Damage

[Chris3875]

The N/S actual agreement is that 4C opening is Gerber asking for aces - it could be a strong hand looking for slam or it could be a weak pre-emptive hand with a long suit. Opener knows which suit s/he wants to play the contract in, but is unsure of the level. They are the only pair in our club that plays this system - and I think it must be a new addition because I have never seen it before. It's a bit like a multi 2D opening that COULD be a weak bid in hearts or spades or COULD be a strong balanced 20-21 pt hand.

 

I agree that E probably should have doubled the 4C bid - if only to show a lead direction - but after s/he didn't and the bidding went 4H - P - P a double by E now would surely be for penalty (in her partner's mind) - I don't think as her partner I would have bid on. I watched this board being played by the next 6 tables and noticed that 4 of the 6 North players opened 4H straight away - I think E would have acted over that bid knowing that it was weak - a double would have had her partner bidding either spades or clubs and they would have found their contract. This is why I think they were damaged.

 

I find this area of directing really difficult - I haven't been playing long myself and got pushed into this role because no-one else wanted it - I've been working as a caddy/director with 3 of the top TD's here (you would probably know them David - Martin Willcox, Laurie Kelso and Sean Mullamphy) but when I see the different responses from experienced directors here I wonder whether I will ever learn.

 

I've been reading all the posts and can see merit in them all - how to make that final decision is the big question for me.

[bluejak]

I read "could be"  not that "it is"."Could be" is totally different from "it is"  and my thoughts remain the same.  The opps failed to protect but they certainly had the instincts that something was amiss or a director wouldn't have been called at all.  I do have a "hard line" attitude towards players that try to play both sides of an issue.  You know, the ones that say we'll let this go in hopes the opps messed themselves up, and if we find we are going to get a bad board, let's call the director and see if we can get redress that way.  So, yes, I have little sympathy here.  The ethics of the N/S pair is the issue.  Depending on the remainder of their agreement for this bid, I can see a penalty for a "failure to disclose".  I'm still trying to understand why anyone thinks the E/W pair should be considered for any recompense.

Because they were not the ones who did something wrong. Their opponents play it "could be" something very unusual, and you expect a poor pair to get it right.

 

When players fail to follow the Laws of the game, why penalise their opponents? Why are your sympathies with the law-breakers not the sufferers?

[jdonn]

12.8.3 "Serious Error"

 

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:

• Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. Revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).

• Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing so.

• An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.  This also applies to potentially wild or gambling actions.

 

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ‘serious error’

• Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.

• Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in ruling a contested claim.

• Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line.

You do not consider passing on east's hand throughout "blatantly ridiculous"? What would he need, a 32 count? Is he not required to notice his lho has shown an ace as well, making his RHO even weaker? I think this goes beyond a 'beginners error' personally.

 

To put it another way, taking the last statement and applying it to bidding instead of play, I do not think passing with the east hand has a reasonable chance of success.

 

Btw, what you call "blaming the victim" I call "personal responsibility". It's interesting that you think there is too much of it in America. I think it's a trait we could use a lot more of. Why do you think there are so many lawsuits here?

[peachy]

--- but when I see the different responses from experienced directors here I wonder whether I will ever learn.

You are learning.

However, not all the posters here are experienced directors. For your guidance, look for answers from those who you know to be experienced TDs.

[duschek]

12.8.3 "Serious Error"

Also very well, but that is obviously a specific EBU interpretation, whereas most of the discussion in this thread applies outside EBU, i.e., only reading the WBF Laws (12C1b in particular) and possibly existing local interpretations.

[Sadie3]

Ok Bluejak, you win. A player with 20 HCP that has two opportunities to get into an auction (one of them in the pass out seat) fails to do so and should be recompensed for his failure to figure out something rotten was going on.

[blackshoe]

You know, if I had a dollar for every time I didn't figure out something at the bridge table that would be intuitively obvious to all you experts, I could probably be comfortable playing head to head table stakes poker with Bill Gates.

[suprgrover]

Ok Bluejak, you win. A player with 20 HCP that has two opportunities to get into an auction (one of them in the pass out seat) fails to do so and should be recompensed for his failure to figure out something rotten was going on.

Does any jurisdiction equate cowardice (that might sometimes be justified) as a "serious error"? I do note that E-W went plus against 4♥ but would go down in 4♠. Exchanging the ♠2 and ♣5 would cause 5♣ to do down, as well. I would hardly consider passing here an error, let alone a serious one.

[bluejak]

12.8.3 "Serious Error"

Also very well, but that is obviously a specific EBU interpretation, whereas most of the discussion in this thread applies outside EBU, i.e., only reading the WBF Laws (12C1b in particular) and possibly existing local interpretations.

While this is true, remember what we are doing here. We are trying to help people rule. Now, given the following sources:

• Players with little or no directing experience giving personal opinions
  
• Junior Directors with some directing experience giving personal opinions
  
• Senior Directors with directing experience and knowledge giving personal opinions
  
• Official opinions from knowledgeable authorities
  
• Official WBFLC opinions
  

it is not immediately obvious that the fourth one in the list is the least useful.

[bluejak]

I think you should remember that players have instincts. And one of those instincts among medium or less players is to pass throughout once the opposition show strength - with any hand. It may not be a good instinct, but it is there. Of course, it would be nice to teach such players to play better, but that is impractical.

 

It just seems to me that taking advantage of that instinct illegally should lead to redress.