Dealing with mannerisms that might provide UI

[Zelandakh]

The following took place in a German club pairs game. The North player is very experienced and a member of the Master Solvers Panel for German Bridge Magazine. He is also the club's Director. The other 3 players are of good intermediate to advanced standard. The bidding runs:-

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1n(12-14)2c(hearts%20+%20another%20%5Basptro%5D)2s3hppp]400|300[/hv]

 

South leads the ♣A and dummy is tabled with Jx in clubs and 2542 shape but fewer hcp than might have been expected. North gives an encouraging signal and then asks that the cards be left on the table for a good 5 seconds as it is the first trick. South now starts to tank whereupon North bangs their cards down on the table and lets out an irritated sigh. A few seconds later South plays a club to West's king. North reacts to this by saying "Why did it take you so long?"

 

Are North's actions acceptable? East is somewhat inexperienced in dealing with issues of Laws and Ethics and almost never calls the Director. How should they handle a situation like this best? Has South been ethical in continuing clubs? Is it fair to ask a playing Director to make a ruling for/against themselves in such a club game? Finally, if East had called the Director about this and you were asked to make a ruling what would it be?

[pran]

The following took place in a German club pairs game. The North player is very experienced and a member of the Master Solvers Panel for German Bridge Magazine. He is also the club's Director. The other 3 players are of good intermediate to advanced standard. The bidding runs:-

 

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1n(12-14)2c(hearts%20+%20another%20%5Basptro%5D)2s3hppp]400|300[/hv]

 

South leads the ♣A and dummy is tabled with Jx in clubs and 2542 shape but fewer hcp than might have been expected. North gives an encouraging signal and then asks that the cards be left on the table for a good 5 seconds as it is the first trick. South now starts to tank whereupon North bangs their cards down on the table and lets out an irritated sigh. A few seconds later South plays a club to West's king.

 

Are North's actions acceptable? East is somewhat inexperienced in dealing with issues of Laws and Ethics and almost never calls the Director. How should they handle a situation like this best? Has South been ethical in continuing clubs? Is it fair to ask a playing Director to make a ruling for/against themselves in such a club game? Finally, if East had called the Director about this and you were asked to make a ruling what would it be?

"whereupon North bangs their cards down on the table and lets out an irritated sigh"

 

This is not acceptable. Being "very experienced and a member of the Master Solvers Panel for German Bridge Magazine. He is also the club's Director" he should be able to maintain a controlled and patient attitude.

 

As for a ruling: Could South's play of a club in trick two be suggested over another alternative play by North's unacceptable manners, and if so: Was East/West "damaged" by this play? (Law 16B)

[blackshoe]

Are North's actions acceptable?

Nope.

 

East is somewhat inexperienced in dealing with issues of Laws and Ethics and almost never calls the Director. How should they handle a situation like this best?

State his concerns that there is UI from North's actions and that South may have chosen an alternative suggested by it, and ask the director for a ruling.

 

Has South been ethical in continuing clubs?

Unknown, without seeing the hands.

 

Is it fair to ask a playing Director to make a ruling for/against themselves in such a club game?

It's his job. "Fair" doesn't figure into it. Of course, one should expect an unbiased ruling, playing director or not. Sometimes, a playing director has the good fortune that there is another qualified director present. In such cases, I would ask the other director to take any rulings at the "playing director's" table. But if he has to make a ruling where he is involved, so be it. In such a case, it would be prudent to make sure one's ruling is objective and fair to both sides.

 

Finally, if East had called the Director about this and you were asked to make a ruling what would it be?

At this point? "Continue play. Call me after the play if you feel you were damaged by use of UI." At the end of play, I would want to see all four hands and hear the rationale for the call. Don't forget that "use of UI" isn't the only criterion. There must also have been damage to the NOS.

[mgoetze]

North gives an encouraging signal and then asks that the cards be left on the table for a good 5 seconds as it is the first trick.

 

This is extremely unusual (in Germany). If North wants to look at the trick longer, he should just not quit the trick. If North wants South to look at the trick longer, well, tough luck, South will have to figure that out themselves. Given North's experience, an immediate PP would definitely be in order, as well as considering the matter of UI.

[Bbradley62]

... if East had called the Director about this and you were asked to make a ruling what would it be?

At this point? "Continue play. Call me after the play if you feel you were damaged by use of UI." At the end of play, I would want to see all four hands and hear the rationale for the call. Don't forget that "use of UI" isn't the only criterion. There must also have been damage to the NOS.

This is true when considering a score adjustment, but not when considering a procedural penalty.

[blackshoe]

Yes, you can issue a PP at any time.

[barmar]

I don't think Bradley was referring to the timing, but the criteria -- you can issue a PP even if there's no damage.

 

But I guess that's also implicit in the timing -- if you can issue a PP before the hand is over, you can't tell if there's going to be damage.

[mycroft]

There doesn't even have to be "use of UI" for the *call*; it can just be "UI, and a play [in this case] that one could demonstrate was suggested by the UI", or even "disputed action-transmitting-UI". One doesn't have to know, or transmit doubt, that damage could be caused (in fact, it's not the player's job to determine damage).

 

For an adjusted score, of course, all the criteria in L16 have to be met, including damage ("a less successful alternative").

 

People who ensure partner notices their signals are a plague, and difficult to police. Certainly, *given the facts as presented*, I would spend effort over and above the UI issues to determine if what North did was normal for him, and if not, what he thought he was doing with it now. I would expect, given the calibre of player, that unless he's really convincing, I'm going to suggest that he should be "really careful" to avoid doing things at times when he knows it can illegally help his partner, and this PP is just a way of reminding him of the obligations I know he knows.

 

Of course, I'm also sure that if I heard the story from North, I wouldn't think that way, because the facts as presented would be slightly different - which explains the caveat in the previous paragraph.