Director Bulllied

[savphantom]

Verbal from player 4 days after event.

Swiss Teams match completed and scored. Captain interrogates returning pair to find they doubled a 5 Club contract and it made.

Very disappointed, goes over to other table, fossicks in waste bin and retrieves the bidding slip. Apparently auction contained an “inverted minor” bid, but no alert. Captain rushes to Director and demands the score be adjusted and the double be removed from 5CX.

This demand is complied with, result changes from draw to win.

 

Facts:

1. In Australia, regulation requires inverted minor bids e.g. 1C Pass 2C which seems weak but promises 10+HCP and 1C Pass 3C which is weak to be alerted.

2. Pair who doubled 5C state, while the inverted minor bid was not alerted, they were both familiar with the opponent’s system here and knew the meaning during the auction.

3. Director apparently did not discuss issue with offending side before altering result.

 

Questions

1. Would you have advised the “offenders’, the non-alerting side to appeal?

2. Can a Captain request a ruling for an irregularity at another table?

3. IMO there was an irregularity, no misinformation and no damage therefore no adjustment would be applicable.

[Oof Arted]

:)

 

 

yes

 

yes

 

possibly

 

:D

[pran]

Verbal from player 4 days after event.

Swiss Teams match completed and scored. Captain interrogates returning pair to find they doubled a 5 Club contract and it made.

Very disappointed, goes over to other table, fossicks in waste bin and retrieves the bidding slip.  Apparently auction contained an “inverted minor” bid, but no alert. Captain rushes to Director and demands the score be adjusted and the double be removed from 5CX.

This demand is complied with, result changes from draw to win.

 

Facts:

1. In Australia, regulation requires inverted minor bids e.g. 1C Pass 2C which seems weak but promises 10+HCP and 1C Pass 3C which is weak to be alerted.

2. Pair who doubled 5C state, while the inverted minor bid was not alerted, they were both familiar with the opponent’s system here and knew the meaning during the auction.

3. Director apparently did not discuss issue with offending side before altering result.

 

Questions

1. Would you have advised the  “offenders’, the non-alerting side to appeal?

2. Can a Captain request a ruling for an irregularity at another table?

3. IMO there was an irregularity, no misinformation and no damage therefore no adjustment would be applicable.

I have now read this three times, but it makes little sense to me.

 

First of all: Did the Captain approach the Director within the correction period (Law 70C)? (4 days after the event seems a bit late?)

 

According to Facts(2) the NOS (the pair that unsuccessfully doubled the final contract) confirmed that they were fully familiar with opponents' system and accordingly that they were not misinformed (by a possibly missing alert).

 

On this basis I do not understand the reason for adjusting the result.

 

To your questions:

1: Yes

2: Captain represents the team. So within the applicable time limits he can both request rulings and appeal rulings directly affecting his team.

3: What is the question?

[blackshoe]

Apparently the reason for adjusting the result was solely that the Captain insisted on it.

 

It seems the TD failed to investigate. If the facts are as stated in the OP, there was no damage from MI, and no adjustment is indicated.

[aguahombre]

Pran: I don't thnk the adjustment was made 4 days later. The situation was conveyed to the OP 4 days later. I could be wrong though, if the trash containers are rarely emptied.

[pran]

Pran: I don't thnk the adjustment was made 4 days later. The situation was conveyed to the OP 4 days later. I could be wrong though, if the trash containers are rarely emptied.

Yes, I too consider that most likely, but I wanted to have attention to Law 79C as apparently some substantial time had passed from the event until the Captain approached the Director. (The default time limit is 30 minutes.)

[aguahombre]

captain sees score comparisons....goes to trash bin, retrieves the paper.....rushes to director....no time issue. But still another sleezy litigation where no damage likely occurred, but any excuse to try for an undeserved win.

 

the Captain must be related to the scuzzball who wanted an adjustment because the opps didn't use Smith Echoes.

[bluejak]

Indeed. "scuzzball" is your method of describing someone who does not like being misinformed? You would expect opponents to tell you the wrong thing but not to ask for a ruling because that would make you a scuzzball?

 

Bridge is better played to the rules. Players who do not automatically allow their opponents to get away with not playing to the rules are not automatically scuzzballs.

[ggwhiz]

Very cheap ploy by the Captain and inexcusable for the Director to just cave in.

 

Not consulting the other team (or apparently the pair that knew the opps inverted minors system) to determine the facts should be grounds for dismissal. Or at least house arrest.

[jdeegan]

:D And people wonder why the game is declining in popularity.

[bluejak]

Perhaps because, unlike most games, sports and mindsports, players expect to break the rules and not be punished, and people who actually like playing to the rules get called scuzzballs.

[nige1]

Verbal from player 4 days after event.

