Behaviour issues in Leeds

[Cascade]

The problem is that the OP could be read as East asking stupid questions and getting a harmless sarcastic remark in reply to which he had a serious over-reaction; whereas the emerging facts paint quite a different picture as to what actually happened. When we are talking about a real-life case where the identities of the individuals are widely known and/or easily discoverable, it's quite important that "facts" be presented in an unbiased and complete manner. The hand, the auction, the system, the alerts, the earlier questions and the earlier explanations are all required to properly discuss how a TD ought to handle this sort of situation.

 

This is an internet forum not a court of law.

 

There are not standards for evidence or even requirements for facts to be accurate. The OP even stated that he had "heard about" this case. So we know from the beginning that it is not a first hand report. Therefore we know that facts might have been distorted or incomplete or even plain wrong.

 

If east in the post as opposed to east in real life has asked stupid questions and if south in the post as opposed to south in real life has made a sarcastic reply then we can learn from that and the discussion of the information in the post as opposed to what may or may not have happened in real life. An opinion expressed here is obviously an opinion based on the 'facts' presented here. It may or may not bear a resemblance to some situation in real life.

[aguahombre]

The problem is that the OP could be read as East asking stupid questions and getting a harmless sarcastic remark in reply to which he had a serious over-reaction.

Could be read as? The third question, after the second question was answered, can only be read as stupid. But, now we seem to be in doubt about the accuracy of even that part; so a big YES to all who object to how this whole thread was handled.

 

BTW, "What part of NO don't you understand?" has become such a common quip in my culture that it has lost any bite of intended harshness. That might not be the case, where the incidence occured.

[blackshoe]

OP presented a situation. Everybody seems to want to talk about a different situation, or perhaps several different situations. I suppose it's human nature but it seems rather silly to me.

[Cyberyeti]

OP presented a situation. Everybody seems to want to talk about a different situation, or perhaps several different situations. I suppose it's human nature but it seems rather silly to me.

He should have given it a different title if he didn't want it interpreted in a way that suggested he was talking about a real event, or a "based on, this is not exactly what happened" clause.

[Trinidad]

This is an internet forum not a court of law.

 

There are not standards for evidence or even requirements for facts to be accurate. The OP even stated that he had "heard about" this case.

 

This is an internet forum, not a gossip column.

 

Rik

[pran]

This is an internet forum, not a gossip column.

 

Rik

Some times I fail to notice the difference.

[lamford]

I see nothing inherently wrong with posting a story about anonymous players.

I agree. But if it is made up, mrdct sees it as "academic fraud".

[mrdct]

The third question, after the second question was answered, can only be read as stupid.

I fail to see how anyone can reach that conclusion without seeing the hand, the auction, North-South's system, the pre-alerts, the alerts, the questions, the explantions, east's hand, prior knowledge of system deviation by North-South, state of the match, the clarity of previous explanations, previous boards where similar auctions came up, etc.

 

My working theory is that after trying to get his head around North-South's methods, East couldn't immediately think of how North would handle a hand with ♦ and ♠ and wanted to double-check that such a layout was not a possibility.

 

This is an internet forum, not a gossip column.

It's also the "Laws and Rulings" sub-forum for posters to "seek answers and advice on Laws related issues". Discussion should, therefore, be focussed on the application of the Laws of Bridge and applicable regulatory pronouncements. There are plenty of other place on the broader BBO forum and elsewhere for gossip, ineuendo, rumours, etc. My view on this case is that the information in the OP is completely inadequate to form any opinion as to how it ought to be handled under the rules of the game.

 

I agree. But if it is made up, mrdct sees it as "academic fraud".

I wouldn't call this one "academic fraud" but I would suggest that it is well below the standard we should expect from one of the forum moderators.

[Vampyr]

This is an internet forum not a court of law.

 

There are not standards for evidence or even requirements for facts to be accurate. The OP even stated that he had "heard about" this case. So we know from the beginning that it is not a first hand report. Therefore we know that facts might have been distorted or incomplete or even plain wrong.

 

If east in the post as opposed to east in real life has asked stupid questions and if south in the post as opposed to south in real life has made a sarcastic reply then we can learn from that and the discussion of the information in the post as opposed to what may or may not have happened in real life. An opinion expressed here is obviously an opinion based on the 'facts' presented here. It may or may not bear a resemblance to some situation in real life.

