SB causing chaos

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj6hk74dk643ca53&w=st752ht953d97ct42&n=saq43haq82dqj5c97&e=s98hj6dat82ckqj86&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(12-14)p3nppp]399|300[/hv]

IMPs lead T♣, Table result 3NT-1.

 

After the adverse ruling over his double of 6NT, SB has been busy getting revenge in Pula. This was the fourth or fifth TD call at his table in the event. Some explanation is needed for the bizarre choice of opening lead by SB. North looked at the CC of the opponents before bidding 3NT and could not find how the opponents played a double of Stayman. He asked at this point (he was not as knowledgeable about Law 20F as SB), and again SB declined to answer. The TD was indeed called, but SB persuaded the TD that he did not have to answer, and the TD gave in. North decided to bid 3NT (although the damage had already been done) and SB worked out why North had wanted the information and led a club successfully. North argued he was damaged by the information not being on the CC, lost the chance to play in a Moysian and was forced to reveal his hand type, but SB retorted that he had checked every opponent's CC carefully since the start of the event, and 0 out of 82 pairs had included the information, so he and his partner could not be faulted. How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

I think at this point I would suggest that SB take up some other hobby. Russian roulette, perhaps.

[lamford]

I think at this point I would suggest that SB take up some other hobby. Russian roulette, perhaps.

Surely you will defend his right to play the game strictly according to the Laws? And you would rule in his favour here?

[billw55]

3/10, this one is below your normal standard lamford.

[GreenMan]

Surely you will defend his right to play the game strictly according to the Laws? And you would rule in his favour here?

 

At this point he's playing with the specific intent of bothering other players and the director. He may have the "right" to do that, but the game organizer also has the right to kick him to the curb. Besides, it's not about rights, it's about what kind of person you want to be. If this is as high as SB can aim, he's a sad little man.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj6hk74dk643ca53&w=st752ht953d97ct42&n=saq43haq82dqj5c97&e=s98hj6dat82ckqj86&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(12-14)p3nppp]399|300| IMPs lead T♣, Table result 3NT-1.

After the adverse ruling over his double of 6NT, SB has been busy getting revenge in Pula. This was the fourth or fifth TD call at his table in the event. Some explanation is needed for the bizarre choice of opening lead by SB. North looked at the CC of the opponents before bidding 3NT and could not find how the opponents played a double of Stayman. He asked at this point (he was not as knowledgeable about Law 20F as SB), and again SB declined to answer. The TD was indeed called, but SB persuaded the TD that he did not have to answer, and the TD gave in. North decided to bid 3NT (although the damage had already been done) and SB worked out why North had wanted the information and led a club successfully. North argued he was damaged by the information not being on the CC, lost the chance to play in a Moysian and was forced to reveal his hand type, but SB retorted that he had checked every opponent's CC carefully since the start of the event, and 0 out of 82 pairs had included the information, so he and his partner could not be faulted. How do you rule?

[/hv]

At this point he's playing with the specific intent of bothering other players and the director. He may have the "right" to do that, but the game organizer also has the right to kick him to the curb. Besides, it's not about rights, it's about what kind of person you want to be. If this is as high as SB can aim, he's a sad little man.

Here, SB simply followed the law. His opponent, not he, called the director. Again, if Greenman and others want to complain about what happened, they should take issue with rule-makers not SB.

[ArtK78]

I don't see what difference it makes why SB did what he did. He certainly did nothing wrong. For some reason North decided to seek information that no one would ever put on a convention card and then ask a question that was only relevant if he chose to bid Stayman. Since that had not occurred, SB had every right not to answer. But suppose he did answer the question stating that a double of Stayman would request a club lead. Now North bids 3NT. Is the situation any different? SB can draw any inference from his opponent's question that he chooses to draw from it, at his own risk. He then leads the ♣10. Is this improper? I would say no. SB did not create the situation. There is no way you can bar him from leading a club under the circumstances. If that were the case, then a well timed question from an opponent could force you to choose a lead other than one that would be suggested by his question.

