[mr1303]

---

1NT was 15-17 (ahem), 2D was not alerted but was meant to be spades and another suit. The convention card says Asptro.

Neither East nor West said anything about the misunderstanding.

At trick 6, North calls the director and says that there has been misinformation. Director comes over and after making some enquiries, states that 2D should have been explained and that he should be called back at the end of the hand if further rectification is required.

Table result was 2D - 3, NS +150 (which was 100% of the matchpoints for NS). Director comes back and South says that he is happy with the table result.

West calls the director back and says he wishes to appeal the ruling, stating that he doesn't see why he should have to announce to the table that he doesn't have any diamonds and that NS have behaved unethically by stating that there has been misinformation mid hand.

South (the more experienced member of the partnership) tells West that it was obvious to anyone who has been playing the game for more than 5 minutes that he didn't have diamonds.

Director goes off to get an appeals form, during which time West carries on about the unethical statement. South tells West that if he wasn't happy with the director's ruling he has the right to take it to appeals committee if he wanted to. If he wasn't going to do that, he should shut up.

How do you sort this one out?

[RMB1]

I tell West that N/S actions were not unethical. West has continued to describe N/S as unethical and this behaviour is unacceptable. There could be a disciplinary penalty except that South does not appear to be offended by West's action - South seems to think West is inexperienced/ignorant. I tell South that he has defended himself against West's remarks in a robust manner - in other circumstances phrases like "it was obvious to anyone who has been playing the game for more than 5 minutes" could be insulting and subject to disciplinary penalty.

[billw55]

What does west think he is appealing? No ruling has been made or asked for, that I can tell.

Obviously west does not understand the processes of misinformation, rulings, appeals, and ethics. Perhaps it is fair to say he is ignorant in this regard.

I don't think there is anything wrong with calling attention to the MI during play. It seems a bit abnormal - wouldn't south usually complete the hand first, and then decide whether or not to request a ruling? But unethical, no.

It is also possible that west is a regular perpetrator and that this accounts for south's actions, both during play and his comments after.

As to what to do now, I would just advise them to drop the matter and continue play (if any boards are left in that round). The two of them (west and south) may be happy to continue their argument, but this could disturb other players. If they still won't quit, start with the penalties.

[iviehoff]

 mr1303, on 2012-November-14, 07:18, said:

West calls the director back and says he wishes to appeal the ruling, stating that he doesn't see why he should have to announce to the table that he doesn't have any diamonds

The reason why is L75B, so West needs to acquainted with the nature of this law, namely that declarer and dummy must correct any misexplanation by their partner at the end of the auction, whereas defenders should wait to the end of the hand.

North is also entitled to ask for an explanation of a call in the auction whenever it is his turn to play a card (L20F2), so there is nothing wrong in him asking for an explanation mid hand. West needs to understand this also.

West's appeal is completely without merit, and hopefully if he was made aware of the content of these two laws he would realise it.

[ahydra]

 iviehoff, on 2012-November-14, 07:56, said:

The reason why is L75B, so West needs to acquainted with the nature of this law, namely that declarer and dummy must correct any misexplanation by their partner at the end of the auction, whereas defenders should wait to the end of the hand.

My thoughts exactly.

Quote

North is also entitled to ask for an explanation of a call in the auction whenever it is his turn to play a card (L20F2), so there is nothing wrong in him asking for an explanation mid hand. West needs to understand this also.

By the sound of it though, North has made an accusation of MI that would probably be better left to the end of the hand, in case South wasn't in on it. North can certainly ask what 2D meant, but he shouldn't say "there's been MI".

As for the appeal itself, the only way I'm returning the deposit is if West can present a very convincing argument that South's play was influenced by North's comment/TD call re MI and he made fewer tricks as a result. And it would have to be a very convincing argument.

Question: even if he could present such an argument and we adjust 2D to make 6 tricks instead of 5, what do we do if NS could make 110 if they'd been alerted to the MI? Has South waived any claims for damage by accepting the -150, or is he entitled to claim damage again when the score gets adjusted?

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

Nitpick:

W should have announced what the bid systemically showed not that he didn't have diamonds (he could be 4540 in theory) and this should be pointed out to him.

I always find this most difficult when I actually incidentally have what partner indicated I had as well as what I showed, and I feel I'm throwing opps off the scent by giving them the correct system info.

[PeterAlan]

From the information, W appears to have bid in accordance with their agreement(s), and E has forgotten.

