Using UI after being told not to

[McBruce]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat3ht9752dj97ct4&w=skqhaj3d8caj98653&n=sj764h864dat532ck&e=s9852hkqdkq64cq72]399|300[/hv]

 

This was Board 1 of a recent ACBL tournament and North is the dealer, but before North made a call, West pulled the 1♣ bid-card from the box, then hastily replaced it. The other players saw clearly that it was the 1♣ bid-card, but it did not meet the requirement for a bid made under the bid-box regulations the ACBL uses. I was the TD called and I carefully instructed East that he had unauthorized information -- the knowledge that his partner was about to open 1♣ was not information he could use in choosing his own calls.

 

The auction was short and sweet: pass from North, a gambling 3NT from East, duly alerted as such, and three passes. I was standing behind West so I did not see East's hand. When the auction ended I left quietly to look at the hand records, and not too surprisingly was called back when East claimed ten tricks (having lost the king of clubs and two aces). What now?

[gordontd]

It's hard to see them ending up in a different contract than 3NT, so I wouldn't adjust. However, I would fine East unless he managed to persuade me that he had misunderstood what I had told him about UI. Twice the standard amount seems about right (which I think in the ACBL would come to 50% of a top).

 

It is a rather surprising thing for East to have done, since opening normally doesn't limit his options later, which is why I wonder if there could have been a misunderstanding. Might East have mistakenly believed his partner was barred from bidding?

[campboy]

Even if they still end up in 3NT, a different auction could result in a spade lead after which the defence can take 5 tricks unless declarer drops the ♣K.

[billw55]

Even if they still end up in 3NT, a different auction could result in a spade lead after which the defence can take 5 tricks unless declarer drops the ♣K.

Agree, and in fact the very ordinary auction 1♦ - 2♣; 3♣ - 3N will almost surely fetch a small spade from north.

 

East needs a penalty no matter what he was thinking. Malice or stupidity, I don't care; a lesson is required.

[Hanoi5]

I'd punish E/W but would probably leave table result to N/S. They can actually defeat the contract, although it's hard after such an opening bid, so I don't know.

[mjj29]

I'd punish E/W but would probably leave table result to N/S. They can actually defeat the contract, although it's hard after such an opening bid, so I don't know.

"hard to do so" hardly qualifies as "wild", "gambling" or a "serious error" - even if it were "unrelated to the infraction", which it's not, so whatever adjustment to the score you make goes to both sides.

 

Of course, there may be an argument for not adjusting and just applying a PP. Personally, I'm leaning towards adjusting _and_ a PP.

[Bbradley62]

What now?

Certainly, you start by asking East why he made that bid, at least partly to uncover a misunderstanding, as others have suggested might have occurred.

[barmar]

Agree, and in fact the very ordinary auction 1♦ - 2♣; 3♣ - 3N will almost surely fetch a small spade from north.

But it might also go 1♦-2♣; 2NT-3[NT], which will prompt a heart from South.

 

But I agree about assessing a PP against EW.

[McBruce]

OK, here is the rest of the story...

 

When I left the table to check the hand records, I talked to the other TD, but our Director-in-Charge (one of the ACBL's best) was outside making a phone call. We both felt that some penalty should be applied to East, but thought it best to wait for the DIC to return. So when called back to the table, I first asked East if he had misunderstood my instructions. The reply was "well, I had an opening hand, and my partner had shown an opening hand with clubs, so 3NT seemed like the best call." In other words, yes, he misunderstood.

 

When we discussed this with the DIC, he said "so you explained the UI situation and were standing there as it happened?" Uh huh. "And this was in Section C?" Yup. "He'd have to be a real hardcore bridge criminal to dare try it with the TD standing right there. And all the usual suspects are in Section A. So yes, I think we can assume a genuine misunderstanding -- no need for a penalty."

