A "weak" two bid!

[gnasher]

I hadn't really considered the consequences of this part of the laws before. Suppose that I have a balanced 14-count and my partner passes out of turn. If all that I knew was that partner was barred for one round, I might open 3NT, because it might be the normal contract and will often have play even if it isn't. Presumably therefore, I'm obliged to open 3NT?

 

Likewise, if partner opens out of turn and the bidding reverts to me, how strong must I be before I'm allowed to open at the game level?

[McBruce]

If the TD decides that North's 2♥ call was based on UI and ruled that Pass is a LA, what is the next step? The TD must now judge what the outcome of the deal might be if North passes.

 

I don't doubt that E-W will almost certainly get to 6♠.

 

I do doubt very much that South will elect to lead a heart away from KJT8 against a slam without any reason for so doing.

 

Without a heart lead, what chance does declarer have in 6♠? 100%: declarer will pull trumps and establish a diamond winner to take care of the losing heart.

 

So I rule 1430 to E-W. How many teams walk out as a result? I recommend a lengthy suspension for all of them to the appropriate committee of the tournament organizer or regulating authority.

 

As for the gloating, I think it needs to be serious enough to elicit a call from an offended player at the time. I'm all for Zero Tolerance if done correctly: call the TD if you are made uncomfortable, and we will decide: perhaps a penalty, perhaps a warning, perhaps a discussion and an apology will be the result, depending on what took place. But don't expect much if you choose to practice Full Tolerance and put up with it at the time, only to complain about it later.

[gnasher]

I do doubt very much that South will elect to lead a heart away from KJT8 against a slam without any reason for so doing.

Really? If you made me choose a lead from the South hand without telling me anything except that the contract was at the six-level, I'd lead a heart.

[Bbradley62]

It's not among the questions at hand, but...

Sitting West, I would have quickly bid 2NT over South's out-of-turn pass, to avoid having something strange happen before I got to show my hand.

[blackshoe]

I'm all for Zero Tolerance if done correctly: call the TD if you are made uncomfortable, and we will decide: perhaps a penalty, perhaps a warning, perhaps a discussion and an apology will be the result, depending on what took place.  But don't expect much if you choose to practice Full Tolerance and put up with it at the time, only to complain about it later.

I guess you disagree with the ACBL's ZT policy, then:

The director, when called, shall make an assessment of the situation. If it is established that there was unacceptable behavior, an immediate ¼ board disciplinary penalty (3 IMP in team games) shall be assigned to all offenders.

The only warning players get comes when

At the start of each event, the director shall make an announcement that the tournament will be observing ZERO TOLERANCE for unacceptable behavior. It is requested that the director be called whenever behavior is not consistent with the guidelines outlined above.

The only decision is whether the behavior meets the guidelines. The policy does say that the director should be called immediately when a violation occurs.

[Bbradley62]

What I honestly do not understand:

 

If we have to pass as long as pass is a LA, why is this not stated in the laws?

It is stated in the laws: it is in Law 16 not in Laws 28/29/30 for Pass out of rotation.

 

Law 16D says partner's withdrawn Pass out of rotation is unauthorised information.

 

Law 16B says you must pass if Pass is a logical alternative and other logical alternatives are suggested over Pass by the Pass out of rotation.

If this is the case, then it should have been explained to North before he made his bid. If this was not explained, then his bid was completely reasonable and N/S deserves to keep their +100. The only adjustment E/W could possibly be entitled to is one on account of Director's Error, but I don't think they should get that either. Result stands.

 

What might be gloating to one person could be just "telling a funny story" to another, so we should need details before determing what to do about that.

 

If anyone walked out of my game, I'd bar them for as long as the governing laws allowed me to do so, and I'd report them to all jurisdictions (unit, district and ACBL for me).

[McBruce]

I guess you disagree with the ACBL's ZT policy, then:

The director, when called, shall make an assessment of the situation. If it is established that there was unacceptable behavior, an immediate ¼ board disciplinary penalty (3 IMP in team games) shall be assigned to all offenders.

The only warning players get comes when

At the start of each event, the director shall make an announcement that the tournament will be observing ZERO TOLERANCE for unacceptable behavior. It is requested that the director be called whenever behavior is not consistent with the guidelines outlined above.