 

But this incident is probably the subject of gossip and rumour, and I would not be surprised if most of the English members of the forum eventually find out which players were involved. This is why an apparently inaccurate and incomplete account of the facts is potentially damaging.

[jillybean]

I heard about this one! A certain "well-known" player was involved: his attitude can be ... errr ... tricky. :lol: He was South.

 

North made a bid. The following conversation ensued:

 

East: "Does that show four spades?"

South: "No"

East: "Can she have four spades?"

South: "No"

East: "Can she have four spades and four diamonds?"

South: "What part of 'No' don't you understand?"

 

East now walked out and refused to play! :D

 

It appears the post was made for amusement and entertainment (misguided imo) rather than asking for opinions.

[shintaro]

Well, I was west. I realise that people might want the full story..........which I'm not going to give, as this may not be the end of the matter. What I will clarify is that a) my partner never walked.............he stood to walk but was persuaded to remain and finish the match and b) the account you have been given is very incomplete, and the snippet you have been given is a distortion at best, and quite inaccurate.

 

 

<_< mmmm John

 

I was also there playing as was Bluejak

 

But this situatation is what we have TD's for and I am quite sure knowing the DIC personally that he would not shirk his responsibilities B-)

[sasioc]

Really? The OP made a post without naming anyone that told a story that allowed us to discuss behavior based on that story.

 

If there is a different story, or more complete one, we can discuss the behavior in those variations. I see nothing inherently wrong with posting a story about anonymous players.

 

 

I agree. But if it is made up, mrdct sees it as "academic fraud".

 

 

The problem is that this is *not* a story about anonymous players - many people know who these players are or can easily find out - and it is not presented as a made-up story but as the facts of a dispute that was clearly far more complex than suggested in the OP. It also appears from John's post that the incident has not been resolved and that further action may be taken against one or more of the players involved. You talk about academic fraud - try libel.

 

EDIT - I hadn't seen the thread lamford is referring to when I wrote this and didn't realise it was a joke.

[Cascade]

You talk about academic fraud - try libel.

 

This is not libel. Certainly not without significant additional evidence.

 

1. No names were mentioned

 

2. There is no evidence that the facts were deliberately distorted

 

3. It clearly states that the facts were second hand or worse and the OP was merely reporting those in all likelihood in good faith - maybe someone along the line of information deliberately defamed

 

If this is libel then every time we post a case based on some actual events we are potentially committing libel. As I don't see any substantial difference between this post and many other posts. That wouldn't seem to be a very sensible interpretation.

[bluejak]

There have been a number of criticisms of this thread. I really think some of you should grow up. If you really think that your main object in life when you see a short story is, rather than to to make on-topic discussion of what you do or do not, is to go on about whether you can find out who th people were, whether there was more to the story, what the hands were, whether they were wearing blue or green shirts, whether the Australian cricket team was present, and so on, then I am sorry, i thin you have completely missed the point of these forums.

 

One small additional bit of information, in answer to one of the earlier and more on-topic posts, I forgot myself for a moment and just said Leeds: there was an event, formerly a National event, but now taken over and revived by Yorkshire CBA, called the Great Northern Swiss Pairs, and this story came from there.

[Vampyr]

Great Northern Swiss Pairs, and this story came from there.

 

Why was this posted? Just to dispel any doubt that the protagonists will be identified?

[bluejak]

In reply to one of the few on-topic answers. Your suggestion is strange: anyone local knows what Leeds is. You may wish to follow gossip: I merely want to follow anyone who is interested in the OP, nothing else.

[phil_20686]

But this incident is probably the subject of gossip and rumour, and I would not be surprised if most of the English members of the forum eventually find out which players were involved. This is why an apparently inaccurate and incomplete account of the facts is potentially damaging.

 

As opposed to the doubless accurate and complete version I will presently hear on the grapevine anyway? :)

[Trinidad]

There have been a number of criticisms of this thread. I really think some of you should grow up. If you really think that your main object in life when you see a short story is, rather than to to make on-topic discussion of what you do or do not, is to go on about whether you can find out who th people were, whether there was more to the story, what the hands were, whether they were wearing blue or green shirts, whether the Australian cricket team was present, and so on, then I am sorry, i thin you have completely missed the point of these forums.

