is the correct way to do a poll on this, or are there improvements, were one to be in a position to do one before ruling on this?

Fair enough.
But like all polls it must be conducted and evaluated with care.

In "my" club we have a player (rather good, and high ranked) who almost certainly bids slams that very few players would bid. (And he wins them as well!).

A poll "against" him on a questionable slam bid would almost certainly be meaningless.

(Not that I have ever seen him suspected of using UI, but that is a different question.)