SEoW?

[Cascade]

I remember asking once on these forums whether it was considered appropriate to call the TD if the only action they could take would be a PP (as postulated here, I thought oppo had blatantly used UI, but had got a worse score as a result). The consensus appeared to be that people did not agree with calling the TD if there was no damage.

 

Were they climate scientists?

 

That is a bad consensus in my view.

 

The laws are clear. When there is an infraction, and using UI is an infraction, you should call the director.

 

Technically not calling the director is an infraction.

[Cascade]

No player should ever suggest to the Director that he imposes a PP, this is his (and only his) decision after he has been called because of an infraction.

 

Why on earth not?

 

Because only the director has the power to impose a penalty does not mean that a player cannot ask for one to be imposed.

[AlexJonson]

for this concrete pair of godzillas, they never heard of forcing pass, and 4NT is always blackwood

 

I'm amazed at this post. Is it not obvious that your weak oppo was considering a penalty double.

 

His partner has certainly bent well over backwards to avoid advantage. What is your problem - you may have one and I may have missed it.

[pran]

Why on earth not?

 

Because only the director has the power to impose a penalty does not mean that a player cannot ask for one to be imposed.

If a player asked me to impose a PP I would tell him to mind his own business.

 

I am fully capable of judging if an offence justifies a PP and I don't want players to try taking over my job when I am DIC. The players' business is to give me information on what has occurred (including answering my questions).

[aguahombre]

If a player asked me to impose a PP I would tell him to mind his own business.

 

I am fully capable of judging if an offence justifies a PP and I don't want players to try taking over my job when I am DIC. The players' business is to give me information on what has occurred (including answering my questions).

The problem in this case (if the NOS were already plus 800) is that you should still have been called to the table. It sounds as if your indignation would sway your judgement. It just doesn't matter if they mention PP or not; you have a job to do. And hopefully part of that job will not be asking the NOS if they would prefer the auction rolled back to a less favorable result.

 

It will be a case of knowing why you were called and making your judgement. If you seem to not comprehend why you were called, the NOS mentioning PP might wake you up.

[Cascade]

If a player asked me to impose a PP I would tell him to mind his own business.

 

I am fully capable of judging if an offence justifies a PP and I don't want players to try taking over my job when I am DIC. The players' business is to give me information on what has occurred (including answering my questions).

 

I assume you are fully capable of imposing a penalty for a revoke do you tell players to mind their own business when they ask for a revoke penalty.

 

I think I am fully within my rights as a player to ask for a director to impose a penalty or rectification under any law. The attitude that a player is taking over your job when that players asks for some action to be taken seems a little over the top to me.

[Cascade]

His partner has certainly bent well over backwards to avoid advantage. What is your problem - you may have one and I may have missed it.

 

I don't think i would describe rebidding freely a five-card suit at the five-level as bending over backwards to avoid damage. The hand is a normal (WTP?) pass. Anything else given there is UI could be construed as attempting to take advantage of that UI even if the player happens to have guessed badly and potentially not gained an advantage.

[blackshoe]

The attitude that a player is taking over your job when that players asks for some action to be taken seems a little over the top to me.

 

I agree with this. OTOH, I've had quite a few players try to tell me what my ruling should be, and that is also "over the top".

[Cyberyeti]

OK, so what if one of the NOS says to the director:

 

"Well I was going to double, but after that hesitation I was sure he had to have something spectacular to bid again so I didn't".

[Fluffy]

I'm amazed at this post. Is it not obvious that your weak oppo was considering a penalty double.

 

His partner has certainly bent well over backwards to avoid advantage. What is your problem - you may have one and I may have missed it.

You assumed something wrong, nobody at the table was my opponent that day.

[AlexJonson]

You assumed something wrong, nobody at the table was my opponent that day.

 

I commented and assumed nothing about you or anyone else - the 'your etc' is just a way of talking about the hand.

 

And given I judged that no-one did anything wrong, your comment is hard for me to understand.

[pran]

The problem in this case (if the NOS were already plus 800) is that you should still have been called to the table. It sounds as if your indignation would sway your judgement. It just doesn't matter if they mention PP or not; you have a job to do. And hopefully part of that job will not be asking the NOS if they would prefer the auction rolled back to a less favorable result.

 

It will be a case of knowing why you were called and making your judgement. If you seem to not comprehend why you were called, the NOS mentioning PP might wake you up.

When I arrive at a table my very first action is always to ask "How can I help you?", and if relevant clarify which of the four players actually requested my assistance. (That is not neccessarily the player who shouted "Director"!)

 

If then a player asks me to issue a PP on one of the other players I should answer "that is my business, not yours. Please just tell me what has happened." And of course I shall hear all four players if they want to say something.

 

Now where does this leave the player who asks for a PP? It is just none of his business.

[campboy]

I assume you are fully capable of imposing a penalty for a revoke do you tell players to mind their own business when they ask for a revoke penalty.

 

I think I am fully within my rights as a player to ask for a director to impose a penalty or rectification under any law. The attitude that a player is taking over your job when that players asks for some action to be taken seems a little over the top to me.

Asking for a revoke penalty rectification is rather different as it changes your score, not just your opponent's. In any case, people normally just tell the director that a revoke occurred rather than suggesting that he might like to transfer some tricks. I agree that telling the player to mind his own business is over the top, though.