So, first, (Law 75B / OB 3D3 & 3D5(a)) W should have called the TD before the opening lead because of his partner's unexpected failure to alert the 2♦ bid. The Laws don't attempt to deal comprehensively with the knock-on effects of players failing to conform to their obligations, but I don't have much sympathy with W objecting to N/S being told at trick 6 what they should have been told by him before trick 1, namely that his bid did not show a natural ♦ overcall but rather a ♠ / something two-suiter.

We're not told what happened in the first 5 tricks, but since N is looking at 5 ♦s in his hand and 4 in dummy, he doesn't need to be Einstein to know at the start that W hasn't got a normal natural suit overcall of 1NT - if, as W seems to suppose, he was going out of his way to alert S that wheels had fallen off the E/W wagon he could have done so 5 tricks sooner.

I agree with billw55 that there doesn't appear to have been any substantive ruling anyway.

I took S's remark about "it was obvious to anyone who has been playing the game for more than 5 minutes" as saying that by the time of N's question he was well aware of what was going on, and didn't need N to wake him up, rather than it being directed as a mild insult at W.

It seems to me that the TD should take the opportunity to remind W of his obligations when his partner fails to alert appropriately, talk to him about what is and what is not ethical behaviour, and suggest that he stops making a fool of himself.

[iviehoff]

 ahydra, on 2012-November-14, 08:08, said:

By the sound of it though, North has made an accusation of MI that would probably be better left to the end of the hand, in case South wasn't in on it. North can certainly ask what 2D meant, but he shouldn't say "there's been MI".

I agree it is not best phrased by North. But any attempt by North to obtain a correct description of 2D would have contained this sentiment as an obvious implication. Players are recommended to call the director whenever they suspect MI, because it is better to correct it asap than to seek an adjustment later. Correct procedure would have been for North to call the director before saying anything, and then explaining the situation to him, without making accusations.

[glen]

 mr1303, on 2012-November-14, 07:18, said:

... At trick 6, North calls the director and says that there has been misinformation ...

What happened at trick 5 or 6 to make this the time for North to call the TD?

As TD:
Request South to be more polite ("shut up", insult)
Request North not to call TD in middle of hand until misinformation is known (which it could have been at trick 6)
Request North/South to properly inform opponents on 1NT range if opening 14 counts are more than rare
Request West stop using "unethical"
Request West to inform the opponents when an alert has been missed, and that this should be done when the auction is over if not the defending side
Ask West if s/he is appealing the ruling that 2♦ should have been alerted, and if this is the appeal tell West that this appeal likely has no merit whatsoever
Tell West to see me after the session for some Internet resources about this
Stay close to the table until the round is over

[blackshoe]

Meh. Reading, or at least trying to read, nothing in the case that isn't in the OP:

1. North is dummy. What's he doing calling the director? Read the first sentence of Law 9A3 ("When an irregularity has occurred, dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded.") to the table. Explain that "may not" is just short of the strongest prohibition in the laws ("must not"), and per the Introduction should incur a PP "more often than not". Issue a PP(Warning) to North. Just ignore this part.
2. Point out that correct TD procedure regarding the alleged MI is for West to call the TD at the end of play (Laws 20F5 and 75B).
3. Instruct them to play on.

At the end of play:

4. If West still doesn't understand his obligations, read Laws 20F5 and 75B (suitably edited for player seating) to the table. Also read the applicable OB section regarding alerting.
5. Inform West that his accusation of unethical behavior is itself unethical, or at best poorly worded (he might have just asked the TD "can they do that in the middle of the hand?") and suggest that he refrain from such in future. If he persists now, issue a DP (10% of a top, if that's normal in the EBU).
6. Inform South that his comment is also out of line. Issue him a similar DP. Note: both of these (5 & 6) are, in the EBU, judgement matters. It may be that the TD's assessment of the situation at the table is such that he decides not to issue DPs in matchpoints, though I think the players still should get a warning. If the ACBL's Zero Tolerance policy were in effect, the TD would have no choice other than to issue DPs in MPs (25% of a top) for both offenses. That said, sometimes this part of the ZT policy is ignored, especially in clubs. I like the EBU approach better.
7. If West still wishes to appeal on the basis that he should not have to correct his partner's MI, read Law 93B3 regarding appeals on matters of law, and inform West that the basis of his appeal is a matter of Law. Also inform him that if the AC determines that the appeal is without merit, they will keep his deposit.
8. Rule that there having been no damage to the NOS from the MI infraction, the score will stand.
9. Keep an eye on this table for the rest of the round.

Some will object to all this "reading from the law book". If you think you can adequately deal with the situation without doing so, that's fine, but it seems to me that West in particular needs a little formal educating.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-November-14, 10:35
Reason for edit: It's the drugs, I tell you!

