Procedural Bonus

[JoAnneM]

I am at a Regional Tournament, and in three days of playing we have had three different occasions where failures to alert or misinformation have resulted in bad boards for us. Not once have we received an adjustment. These have included failure to alert CAPP, misinformation on weak sandwich nt when their agreement was actually strong nt overcall, and misinformation on DONT calling it a natural bid. None of these were misbids.

 

At the end of the game tonight I told the directors that I want a Procedural Bonus for having to put up with all this nonsense.

[mtvesuvius]

In Houston I had a session where my father's mind was blank... He forgot to alert Capp, Sandwich NT, Bergen, Gave Misinformation on what RKC we use, didn't alert drury, and hesitated so many times it was unbeleivable... I had UI coming out of my ears! The director was at our table 5 times and we didn't get penalized once. I believe that we should have gotten penalized, but...

[Trinidad]

My partner and I play very aggressive preemptive raises of overcalls. About 10 years ago we played a big tournament in Sweden that lasted a week.

 

A few hands into the tournament my partner overcalls and gets doubled (no alert). Since I wasn't entirely familiar with the Swedish alert regulations at the time, I ask what the double means and get: "Penalty, obviously." back. I was about to raise, but if partner is doubled for penalty, a preemptive raise seems a bit odd.

 

So I pass, and the player who just explained the double as penalty takes it out with something like three trumps. After the deal is over, when we see all the hands, we call the (Danish) director. We tell him the auction and the explanations and say that if I had known that this double was takeout or "cards", I would have raised preemptively. The opponent restates that it was a penalty double. I ask why he took it out and he replies: "I could see from my hand that he can't have a penalty double, since I have three trumps myself."

 

The director rules that he seems to have explained the agreement correctly and made a judgement call. The director also shows with his body language that he doesn't believe that I would make a preemptive raise with the trash that I held. The result stands.

 

A few boards later, new opponents. Same thing again. I overcall and get doubled for penalty, my partner doesn't raise. Penalty double is taken out. Director at end of deal. Same ruling.

 

By the end of the day (64 boards) we have had 8 of these penalty doubles. Every time (except for number 4) we called the director: same ruling, but he now encourages us to keep calling him.

 

(On the fourth case, I decided to make a preemptive raise anyway and was promptly doubled for penalty. This time it actualy was a penalty double and partner went for a number.)

 

Before the next day session, the director comes to me. He has talked to his Swedish colleagues and told them that Swedes shouldn't explain general strength showing doubles as penalty. He had gotten some kind of "When in Sweden, do as the Swedes." answer which clearly had annoyed him.

 

He told us where he would be directing that session and told us to make sure we were in his part of the tournament. And yes, after a few deals, there is a new "penalty double" and we call after the board. That second day and the rest of the week, we got every "penalty double" case ruled in our favor. This director said that we had deserved that for "having to put up with all this nonsense" for a whole day. :)

 

Rik

[babalu1997]

I am at a Regional Tournament, and in three days of playing we have had three different occasions where failures to alert or misinformation have resulted in bad boards for us. Not once have we received an adjustment. These have included failure to alert CAPP, misinformation on weak sandwich nt when their agreement was actually strong nt overcall, and misinformation on DONT calling it a natural bid. None of these were misbids.

 

At the end of the game tonight I told the directors that I want a Procedural Bonus for having to put up with all this nonsense.

i played a hand today at okbridge where sandwich nt was not alerted , the td said it is not supposed to be alerted.

 

But i think the trend online is not to alert anything.

 

the other day, at bbo, i opened ant, opp calls 2 clubs, i inquire, opps explains: I gave to bid over your no trump. i stopped pçlaying asked what bid means, she then calls director who rules that she does not have to alert, then boots me out of the game, he then explained that he had to boot me because she plays his game every night. I no longer even bother to tell abuse, i just hope the guy dies an early death.