[campboy]

I'm amazed at this post. Is it not obvious that your weak oppo was considering a penalty double.

 

His partner has certainly bent well over backwards to avoid advantage. What is your problem - you may have one and I may have missed it.

In my experience a hesitation when partner responds in a new suit and RHO jumps to game often means the player was considering raising, as indeed seems to be the case on this hand.

[Vampyr]

Law 16 disallows logical alternatives that have been demonstrably suggested.

 

Looking up Laws is somewhat better than making them up, because people may assume that a poster is actually quoting a Law rather than inventing one. "Could demonstrably have been suggested" is very different to "have been demonstraboy suggested".

[aguahombre]

Looking up Laws is somewhat better than making them up, because people may assume that a poster is actually quoting a Law rather than inventing one. "Could demonstrably have been suggested" is very different to "have been demonstraboy suggested".

Yeh, well, either way on this hand he is right. Probably better to pick a different thread in which to pick on his wording.

[barmar]

I think I am fully within my rights as a player to ask for a director to impose a penalty or rectification under any law. The attitude that a player is taking over your job when that players asks for some action to be taken seems a little over the top to me.

Are we quibbling over the form of the request? Compare:

 

1) Director, please assess a PP against NS for blatant use of UI.

 

2) Director, I think NS are guilty of blatant use of UI, enough to warrant a PP. Here's what happened: ...

 

The first is an explicit request, the second just provides info. But the substance is clearly the same in both cases, it's just the form that's different.

[blackshoe]

Law 16B1{a} prohibits choosing from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by extraneous information from partner.

[barmar]

It doesn't seem that either east or west have clear doubles. East has two bullets but partner isn't guaranteeing or necessarily likely to have a defensive trick and west's five card support to partner's overcall is hardly defensive.

Shouldn't West have cue bid at his first turn, to show a good hand? The leap to 4♥ sounds like a weak, preemptive bid, which is why East doesn't expect him to have any defensive help. Does this not rise to the level of a Serious Error?

 

Or couldn't West have doubled 5♦? He knows partner doesn't have good hearts, so he has to have some outside strength.

 

BTW, down 3 seems like double dummy defense. It looks to me like the only way to get that is by avoiding an opening ♥ lead, so that East can get to him for a ♣ ruff.

[Cascade]

 

Law 16 disallows logical alternatives that have been demonstrably suggested.

 

 

Looking up Laws is somewhat better than making them up, because people may assume that a poster is actually quoting a Law rather than inventing one. "Could demonstrably have been suggested" is very different to "have been demonstraboy suggested".

 

I don't think you would dispute that "Law 16 disallows logical alternatives that have been demonstrably suggested."

 

Yes we both know that the law has wider implications than what I wrote. However that does not make my statement false.

 

I did not attempt to quote a law nor did I suggest that I had quoted a law.

 

I did make a statement about a consequence of a law. Sure that law has other wider consequences maybe i should have included them but i did not.

[Cascade]

Are we quibbling over the form of the request? Compare:

 

1) Director, please assess a PP against NS for blatant use of UI.

 

2) Director, I think NS are guilty of blatant use of UI, enough to warrant a PP. Here's what happened: ...

 

The first is an explicit request, the second just provides info. But the substance is clearly the same in both cases, it's just the form that's different.

 

I am not sure.

 

I don't see how the wording matters.

 

There doesn't seem to be anything that prohibits a player from suggesting a penalty. And I can't see what harm it can do.

[Cascade]

Shouldn't West have cue bid at his first turn, to show a good hand? The leap to 4♥ sounds like a weak, preemptive bid, which is why East doesn't expect him to have any defensive help. Does this not rise to the level of a Serious Error?

 

Indeed perhaps this is a serious error unrelated to the infraction. However this occurred before the infraction and Law 12C1b begins "If, subsequent to the irregularity,...".

 

Whether it is intended or not I do not know but it seems that the lawmakers have excluded the possibility of a serious error prior to the infraction causing a problem subsequent to the infraction.

[mjj29]

Are we quibbling over the form of the request? Compare:

 

1) Director, please assess a PP against NS for blatant use of UI.

 

2) Director, I think NS are guilty of blatant use of UI, enough to warrant a PP. Here's what happened: ...

 

The first is an explicit request, the second just provides info. But the substance is clearly the same in both cases, it's just the form that's different.

On balance I think I'd prefer "Director, we seem to have got a good score from it, but South bid on over an agreed hesitation by North, so I think you should have a look anyway just to make sure" - as long as you trust your TD to remember he can still give a PP, even when there's no reason to adjust. It also is much less accusatory towards the opponents.

[barmar]

I don't see how the wording matters.

 

There doesn't seem to be anything that prohibits a player from suggesting a penalty. And I can't see what harm it can do.

My question was more at the ones who felt that players shouldn't request a PP. Do they feel there's a difference between requesting and suggesting a PP? Or is it wrong for the players to make any mention of PP? Why shouldn't players be allowed to express an opinion on this matter. Of course it's the TD's final decision, but where do the laws suggest that he must do this entirely on his own?

[Fluffy]

This thing about PP.... shouldn't the call to director be made after the 5♦ bid?, are you talking about calling director again after the board, or about calling him only after the board for the PP