 

We didn't think 3NT by West and a spade lead was too likely, so we let the score stand for both sides. Later East told me he had assumed that partner was barred and had not really listened carefully enough. Perhaps I should have made it more clear that nobody was barred from bidding; something perhaps to add the next time this happens. But the real lesson was that we shouldn't assume somebody is trying to get away with something when the reality is much simpler.

[mgoetze]

OK, here is the rest of the story...

 

When I left the table to check the hand records, I talked to the other TD, but our Director-in-Charge (one of the ACBL's best) was outside making a phone call. We both felt that some penalty should be applied to East, but thought it best to wait for the DIC to return. So when called back to the table, I first asked East if he had misunderstood my instructions. The reply was "well, I had an opening hand, and my partner had shown an opening hand with clubs, so 3NT seemed like the best call." In other words, yes, he misunderstood.

 

When we discussed this with the DIC, he said "so you explained the UI situation and were standing there as it happened?" Uh huh. "And this was in Section C?" Yup. "He'd have to be a real hardcore bridge criminal to dare try it with the TD standing right there. And all the usual suspects are in Section A. So yes, I think we can assume a genuine misunderstanding -- no need for a penalty."

 

We didn't think 3NT by West and a spade lead was too likely, so we let the score stand for both sides. Later East told me he had assumed that partner was barred and had not really listened carefully enough. Perhaps I should have made it more clear that nobody was barred from bidding; something perhaps to add the next time this happens. But the real lesson was that we shouldn't assume somebody is trying to get away with something when the reality is much simpler.

 

So wait, you're saying just because he genuinely misunderstood your explanation of the law, it's fine for him to break it? Sounds like great fun for the players - just don't listen to the director and then you can do whatever you want and get away with it!

[jillybean]

I don't like the basis for the ruling either. It penalzies those players who do learn the rules, are ethical and do listen to the TD's directions. This type of player and these types of rulings

are part of the reason I play in A/X rather than C whenever I can.

[mycroft]

No need for a penalty. An adjusted score? Sure, if it's appropriate. A very clear explanation as to what happened, and how close it came to a big procedural/disciplinary penalty? Sure, it is appropriate.

[Phil]

Lecture, yes. Penalty, no.

[RMB1]

I have no problem with the DIC decision not to penalize: he thinks there was no malice in the decision to bid 3NT.

 

There is problem with players not listening. They (as a partnership) do something wrong, they know they are headed for a bad score, they think the ruling will be like one they have had before, they don't really listen to the TD, and then they don't want to look more stupid by asking the TD to explain; so they just go with what they think the ruling would be and get in to more trouble.

[campboy]

So wait, you're saying just because he genuinely misunderstood your explanation of the law, it's fine for him to break it? Sounds like great fun for the players - just don't listen to the director and then you can do whatever you want and get away with it!

Of course he's not saying that. We would still adjust if we thought there was damage (which I do and McBruce does not), but the PP being discussed was for deliberately breaking the law, and we now know that didn't happen.

[jillybean]

I have no problem with the DIC decision not to penalize: he thinks there was no malice in the decision to bid 3NT.

 

There is problem with players not listening. They (as a partnership) do something wrong, they know they are headed for a bad score, they think the ruling will be like one they have had before, they don't really listen to the TD, and then they don't want to look more stupid by asking the TD to explain; so they just go with what they think the ruling would be and get in to more trouble.

Are you saying that as long as there is no malice, players can ignore a TD's directions ?

 

This player didn't listen, didn't clarify the directions and did not get into any trouble, let alone "more trouble". I don't understand your second comment.

I was sitting in an adjacent section and both heard and understood the directors directions.

[jillybean]

Later East told me he had assumed that partner was barred and had not really listened carefully enough.

This is not the same as misunderstanding.

[blackshoe]

Jilly has a point. Still, so do those who say "no penalty, but a lecture". The first time. If it ever happens again with this player, I'd throw the book at him.

[Bbradley62]

... I carefully instructed East that he had unauthorized information -- the knowledge that his partner was about to open 1♣ was not information he could use in choosing his own calls.