 

But i got a kick yesterday when these opps raise spadea premptively and, holding 3 spades to aq i cuebid 3 spades and alert game values, the opp was very indignant:

 

NO KIDDING!!

 

I smoothly and quickly puther on enemy list, doubled her 4 sapdes down 2 for 80 odd percent.. hoisted by her own petard. lol.

[matmat]

lol.

[jdonn]

I am at a Regional Tournament, and in three days of playing we have had three different occasions where failures to alert or misinformation have resulted in bad boards for us. Not once have we received an adjustment. These have included failure to alert CAPP, misinformation on weak sandwich nt when their agreement was actually strong nt overcall, and misinformation on DONT calling it a natural bid. None of these were misbids.

 

At the end of the game tonight I told the directors that I want a Procedural Bonus for having to put up with all this nonsense.

Could you give more specific examples of how the misinformation gave you a bad board? It sounds like either you are right in which case the director ruled badly, or you are wrong and the director ruled well. In either case the laws are designed to restore equity, not to compensate for annoyance. :)

[blackshoe]

In either case the laws are designed to restore equity, not to compensate for annoyance. :)

The laws are designed primarily to restore equity. If you do something that annoys another player, you are subject to penalty (see Law 74A2). It would have to be a pretty gross offense, though, since that law uses the word "should", so annoying someone is an infraction, but one seldom penalized (I've never seen it penalized, myself).

[jdonn]

In either case the laws are designed to restore equity, not to compensate for annoyance. :)

The laws are designed primarily to restore equity. If you do something that annoys another player, you are subject to penalty (see Law 74A2). It would have to be a pretty gross offense, though, since that law uses the word "should", so annoying someone is an infraction, but one seldom penalized (I've never seen it penalized, myself).

I stand corrected. There is a secondary purpose of the laws that is never enforced that could punish your opponents for annoying you, though still not benefit you. :)

[blackshoe]

<chuckle> okay, I'll shut up. :-)

[matmat]

lol.

i meant to ask, was this acceptable usage?

[jmc]

ditto MattMatt's question.

[JLOL]

LOL

[JoAnneM]

It doesn't really matter what the hands were, I didn't question the Director decisions. The point was that there were three of these situations in three sessions, and don't you think that is too many, especially when all three pairs were Flight A?

 

1. I opened 1NT, LHO bid an unalerted 2D which was really 6S,4H. We went down 1 at 3nt with our good diamond stop but no spades. Director said no adjustment because I opened nt with 14.

 

2. Parter opened 1NT, RHO bid 3C, LHO alerted and explained clubs and higher suit. I said "really?" and he said "yes". I had five spades to the 9 and two outside aces and passed, hesitant to risk that the second suit was spades. Left hand opponent then passed with his singleton club and they played three clubs for a good board. RHO had 7 clubs. Director said I "failed to act". Director later told me the opps received a penalty for misinformation.

 

3. Opps alerted and explained a weak sandwich nt, but were playing a strong NT overcall. We went for 800. The director said "pairs don't always have a good agreement on this, no adjustment."

 

So what should I have done in those situations?

[qwery_hi]

It doesn't really matter what the hands were, I didn't question the Director decisions. The point was that there were three of these situations in three sessions, and don't you think that is too many, especially when all three pairs were Flight A?

 

1. I opened 1NT, LHO bid an unalerted 2D which was really 6S,4H. We went down 1 at 3nt with our good diamond stop but no spades. Director said no adjustment because I opened nt with 14.

 

2. Parter opened 1NT, RHO bid 3C, LHO alerted and explained clubs and higher suit. I said "really?" and he said "yes". I had five spades to the 9 and two outside aces and passed, hesitant to risk that the second suit was spades. Left hand opponent then passed with his singleton club and they played three clubs for a good board. RHO had 7 clubs. Director said I "failed to act". Director later told me the opps received a penalty for misinformation.

 

3. Opps alerted and explained a weak sandwich nt, but were playing a strong NT overcall. We went for 800. The director said "pairs don't always have a good agreement on this, no adjustment."