The only decision is whether the behavior meets the guidelines. The policy does say that the director should be called immediately when a violation occurs.

As written, I do disagree with the policy. But in this part of the country at least, nobody has heard a ZT pre-game announcement at a tournament in five years. I believe it would be a much improved and more effective program if TDs had the option to smooth things over when somebody makes a joke that someone else gets miffed over. As written, the policy gives TDs no leeway when someone misinterprets a joke for rudeness. Our local version (which I developed) uses instead the phrase 'unquestionably unacceptable behavior' and allows a TD the option of diplomacy when an incident doesn't quite get to that level. Quite often one can establish that a comment was misinterpreted and the commenter is genuinely sorry that it happened. Under ACBL ZT, this is a DP if the TD is called and frustration if there is no TD called. In our Unit we encourage the TD call, find out exactly what happened, and give a simple warning when we can see that no harm was meant and the person who caused the situation gives an apology for the misunderstanding. (Players can complain later if they feel a TD has gone too far in playing down an incident.)

 

But the original point was that the gloating was alleged after the fact. There's really no way to reasonably judge something like this unless the TD is called at the time. With the passage of time, the versions of the incident change so much that it's impossible to judge. That's why I use the phrase Full Tolerance to describe those who choose to let an incident go without a TD call, then later claim that Zero Tolerance didn't work for them. If you practice FT, of course ZT is going to fail.

[McBruce]

Law 16D says partner's withdrawn Pass out of rotation is unauthorised information.

 

Law 16B says you must pass if Pass is a logical alternative and other logical alternatives are suggested over Pass by the Pass out of rotation.

If this is the case, then it should have been explained to North before he made his bid.

This is the lesson of this thread for me: I know I have been guilty of not explaining the UI/AI in BOOT/POOT situations. It makes for a far more difficult time giving a ruling if the players feel you've held something back.

[blackshoe]

As written, I do disagree with the policy. But in this part of the country at least, nobody has heard a ZT pre-game announcement at a tournament in five years. I believe it would be a much improved and more effective program if TDs had the option to smooth things over when somebody makes a joke that someone else gets miffed over. As written, the policy gives TDs no leeway when someone misinterprets a joke for rudeness. Our local version (which I developed) uses instead the phrase 'unquestionably unacceptable behavior' and allows a TD the option of diplomacy when an incident doesn't quite get to that level. Quite often one can establish that a comment was misinterpreted and the commenter is genuinely sorry that it happened. Under ACBL ZT, this is a DP if the TD is called and frustration if there is no TD called. In our Unit we encourage the TD call, find out exactly what happened, and give a simple warning when we can see that no harm was meant and the person who caused the situation gives an apology for the misunderstanding. (Players can complain later if they feel a TD has gone too far in playing down an incident.)

 

But the original point was that the gloating was alleged after the fact. There's really no way to reasonably judge something like this unless the TD is called at the time. With the passage of time, the versions of the incident change so much that it's impossible to judge. That's why I use the phrase Full Tolerance to describe those who choose to let an incident go without a TD call, then later claim that Zero Tolerance didn't work for them. If you practice FT, of course ZT is going to fail.

Personally, I don't like "zero tolerance" policies much. In the first place, there are already laws in place to deal with the things ZT would punish. In the second place, the "punish immediately, no recourse" of such policies can well lead to ridiculous situations, as you say. But if you're (generic "you") going to say "we follow the ACBL's ZT policy", then you ought to by God follow it, starting with making the announcement at the beginning of every session. If you're going to develop your own local version, then you ought to follow that — although I'm not entirely sure (running from memory, I haven't looked) that a Unit can legally do that, absent permission from ACBL HQ.

 

It is of course true that players who do not call the TD right away are likely to get less satisfaction than they would have — that's true of any judgement ruling. So? I tell such players that if they can't be bothered to call the TD when they should, they damn sure shouldn't expect him to rule in their favor. They'll bitch about it — it is in the nature of such players that they'll bitch whenever things don't go their way, and whatever the reason — but who cares? You can't stop 'em from bitching, it's pointless even to try.