The reply was "well, I had an opening hand, and my partner had shown an opening hand with clubs, so 3NT seemed like the best call."

It doesn't get more blatant than this. Throw the book at him.

 

Comments that he made afterwards were, presumably, not included in the decision-making process. If he wants to say "I thought partner was barred" to an Appeals Committee, let him.

[McBruce]

I think that an vital part of a Director's job is to not do things that make people leave and never come back. If you start assuming that players with no prior "history with the police" (this player frequently plays at our tournaments, coming a fair distance to do so, and has never caused a problem) are deliberately pretending to misunderstand in order to gain an advantage, you may as well trot out the C-word whenever it might be accurate. There is an infraction here, but almost certainly not a deliberate one. We adjust the score if there is damage, and we ask the player to ensure he understands in a similar situation in future, but going further is getting into the "I don't believe you" zone, which I just don't think is appropriate here.

[jillybean]

I think that an vital part of a Director's job is to not do things that make people leave and never come back. If you start assuming that players with no prior "history with the police" (this player frequently plays at our tournaments, coming a fair distance to do so, and has never caused a problem) are deliberately pretending to misunderstand in order to gain an advantage, you may as well trot out the C-word whenever it might be accurate. There is an infraction here, but almost certainly not a deliberate one. We adjust the score if there is damage, and we ask the player to ensure he understands in a similar situation in future, but going further is getting into the "I don't believe you" zone, which I just don't think is appropriate here.

I don't know if the offending side was cheating. I never considered it and as you say, it is rather brazen to be cheating with the TD standing there.

I hope that you nor any TD would not accuse the player of cheating. I think it would be highly inappropriate and would likely make people leave and never come back.

 

However, I am very concerned that you seem to be saying that an infraction by a frequent, non trouble maker will be overlooked or an infraction will only result in a penalty when it is deliberately malicious. Then players who infract on the laws by accident or due to ignorance, stupidity or laziness are exempt from the laws. It has nothing to do with "I don't believe you". The player was given a clear instruction from the TD and then acted in complete defiance of the instruction (explained by saying he had not really listened carefully enough).

 

If this does not attract a penalty, what will? Make it a token penalty, but imo a penalty is needed.

[matmat]

Lecture, yes. Penalty, no.

 

Hell no. Penalize the offenders. A lecture they will ignore, a loss of MP they will remember.

[barmar]

Are you saying that as long as there is no malice, players can ignore a TD's directions ?

I don't think it's a question of malice, but of intent.

[mycroft]

Following on to barmar, I think ignoring TD's directions is a problem. I don't think that happened here from my feel of what McBruce said. I feel that it was a fairly complicated ruling for players, and that many a similar ruling involves "partner is barred", and the player heard what he expected to hear, and not what was said.

 

This Happens. This frequently happens amongst the Life Cs or the Life Bs - and we really do want to keep these players.

 

An adjusted score is "we don't think you did anything *wrong*, we just don't agree with your judgement about whether it's the only alternative". A procedural penalty is "you caused a problem with the game" or "you did something improper, and you should have known better."

 

The discussion sounds like it was "you did something improper, because you misunderstood. Here's what should happen here, here's what would have happened if we believed that you got an advantage from it, and *here's* what would have happened if we even had an inkling of a belief that it wasn't a misunderstanding. Look. This is *really* *not* *on*, and you *really* never want to do this again." territory.

 

But I would be looking at if, on 1D-2C; 3C-3NT or 1D-2C; 2NT-3NT it is likely/at all possible that South will find a spade - and I'd be likely to adjust at least E-W. But if the TD-consulation judgement is "no adjustment", then "no adjustment".

[ggwhiz]

Whether the result was destined or the contract would fail after a sane auction is too tough for me to determine. I might hand out a procedural penalty and gently explain why. Probably an adjusted score to protect poor N/S.

 

We want them to come back too.

 

Definitely a case for education vs punishment but it should come at a cost to have real perceived value.