 

So what should I have done in those situations?

I think you couldn't have done anything more than call the director, but the director should have adjusted all boards in your favor. Perhaps you could have appealed the directors decisions.

[blackshoe]

My take on the individual rulings:

 

1. That you opened 1NT with 14 is irrelevant, even if your agreement is 15-17. You're allowed to use your judgement in evaluating your hand. Your opponents are not allowed to misinform you as to their agreements. It is possible that their agreement was in fact that 2♦ was natural, in which case you weren't misinformed, and your bad result is "rub of the green". But unless the director investigated and determined that this is the case, his ruling was wrong. To fail to investigate the opponents actual agreement, and to rule on the basis of an irrelevancy, is incompetent.

 

2. If the director issued the opponents a PP for MI, then he should have adjusted the score for the same reason. "You failed to act" is bull. Again, incompetence.

 

3. The director's reason for his ruling is wrong in law. The opponents claimed the agreement was weak sandwich. It wasn't. Even if the TD determines they didn't have an agreement, you have been misinformed. More incompetence.

 

I am disgusted. If I'm not mistaken, the ACBL, which would be this person's employer, puts a TD supervisor at the district level to oversee their employees. I would find out who this person is, contact him, inform him of the facts, and suggest that this person be fired.

[jdonn]

In all cases just my opinion based on the facts as stated...

 

1.  I opened 1NT, LHO bid an unalerted 2D which was really 6S,4H.  We went down 1 at 3nt with our good diamond stop but no spades.  Director said no adjustment because I opened nt with 14.

Sounds like a terrible ruling, made for a completely arbitrary reason to boot.

 

2.  Parter opened 1NT, RHO bid 3C, LHO alerted and explained clubs and higher suit.  I said "really?" and he said "yes".  I had five spades to the 9 and two outside aces and passed, hesitant to risk that the second suit was spades.  Left hand opponent then passed with his singleton club and they played three clubs for a good board.  RHO had 7 clubs.   Director said I "failed to act".     Director later told me the opps received a penalty for misinformation.

"Failed to act" is probably not the right way to say it but I agree with not changing your side's score (definitely) and with penalizing the opponents (probably). I don't think it's logical to pass out of a fear that their second suit is spades. I would not give any benefit of the doubt to a pair that passed over 'clubs and another' but bid here over 'just clubs' without a better reason than that. In other words, sorry to say but the explanation didn't cause your damage, you caused it yourself.

 

If the opponents couldn't prove their agreement then it's probably correct of the director to assume misinformation, given the pass with a singleton and the long clubs. The only other scenario I can think of is the bidder forgot the agreement, and his partner passed because your questions made him think you were strong. But they could never prove all that anyway so that possibility can be rejected.

 

3.  Opps alerted and explained a weak sandwich nt, but were playing a strong NT overcall.  We went for 800.  The director said "pairs don't always have a good agreement on this, no adjustment."

That's certainly a bad reason to not give an adjustment. But it's still unclear whether you should or shouldn't get one without seeing more about the hands and the rest of the auction. Otherwise there is no way to know whether the misinformation (again, assuming that's what it was and not just a forget) was the cause of the damage.

 

So summarizing:

1 - Terrible reasoning leading to terrible decision.

2 - Fair reasoning leading to correct decision.

3 - Terrible reasoning but impossible to know correct decision with given information.

 

Sounds like par for the course at most clubs I've been to...

 

Disagree very strongly with the prior two posters about the rulings on 2 and 3. 2 was an excellent ruling, and on 3 none of us can tell yet (well we can tell the ruling was bad, but the good ruling may have reached the exact same conclusion. You know what I mean...)

[mtvesuvius]

1.  I opened 1NT, LHO bid an unalerted 2D which was really 6S,4H.  We went down 1 at 3nt with our good diamond stop but no spades.  Director said no adjustment because I opened nt with 14.

This should have been appealed IMO... A failure to alert is a failure to alert, the director shouldn't penalize you for evaluating your hand.