IMO, when attention is drawn to a potential infraction, it is fair and proper to ask for a director ruling. After the director has made a ruling, don't just complain about it. Either accept it or appeal it.

[ggwhiz]

I agree entirely with nige1 above but this is what bothers me and I've seen it happen on rare occasion.

 

3. Director apparently did not discuss issue with offending side before altering result.

[bluejak]

Very improper.

[JoAnneM]

What does the Law say about rummaging in the trash? To me that is no different from picking up an opponents hand after they have left the table, which is illegal.

[blackshoe]

The laws of bridge do not address the question of "rummaging in the trash". And I don't see the correlation with picking up an opponent's hand.

[aguahombre]

Perhaps because, unlike most games, sports and mindsports, players expect to break the rules and not be punished, and people who actually like playing to the rules get called scuzzballs.

confirming what has been noticed all along.

 

David repeatedly pontificates that the enforcement of rules is not punishment, but when it suits him, notice the wording.

 

Notice also that the OP establishes no damage, because the opponents knew their adversaries' system and knew what the bids meant.

 

Of course, changing a result without consulting the alleged offending side, is just fine if it gives David a chance to ignore that fact and focus on my reference to the "scuzzball" captain, who found a director who will be bullied.

 

the one thing I agree with is the term "playing to the rules", as differentiated from playing by the rules. the "rules" require damage before adjustment. There is no mention of a PP.

[blackshoe]

The TD has a general power to award PPs (Law 90). There is no need for a law covering a particular situation to mention that.

 

The primary intent of the rules is to provide redress for damage. It is that redress that David — and I for that matter — say is not punishment. PPs are a different story. Perhaps David's comment would have been better worded "bridge players, unlike players in other games, seem to expect to be able to break the rules and get away with it". I think he has a point. OTOH, I'm not sure the point is applicable to this situation.

 

The Captain of a team certainly has the power to request a ruling. I wonder, though, if his players told him (or if he asked) that they didn't need an alert, that they knew the opponents were playing inverted minors. It sounds to me like the Captain was focused on "winning at any cost", rather than on investigating what actually happened. I don't particularly approve of the Captain's actions, but I wouldn't call him "scuzzball". Still, it was the TD's responsibility to investigate thoroughly before making his ruling. And he failed to do that. I would place more blame on the TD here than on the Captain.

 

A TD who does investigate, and finds that the Captain's players were aware, without alert, that the opponents were playing inverted minors, should IMO rule "result stands". I probably wouldn't award a PP to anyone, unless my investigation turned up something not already mentioned here.

[nige1]

What does the Law say about rummaging in the trash?  To me that is no different from picking up an opponents hand after they have left the table, which is illegal.

I agree with Jan that the rules should insist that all players have adequate and equal access to tournament records. I doubt, however, that current law has anything to say about "rummaging in the trash". Before computer-scoring and frequency-charts, whenever a friend of mine failed to qualify for the final in a Scottish National Congress, he would stay up, perusing score slips, hoping to find a mistake. He was often successful.

[bluejak]

Perhaps because, unlike most games, sports and mindsports, players expect to break the rules and not be punished, and people who actually like playing to the rules get called scuzzballs.

confirming what has been noticed all along.

 

David repeatedly pontificates that the enforcement of rules is not punishment, but when it suits him, notice the wording.

I do not think telling deliberate lies gets the case any forwarder. Enforcement of the rules is part punishment, part equity restoring, and I have never said otherwise. This is completely ridiculous assertion. Do you think if I issue a PP it is not punishment?

 

Notice also that the OP establishes no damage, because the opponents knew their adversaries' system and knew what the bids meant.

Maybe so. What has that got to with your statement that a player who was misinformed in a different thread was a scuzzball?

 

Of course, changing a result without consulting the alleged offending side, is just fine if it gives David a chance to ignore that fact and focus on my reference to the "scuzzball" captain, who found a director who will be bullied.

The methodology is unacceptable, true. That does not mean that it is wrong to seek rulings whenever the opponents break the rules. It also does not mean that I agree with a TD who does not follow correct practice. How on earth can you deduce that it does?

 

the one thing I agree with is the term "playing to the rules", as differentiated from playing by the rules.  the "rules" require damage before adjustment.  There is no mention of a PP.

So why do you presume that anyone who calls the TD is a scuzzball? Do they know what the ruling will be? Yes, of course you know, because it is seems obvious to you that when a player breaks the rules he should not be punished, but how does the opposing player know?

 

I strongly suggest that in future you learn that if a player does not follow the rules it is reasonable to call the TD.

[OleBerg]

Very improper.

Very proper way you desribe it though.

[Bbradley62]

It appears to me that any player can call the director (Law 9) and that there are exactly four players at each table, sitting in the North, East, South and West seats (Law 4). Are there regulations that authorize team captains to call the director about something that happened at tables where they were not among the four players?