Bidding boxes

[dickiegera]

[hv=pc=n&s=sq5h52daqt762cq65&w=shkjt864dj83ca742&n=sakj87642haq93dc8&e=st93h7dk954ckjt93]399|300[/hv]

 

West was dealer.

West pulls out stop card and opens 2♠. West places stop card back in bidding box and at the same time says that the wrong bid was made and wishes to correct.

 

North objects and the director is called.

I East said that West is allowed to change bid since no one has bid and West had immediately drawn attention to misbid.

Director tells West he should be more careful and tells him to live with it.

 

Now North doubles and it is passed back to West who now bids 3♥.

North now bids 4spades which is passed out.

I east leads my 7 of hearts and during the play of the hand it is soon evident that North had only 1 club and a void in diamonds.

 

I made the comment [which I shouldn't have] To north that she didn't have a take out double of 2♠ and to South that she didn't have a pass of the take out double

It got pretty ugly with North screaming and pointing at me so the entire room was aware.

I know I was wrong for saying anything.

Director later admited error in not allowing the 2♠ to be corrected

I believe that North thru all of her protesting that the 2♠ must stand led her partner to understand that the double was penalty and was to pass the double.

 

Comments please

[barmar]

West's statement that his original bid was a misbid is AI to NS. So South can easily figure out that North's double was probably penalty, not takeout.

 

However, I think the director error in not allowing the change of call overrides all this. The director should assign an adjusted score, per Law 82C.

 

If the change had been allowed, I'm not sure what South is allowed to know about North's vehement protests. 25A says that information from the withdrawn call is AI to the NOS, but does that include an opponent's reaction to the withdrawn call?

[blackshoe]

If the change had been allowed, I'm not sure what South is allowed to know about North's vehement protests. 25A says that information from the withdrawn call is AI to the NOS, but does that include an opponent's reaction to the withdrawn call?

IMO, no, it does not.

[pran]

If the change had been allowed, I'm not sure what South is allowed to know about North's vehement protests. 25A says that information from the withdrawn call is AI to the NOS, but does that include an opponent's reaction to the withdrawn call?

Law 25A says nothing about that, simply because the withdrawn unintended call carries no information at all.

 

I believe you are confused by

If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized only to his side. There is no further rectification.

 

(Any information on North's interests in the unintended call arising from North's comments/remarks/protests is clearly UI to South!)

[weejonnie]

West was dealer.

West pulls out stop card and opens 2♠. West places stop card back in bidding box and at the same time says that the wrong bid was made and wishes to correct.

 

North objects and the director is called.

 

--> North shouldn't object but should simply call the director - pleasantly.

 

I East said that West is allowed to change bid since no one has bid and West had immediately drawn attention to misbid.

 

--> Were you the director? If not you shouldn't comment - it is up to the director to ascertain the facts and make a ruling (your position is also incorrect - West can change his bid even if North had subsequently bid providing he does it before you bid and as soon as he realises his error.

 

Director tells West he should be more careful and tells him to live with it.

 

--> I assume this means that West wasn't allowed to change his call. This seems an incorrect ruling based on the facts described. However the director has presumably ascertained all the information.

 

Now North doubles and it is passed back to West who now bids 3♥.

 

Very kind of North. South's pass seems OK in that he does not know what West's suit really is (it could be diamonds or hearts)

 

North now bids 4 spades which is passed out.

 

I east leads my 7 of hearts and during the play of the hand it is soon evident that North had only 1 club and a void in diamonds.

 

I made the comment [which I shouldn't have] To north that she didn't have a take out double of 2♠ and to South that she didn't have a pass of the take out double

 

---> Breach of 'zero tolerance?'

It got pretty ugly with North screaming and pointing at me so the entire room was aware.

I know I was wrong for saying anything.

 

Director later admited error in not allowing the 2♠ to be corrected

 

--> Fair enough - both sides should be given an artificial adjusted score of AV+/AV+ (non-offending). From the ensuing fracas you can see why such a rule is in place.

 

I believe that North thru all of her protesting that the 2♠ must stand led her partner to understand that the double was penalty and was to pass the double.

 

--> Well North shouldn't have raised a fuss but called the director. However there is enough AI that West doesn't have Spades.

 

It can be very difficult at the table, but players must get in the habit of avoiding gratuitous remarks - it is all too easy to raise offence. At least you have confessed to yours.