[GreenMan]

Here, SB simply followed the law. His opponent, not he, called the director. Again, if Greenman and others want to complaint about what happened, they should take issue with rule-makers not SB.

 

L74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game."

 

If your response to that is "None of his individual actions violated a specific Law, therefore SB wasn't doing anything wrong," then go climb a tree. We already have enough lawyers.

[BillHiggin]

L74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game."

 

My opponents must hereby cease doubling me for penalties! That always annoys me and it interfere with the enjoyment of the game (unless I wrap the contract around their insensitive neck)

[barmar]

My opponents must hereby cease doubling me for penalties! That always annoys me and it interfere with the enjoyment of the game (unless I wrap the contract around their insensitive neck)

Wrapping the contract around their neck will cause them annoyance, so you must stop making doubled contracts. :)

 

Lamford, you're obviously trying to make a point with this recent series of threads, but I'm not really sure what you expect to come of it. Do you really think it's feasible to redesign the disclosure laws to resolve these problems? Even if we add a law that says you can ask about potential sequences, can the responder really be expected to anticipate all eventualities? Should they really be penalized if they don't think of the one that was most relevant to the opponents at that moment?

 

Your whole passive-aggressive style really bugs me sometimes. If you want to suggest a change in the laws, use the Changing Laws forum and post something constructive, not a series of increasingly crazy hypotheticals.

[jeffford76]

If you want to suggest a change in the laws, use the Changing Laws forum and post something constructive, not a series of increasingly crazy hypotheticals.

 

For what it's worth, I think the hypotheticals bring interest to an otherwise dry topic. It's much easier for me to think about what should happen in various specific contexts in order to derive what would be a good general law.

[barmar]

For what it's worth, I think the hypotheticals bring interest to an otherwise dry topic. It's much easier for me to think about what should happen in various specific contexts in order to derive what would be a good general law.

Yes, I grant that. And lamford's style can occasionally be fun to read, too.

 

But after the third or fourth thread beating the same horse, I think it's time to make a constructive suggestion. Sometimes it just seems like he's just showing off how much of a fool he can make of the lawmakers.

[nige1]

Here, SB simply followed the law. His opponent, not he, called the director. Again, if Greenman and others want to complaint about what happened, they should take issue with rule-makers not SB.

L74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." If your response to that is

"None of his individual actions violated a specific Law, therefore SB wasn't doing anything wrong,"

then go climb a tree. We already have enough lawyers.

The view is clear from the tree-tops: The law disapproves of vigilantes who invent their own lynch-law. On the contrary, the law explicitly supports the quoted argument that Greenman attempts to refute. On this occasion, SB did nothing wrong. He complied with the law. His opponent, not he, flouted the law. Luckily his opponent called the director, himself.

[nige1]

If you want to suggest a change in the laws, use the Changing Laws forum and post something constructive, not a series of increasingly crazy hypotheticals.

I think Lamford perceives a possible legal anomaly and posts a theoretical example, shorn of practical complications. He hopes to find out if there's a simple solution -- or to establish whether the great minds of BBO/BLML share his concern. Replying to Lamford, many posters claim "The ruling is straight-forward; the law ain't broke: so don't fix it". So it might be premature to post to the Changing Laws Forum.

Yes, I grant that. And lamford's style can occasionally be fun to read, too. But after the third or fourth thread beating the same horse, I think it's time to make a constructive suggestion. Sometimes it just seems like he's just showing off how much of a fool he can make of the lawmakers.

Lamford does a good job -- as well as being amusing and interesting.

[lamford]

I don't see what difference it makes why SB did what he did. He certainly did nothing wrong. For some reason North decided to seek information that no one would ever put on a convention card and then ask a question that was only relevant if he chose to bid Stayman. Since that had not occurred, SB had every right not to answer. But suppose he did answer the question stating that a double of Stayman would request a club lead. Now North bids 3NT. Is the situation any different? SB can draw any inference from his opponent's question that he chooses to draw from it, at his own risk. He then leads the ♣10. Is this improper? I would say no. SB did not create the situation. There is no way you can bar him from leading a club under the circumstances. If that were the case, then a well timed question from an opponent could force you to choose a lead other than one that would be suggested by his question.