 

2. Parter opened 1NT, RHO bid 3C, LHO alerted and explained clubs and higher suit. I said "really?" and he said "yes". I had five spades to the 9 and two outside aces and passed, hesitant to risk that the second suit was spades. Left hand opponent then passed with his singleton club and they played three clubs for a good board. RHO had 7 clubs. Director said I "failed to act". Director later told me the opps received a penalty for misinformation.

This I think you cannot do much about, they recieved a proceedural penalty, but IMO you should have gotten it adjusted... There was no way for you to "know" that you had gotten misinformation.

 

3. Opps alerted and explained a weak sandwich nt, but were playing a strong NT overcall. We went for 800. The director said "pairs don't always have a good agreement on this, no adjustment."

This depends on the opponent's agreements, if they gave correct information, then there is nothing you can do... You simply got fixed. If they disclosed an incorrect agreement, you are entitled to redress.

 

Ugh... Shouldn't everyone know their agreements?

[blackshoe]

Adjustments and PPs are two different things. It is possible that one should issue a PP even in a case where the NOS were not damaged (in which case there would be no adjustment) but as I read it that's not what happened here.

 

the explanation didn't cause your damange, you caused it yourself

 

The fact that a player makes a mistake is not justification for denial of rectification, unless the error is wild or gambling, or is serious and not related to the infraction. I do not believe this case meets any of the criteria.

[jdonn]

the explanation didn't cause your damange, you caused it yourself

The fact that a player makes a mistake is not justification for denial of rectification, unless the error is wild or gambling, or is serious and not related to the infraction. I do not believe this case meets any of the criteria.

This has nothing to do with making a mistake. Miscounting trumps is a mistake. Thinking you are making a penalty double because you forgot your agreement is takeout is a mistake. Using the given explanation as justification to do something that doesn't make bridge sense is different. (You know this much better than I do, but don't the laws have something about 'failure to play bridge' or 'irrational for the class of player involved' or such? Or was that changed in the new laws? That's surely what the director meant with his comment "failed to act".)

 

Anyway my point is, can't wild/gambling/serious go both ways? In other words they don't have to be wild overbids. They could be underbids, or irrational bids, such as (IMO) passing on a 9xxxx Axx Axx xx or whatever the hand was over 3♣ due to a fear he has clubs and spades.

 

I'm not trying to be hard on the OP. 1 and 3 showed that this person is a terrible director, so it was probably not a fun day.

[hrothgar]

It doesn't really matter what the hands were, I didn't question the Director decisions.  The point was that there were three of these situations in three sessions, and don't you think that is too many, especially when all three pairs were Flight A?

 

1.  I opened 1NT, LHO bid an unalerted 2D which was really 6S,4H.  We went down 1 at 3nt with our good diamond stop but no spades.  Director said no adjustment because I opened nt with 14.

 

2.  Parter opened 1NT, RHO bid 3C, LHO alerted and explained clubs and higher suit.  I said "really?" and he said "yes".  I had five spades to the 9 and two outside aces and passed, hesitant to risk that the second suit was spades.  Left hand opponent then passed with his singleton club and they played three clubs for a good board.  RHO had 7 clubs.  Director said I "failed to act".    Director later told me the opps received a penalty for misinformation.

 

3.  Opps alerted and explained a weak sandwich nt, but were playing a strong NT overcall.  We went for 800.  The director said "pairs don't always have a good agreement on this, no adjustment."

 

So what should I have done in those situations?

From the sounds of things, you're running into a couple different issues:

 

One of them you can do something about, one of them you can't:

 

1. For better or worse, in ACBL land bridge is predominantly played by the elderly... This might sound rude, but confusion is par for the course. Moreover, things are probably going to get a lot worse before they get any better. Sadly, I don't think that there's much you can do other than grin and bear it - and hope for decent protection from the TD staff...

 

This, of course, is a natural seque into item 2.