 

Do I understand this post that your intention was to sollicit opinions on what you should do if you were the TD and were called at the table? Then why is it relevant that this took place in Leeds, that South was well known and had a tricky attitude?

 

But I will answer the question that you never asked below. (This explains why you get very few of what you consider on topic answers: you forgot to ask the question.)

 

If I were the TD and would be called to the table, I would:

- instruct East to sit down.

- tell South that what he and his partner consider funny, may be annoying or embarrassing to other players.

- tell South that -according to the Laws- he should:

    - maintain a courteous attitude at all times.

    - carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

- tell South that if he failed to do so that it might result in a penalty.

- explain to South what "full disclosure" means. Depending on the auction and its meaning I will let South give a complete explanation of their partnership understandings, in such a way that East understands what is explained.

- instruct East and the other players to continue playing.

 

Depending on the precise situation, I might tell the players to grow up, I might stay at the table for a while or turn around and walk away immediately. I might also buy one or more of the players a beer.

 

Rik

[mrdct]

whether there was more to the story, what the hands were, whether they were wearing blue or green shirts, whether the Australian cricket team was present, and so on, then I am sorry, i thin you have completely missed the point of these forums.

How can you imply that the details of the hand are not relevant? Surely, for a TD to work out what sort of penalty to assess on South he needs to know what (if any) ambiguous or misleading explanation he gave about the bid in question to prompt East's seemingly unusual line of questioning.

[Bbradley62]

Surely, for a TD to work out what sort of penalty to assess on South he needs to know what (if any) ambiguous or misleading explanation he gave about the bid in question to prompt East's seemingly unusual line of questioning.

According to the conversation we were given, South answered two simple and straight-forward yes/no questions with "no". Couldn't TD just ask East why he asked the "seemingly unusual" third question?

[mrdct]

According to the conversation we were given, South answered two simple and straight-forward yes/no questions with "no". Couldn't TD just ask East why he asked the "seemingly unusual" third question?

How, pray tell, are we to assess the reasonableness of East's third question without seeing the hand and the auction?

[Bbradley62]

How, pray tell, are we to assess the reasonableness of East's third question without seeing the hand and the auction?

Unless there is history between East and South, East's third question is not at all reasonable after his second question was asked and answered.

[Vampyr]

In reply to one of the few on-topic answers. Your suggestion is strange: anyone local knows what Leeds is. You may wish to follow gossip: I merely want to follow anyone who is interested in the OP, nothing else.

 

It may have been a club game or a league match in Leeds; there does not seem to be any reason to pinpoint the event.

 

As opposed to the doubless accurate and complete version I will presently hear on the grapevine anyway? :)

 

Well, indeed. I expect that I will hear one or more versions in Stratford, but at least then I can evaluate the source and come to my own conclusions. David's voice on this forum carries some authority, so I fear that I and others may be reluctant to discount his relating of the facts.

 

Anyway, in response to the OP, I would ban East for whatever the statutory length was in the given venue/event, and tell South that he should be more patient with beginners.

[mrdct]

Unless there is history between East and South, East's third question is not at all reasonable after his second question was asked and answered.

As I touched-on earlier, take a scenario of North-South playing a short club system with transfers the auction starts 1♣:(pass):1♠!

 

The following conversation ensues:

 

East: "Does that show four spades?"

South: "No"

East: "Can she have four spades?"

South: "No"

 

East now picks up the North-South convention card sees "no M unless with a ♦ suit and GF" and is a little bit confused so asks a further question:

 

East: "Can she have four spades and four diamonds?"

South: "Oh sorry, if she has a game forcing hand with a diamond suit and a four card major she would still bid 1♠ initially and then if she bids that major over what I do next it would show that sort of hand"

[Bbradley62]

I presume that didn't happen, or South wouldn't have made his final smart-ass response. And if it did happen, TD would find that out by asking East why he asked his third question, just as I suggested above. By asking East rather than looking at the card, TD can find out about (a) something odd seen on NS's convention card, or (b) a history between East and South wherein South was less than forthcoming with explanations.