[Bbradley62]

 blackshoe, on 2012-November-14, 10:25, said:

1. North is dummy. What's he doing calling the director?

West is declarer at 2♦; North is a defender.

[blackshoe]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-November-14, 10:29, said:

West is declarer at 2♦; North is a defender.

Grr. Okay, I should have waited until the drugs wear off. Disregard that portion of my post.

[ggwhiz]

West is obviously new to the game, at least duplicate and the laws.

This is a time for education along the lines of "please calm down and let me explain". and do so in a non-technical way.

Then I would tell west that they are obliged to inform the defence about the failure to alert before the opening lead and why they should not do this if they were defending after a failure to alert. No damage to the defence occurred but if their had been the ruling would go their way and why.

North South simply acquired the info that you MUST give them much earlier. Since the remarks mid hand gathered the info they were always entitled to in time for proper defence, it may in fact help you avoid a more serious ruling against you.

Invite e/w to ask any questions after the game and south seems experienced enough to go into gentle education mode of a newbie too.

[barmar]

 billw55, on 2012-November-14, 07:45, said:

What does west think he is appealing? No ruling has been made or asked for, that I can tell.

"Result stands" is a ruling, isn't it?

[blackshoe]

 ggwhiz, on 2012-November-14, 10:37, said:

West is obviously new to the game, at least duplicate and the laws.

This is a time for education along the lines of "please calm down and let me explain". and do so in a non-technical way.

Fair enough, although I think "obviously" is an overbid.

[RMB1]

 barmar, on 2012-November-14, 10:37, said:

"Result stands" is a ruling, isn't it?

+1 (manual upvote)

[billw55]

 barmar, on 2012-November-14, 10:37, said:

"Result stands" is a ruling, isn't it?

It could be. But it is also the default result if there is no ruling. What the OP actually said is "Director comes back and South says that he is happy with the table result." Which to me means that south did not request a ruling. Surely if NS wanted a ruling they would be asking for an adjustment, right? It would be silly to call the director over and ask him to rule that result stands.

If EW requested an adjustment, then we might get "result stands" as a ruling. This does not seem to be the case, however; nothing in the OP suggests that west asked for an adjustment.

[blackshoe]

West, in effect, questioned whether East should have been required to alert 2♦, and more to the point, whether he (West) should be or have been required to correct the explanation. The TD ruled that the failure to alert 2♦ was an infraction. West then complained that he should not be required to say he has no diamonds. The TD should have said "well, you aren't required to say that; you're required to correct the mis-explanation of your partnership agreement before the opening lead is chosen".

[billw55]

 blackshoe, on 2012-November-14, 11:38, said:

West, in effect, questioned whether East should have been required to alert 2♦, and more to the point, whether he (West) should be or have been required to correct the explanation. The TD ruled that the failure to alert 2♦ was an infraction. West then complained that he should not be required to say he has no diamonds. The TD should have said "well, you aren't required to say that; you're required to correct the mis-explanation of your partnership agreement before the opening lead is chosen".

Probably this is accurate, although it was not clear (to me, at least) from the wording in the OP.

In this circumstance, I would say that west asked for information, rather than a ruling, because (seemingly) no score adjustment was at issue.

I would also point out that north has much to learn from this incident. If he kept quiet until the end of the hand, and then decided if there was damage before calling the director, this whole situation would have been avoided. That doesn't mean that speaking up at trick 6 was wrong, just unwise.

[Trinidad]

 ggwhiz, on 2012-November-14, 10:37, said:

West is obviously new to the game, at least duplicate and the laws.

When did they start teaching Asptro at the beginner courses?

My point is that players should learn the basic laws and ethics way before they get into stuff like conventional defenses to 1NT. Unfortunately, I can imagine that someone is experienced enough to play Asptro but still doesn't know the basics about the laws and ethics of bridge. These are normally not newbies, but people who simply don't care.

Obviously, the local TD knows these people best and he can judge that. But I am all for: You will be lectured on Laws and Ethics. If you don't listen, you will get the PP's that you deserve.

West is the equivalent of a soccer player who is protesting to the referee because he doesn't understand the off side rule, but is capable of scoring goals with a bicycle kick and understand all the implications of the 4-3-3 (pointed forward or backward) and 4-4-2 (straight or diamond shaped) systems.

If you don't know that you need to explain your agreements and that you need to correct MI, you don't belong in a bridge competition, no matter how good your understanding of the Asptro convention.

Rik