 

2. From the sounds of things, the first ruling was absolutely atrocious... The second sounds quite reasonable. I'll reseve judgement on 3 until I see the hands and the auction...

 

As for the first decision: At the very least, you need to ask for an appeals committee. Its important for the TD to understand that his ruling was very wrong. Personally, I consider the ruling egregious enough that I'd register a complaint and recommend that the TD not be rehired until he got some basic training...

[xcurt]

So summarizing:

1 - Terrible reasoning leading to terrible decision.

2 - Fair reasoning leading to correct decision.

3 - Terrible reasoning but impossible to know correct decision with given information.

 

Sounds like par for the course at most clubs I've been to...

 

Disagree very strongly with the prior two posters about the rulings on 2 and 3. 2 was an excellent ruling, and on 3 none of us can tell yet (well we can tell the ruling was bad, but the good ruling may have reached the exact same conclusion. You know what I mean...)

Disagree that 2 was an excellent ruling. Sounds like you got jobbed by your LHO who told you one thing about the 3♣ overcall even as he was looking at his hand planning to bid like 3♣ meant something else. I don't think you deserve an adjustment but I think the opponents deserve more than a PP for MI.

[blackshoe]

This has nothing to do with making a mistake. Miscounting trumps is a mistake. Thinking you are making a penalty double because you forgot your agreement is takeout is a mistake. Using the given explanation as justification to do something that doesn't make bridge sense is different. (You know this much better than I do, but don't the laws have something about 'failure to play bridge' or 'irrational for the class of player involved' or such? Or was that changed in the new laws? That's surely what the director meant with his comment "failed to act".)

 

Anyway my point is, can't wild/gambling/serious go both ways? In other words they don't have to be wild overbids. They could be underbids, or irrational bids, such as (IMO) passing on a 9xxxx Axx Axx xx or whatever the hand was over 3♣ due to a fear he has clubs and spades.

 

I'm not trying to be hard on the OP. 1 and 3 showed that this person is a terrible director, so it was probably not a fun day.

I think perhaps you have overlooked that Joanne is probably not as good a player as you are (I suspect few people are). What would be completely silly for you could well be something lesser players do frequently.

 

What the law actually says now is

if, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

 

So, was passing wild or gambling? I don't think so. Was it an error? Probably (I'm not as good a player as you are, either. :P) Was the error serious enough to deny redress? You seem to think so - and I might agree with you, if you had made it. :) But let's leave that aside for a moment. Was the error unrelated to the infraction? I inferred that Joanne would not have passed if given a correct explanation. If that is in fact the case, then the error was related to the infraction, and so this particular caveat does not apply. Even if it did, the director should have determined the extent of the damage, and what part of it was "her fault", and adjusted accordingly — and the OS should have got the adjustment their infraction rated in either case. The table TD did none of that, so there is no way I would call his ruling "right", or even "reasonable". It's just wrong. Or perhaps "not even wrong". B)

[jdonn]

Even if it did, the director should have determined the extent of the damage, and what part of it was "her fault", and adjusted accordingly — and the OS should have got the adjustment their infraction rated in either case. The table TD did none of that, so there is no way I would call his ruling "right", or even "reasonable". It's just wrong. Or perhaps "not even wrong". :P

I don't know what makes you think that. It looks like the director did determine what part was her fault. He said she failed to act, which means he determined it was her fault. Other than that you may disagree with the bridge judgment, what is "just wrong" about that?

[JoAnneM]

First, yes the director confirmed that the 2D bid was CAPP.

 

Second, this is awkward. I am personal friends with the director called to the table and the other director who reviewed the hands, and lots of the players know that because of my postions in the district and in running tournaments. Why do I think they were going too far in trying not to show favoritism.

 

BTW several of you would be very surprised at who those directors were.

[jillybean]

If the director does not think he/she can make an unbiased decision surely they must defer the decision to another TD. Unless there was a need to make an immediate ruling the TD could even have made a telephone call to another TD.