What is your call?

[blackshoe]

I've gone back and reread the beginning of the thread, and I'd like to say something about correct procedure.

 

Law 16B1 says that a player may make available information extraneous to the actual bids and plays in his hand, and that such information is unauthorized to his partner.

 

Law 16B2 says that a player who believes an opponent has made such extraneous information available to his partner may announce that he reserves his right to call the director later, unless the Regulating Authority prohibits doing so. The ACBL used to prohibit it, and require calling the director immediately, but no longer does so. So you should make that announcement. If the opponents disagree, they should call the director immediately.

 

Law 16B3 says that when a player has substantial reason to believe that UI may have been used, he should summon the director when play ends (emphasis mine). So it's incorrect (but not illegal) to call the director in the middle of the auction because you suspect UI may have been used.

 

If you call him before the end of the play, all he can do is remind the players of their obligations and require play (and bidding, if appropriate) to continue. So long as the opponents agree that there was an event that may have transmitted UI (which is not, btw, an agreement that it did), there is no need for the director until after the play - and by then you will, or should, have a better idea if he is needed.

 

Perhaps if more people followed this correct procedure, there would be fewer problems. Perhaps there would not. Still it seems a worthwhile endeavor to try.

 

One other thing: when the director is at the table, players should be speaking to him, not to each other. The player who called the TD has the floor, and everyone else should keep quiet - the TD will give each a chance to speak, in due time.

[Hanoi5]

He swore up and down that he didn't act in that manner.  When I said, "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you".  I get informed by the director that I could be subject to a Zero Tolerance penalty. 

 

That's different from:

 

Me, politely to director and RHO:

 

"The gentleman took an excessive amount of time, both before 1C and before 5C. Now I don't know what he was considering but it was likely either 1) a systemic strong opening (before 1C) or some sort of cuebid or game try (before 5C)"

 

RHO, quite snippishly:

 

"I was considering nothing of the sort".

 

ME:

 

"Given your hand and the hesitations, I'm sorry, but I find that difficult to believe".

 

So I'll concede it wasn't as bad as I had first thought. Anyway, you have to recognize that you were angry and that your answer was out of anger. Even writing it here, you describe your opponent as being 'snippy' and you say ME instead of Me.

 

Ok, maybe a little exaggeration from me but just try to be a little more patient on f2f situations, after all the Director was there and you can always appeal if he doesn't take the correct decision (or come to us for support :rolleyes: )

[bid_em_up]

Please stop trying to read things that aren't there. You weren't at the table. I wasn't angry. Ask my partner, TylerE on BBO, who was at the table. Ask him if the opponent was snippy, you don't have to take my word for it. Ask him if I was "angry".

 

And trying to read something into ME vs. Me vs. me is taking things waaaayyy too far.

 

The only difference is that I NEVER expected to get a bunch of bullshit from someone simply because I didnt type every detail of the scenario. I was trying to relate a story, without being long and drawn out, and instead get a bunch of crap for it.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

 

We are missing 4 Aces, p will have 2, but if he has more

than min. and 3 Aces, he should have choosen a different

call.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[whereagles]

I would pass because I always seem to get some silliness like

 

Kxx

x

xxx

AKQxxx

 

across.