[mycroft]

Not necessarily A+/A+ - the Law says an adjusted score, counting both sides as non-offending. Here, there is little difficulty doing the Assigned Adjusted Score dance.

 

We allow West to open 2♥ as he wanted to, and the auction will almost certainly go either X-and-then-spades or 3♠ direct, and N/S will be playing some number of spades. I can't see 6 making on any lead except a diamond (which is never going to happen). I'd want to see if it's "likely" that South will push to slam opposite a great hand with spades; if so, I'll give E/W 6♠N-1, otherwise it looks like 4♠+1 on a red suit lead is the "best result that is likely" for both sides (N/S is getting that no matter what). No need for A+ here.

 

I do agree with most that some education about "making your own rulings" is in order, but also the TD did make the wrong ruling and should have been alerted to that fact by some of the comments.

 

I have a distinct problem with South's pass. West might have been meaning to bid 2♥, sure; but that would have been correctable (as it is). West could have been wanting to bid *3*♠ (after an admitted change of mind, which is legitimately not allowed) however, and that pass was going to end in tears. But South knows that's not the case, because of the histrionics.

[blackshoe]

With all the screaming and finger pointing and extraneous comments, if Zero Tolerance was in effect for this event, both sides should get a 1/4 board disciplinary penalty. If ZT wasn't in effect for this event, it probably should have been.

[barmar]

With all the screaming and finger pointing and extraneous comments, if Zero Tolerance was in effect for this event, both sides should get a 1/4 board disciplinary penalty. If ZT wasn't in effect for this event, it probably should have been.

Is there anywhere in ACBL where ZT isn't in effect? Why?

[blackshoe]

Our largest local club has paid lip service to ZT by saying that it is "in effect" in the past. They've even put up those posters the ACBL provided. But the posters are nowhere to be seen now, the TDs do not routinely announce at the start of every session that ZT is in effect, as the ZT policy requires, and ZT violations are routinely ignored. Other clubs just hope it doesn't come up, and ignore it when it does.

 

I've always said that ZT was unnecessary, because we already have laws to deal with ZT violations. The problem was TDs were ignoring the laws. Now we have the ZT policy, and that's being ignored too. So I would change unnecessary to useless. :( :angry:

[TylerE]

Is there anywhere in ACBL where ZT isn't in effect? Why?

 

My experience has been quite the opposite. I've seen (personally) a grand total of one ZT penalty handed out, ever. That was at a sectional. Never ever ever in a club game.

[barmar]

My experience has been quite the opposite. I've seen (personally) a grand total of one ZT penalty handed out, ever. That was at a sectional. Never ever ever in a club game.

There are two possible causes for few ZT penalties: players behave better, or TDs don't punish violations.

 

Anecdotal evidence (e.g. letters to the ACBL Bulletin) suggest that behavior has improved since ZT came about, although probably not to the extent that it rarely needs to be enforced with penalties. So there's some of both.

[mycroft]

My experience, remembering clubs in 1985 and 1995 to now, is similar: we aren't there yet, but we're far ahead of where we were. At least, I can name the obnoxious boors in my area (particularly the ones who I suspect do so to intimidate the opponents) without having to break for breath now.

 

I am reminded of the story in Machlin's book about "seeding the field" and putting all the abusive, borderline ethical, and other sharp practise players in one section (and enjoying the looks of comprehension as people figured it out); I'm not sure we could fill a section now even at our bigger regionals (not that we would, of course).

 

I've passed out a speeding ticket or two in my time; there are probably several more that should have been more than "you're not going to do that again, are you?"; there are probably some that should have triggered the "I heard you. Now you will hear me/let the other side finish, or I will penalize you." at least one interruption before, too.

 

But the game is *much* nicer, in general, than it was. Having said that, we need to educate properly on how to handle potential ethical violations (especially UI); those tend to get acrimonious, and it really does work better if the TD gets involved before the lectures start (i.e. if there is any teaching to be done, let the TD do it. That goes double for any time someone wants to utter "I could call the TD, but I'm being nice this time" - no, you're not, and you're not helping. Call the TD or let it go).

[blackshoe]

I have to admit there's one of my pet peeves I haven't seen in a while: getting interrupted in the middle of my line of play statement. Though now that I've said that, it'll probably happen tomorrow. :P