Except that a Law prevents you asking a question to deceive. If North asked the question with KQJxx in clubs, he would be ruled against.

[ArtK78]

Except that a Law prevents you asking a question to deceive. If North asked the question with KQJxx in clubs, he would be ruled against.

But that is not what happened. And the impression you gave from the original post is that somehow SB did something wrong, which is clearly not the case - legally or ethically (I don't think that morally applies here).

[lamford]

Wrapping the contract around their neck will cause them annoyance, so you must stop making doubled contracts. :)

 

Lamford, you're obviously trying to make a point with this recent series of threads, but I'm not really sure what you expect to come of it. Do you really think it's feasible to redesign the disclosure laws to resolve these problems? Even if we add a law that says you can ask about potential sequences, can the responder really be expected to anticipate all eventualities? Should they really be penalized if they don't think of the one that was most relevant to the opponents at that moment?

 

Your whole passive-aggressive style really bugs me sometimes. If you want to suggest a change in the laws, use the Changing Laws forum and post something constructive, not a series of increasingly crazy hypotheticals.

I didn't suggest a change to the Laws. If I had I would have put it in the right forum. I ridiculed the current Laws. As, to some extent, did Vampyr and gnasher.

[lamford]

But that is not what happened. And the impression you gave from the original post is that somehow SB did something wrong, which is clearly not the case - legally or ethically (I don't think that morally applies here).

I did not intend to give that impression. I think SB acted entirely within the Law. it is the Lawmakers who did something wrong. I recall dburn arguing that no disapprobation should ever apply to someone following the law to the letter.

[lamford]

He may have the "right" to do that, but the game organizer also has the right to kick him to the curb.

Under which Law? And if he paid an entry fee, he has the right to sue as well, and will.

[GreenMan]

Under which Law. And if he paid an entry fee, he has the right to sue as well, and will.

 

Under the law that says a business owner can refuse service to anyone. Really, most people over age 10 understand that. How old are you? You set up SB as your Mary Sue so you can get off on feeling persecuted, so go ahead and feel persecuted, I guess. Not my problem.

[Vampyr]

I didn't suggest a change to the Laws. If I had I would have put it in the right forum. I ridiculed the current Laws. As, to some extemt, did Vampyr and gnasher.

But if the current Laws are worthy of ridicule, it is important to make an effort to get them changed. But as Nigel notes, you will have more support if you make forum members aware of the problem. I do disagree with Nigel's statement that most posters (well, those who are aware of the situation) do not think there is a problem here.

[lamford]

Under the law that says a business owner can refuse service to anyone. Really, most people over age 10 understand that. How old are you? You set up SB as your Mary Sue so you can get off on feeling persecuted, so go ahead and feel persecuted, I guess. Not my problem.

I think you are making a fool of yourself now. It was not I that created the Secretary Bird. And I think you will find that excluding someone who follows the rules exactly will lead you into trouble. Certainly in the UK.

[billw55]

So exactly which law/rule is under your microscope here lamford? That players are not entitled to information about bids not yet made? If so, why is that a problem?

[aguahombre]

I didn't suggest a change to the Laws. If I had I would have put it in the right forum. I ridiculed the current Laws. As, to some extemt, did Vampyr and gnasher.

I would prefer you found a ridiculous law to ridicule. Here, a change to the laws -- allowing a player to know the likely consequences of his own decisions in advance -- would be ridiculous to a game altering extent.

[campboy]

So exactly which law/rule is under your microscope here lamford? That players are not entitled to information about bids not yet made? If so, why is that a problem?

The issue is that while you cannot ask about bids which your opponents have not had the opportunity to make, you might be able to obtain information about them if it happens to be on the CC. Consequently a pair may disadvantage themsleves by putting more information than absolutely necessary on their CC.

 

Personally I feel the principle of not being able to ask about future calls is sufficiently important that I am prepared to live with the potential problems Lamford highlights; I certainly can't think of a neat solution. This forum has seen more real cases where putting extra information on their CC would have helped a pair than hypothetical cases where it would have disadvantaged them.