interesting hand - interesting ruling

[han]

Cherdano was also joking.

[arrows]

What the hell are points? LOL

Looks like if I bid 8NT, that should be allowed, because I

can never swallow that much. What they want is not bridge,

but playing against idiots who always let them win. :lol:

 

these guys are just fabulously amusing :lol:

[luis]

Regarding ways to ensure the td of your tourney knows what he/she is doing:

 

Whenever I run a tournament, the conditions of contest clearly state I am using the ACBL mid-chart and alert procedure and I provide a link to the site, advising that all rulings I make will adhere to the laws. This allows anyone who doubts my ruling to look it up for him/herself.

 

To wit: in the first tourney I ran, I encountered this gem of a player. He opened 2♦. When asked what it was by his RHO, he said, "Multy (sic)". When RHO again asked for a description, he said, "it's multy, please bid." He refused to provide further information to the opponents and continued to insist the auction continue. When I arrived, I asked what the problem was. He said that RHO is an expert and should know what multy 2 diamonds is. I said that is irrelevant and warned him that he must provide an explanation of the agreed strength and distribution for the call and that the name of a convention was not sufficient. He still would not tell the opponents anything. So, although a major suit game was bid by only one other pair with the opposing cards, I explained to him and to the opponents once the hand was over, that since he would not explain the bid, I was forced to adjust the score. I adjusted it to 4♥ = in accordance with the law which states the opponents will receive the most favorable result that was at all likely if the irregularity did not occur. I invited the offender to look it up.

 

I suppose I should add that if you disagree with this ruling, I would appreciate a response explaining why, for my own edification.

While I agree with most of your comments about rulings I have to disagree with this one.

 

First of all you are right there IS an infraction since player X did not want to disclose the meaning of 2♦, so let's start with a procedural penalty to that pair which is quite automatic. In your tournaments a PP can be a warning, a suspension, whatever you want to use.

 

Then I think that giving 4h to the non-offending side is wrong. I'd rule 4h making against the offending side but only av+ for the non-offending side since I don't think the MI or lack of information has anything to do with the damage.

The fact that a pair does something very wrong does not automatically mean that the other pair should magically get a superb result.

[Guest Jlall]

good example of why 1S p 4H should not be a splinter

[Rebound]

While I agree with most of your comments about rulings I have to disagree with this one.

 

First of all you are right there IS an infraction since player X did not want to disclose the meaning of 2♦, so let's start with a procedural penalty to that pair which is quite automatic. In your tournaments a PP can be a warning, a suspension, whatever you want to use.

 

Then I think that giving 4h to the non-offending side is wrong. I'd rule 4h making against the offending side but only av+ for the non-offending side since I don't think the MI or lack of information has anything to do with the damage.

The fact that a pair does something very wrong does not automatically mean that the other pair should magically get a superb result.

Fair enough. However, my reasoning for granting such a good result is upheld by the Laws. Law 12 sections B and C:

 

B. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side.

 

C.2. When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance and may be assigned either in matchpoints or by altering the total-point score prior to matchpointing.

 

Judging by the fact that the opponents bid beyond 4♥ on the actual hand, I have little doubt they would have gotten to game.

 

Mind you, the post you quote was intended to illustrate just that - that anyone who disagrees with a ruling of mine has only to point out where I have erred in law. Surely this is better than an arbitrary ruling with no such basis.

[Walddk]

Isn't it about time that we get this straight once and for all:

 

A tournament director is not supposed to make bridge judgements at any time.

 

It's actually an insult if any TD (or opponent for that matter) tells you what you should have bid, led, or what your line of play should have been. It is your decision and no one else's. If I judge

 

Jxxx

Jxx

Qxx

Qxx

 

to be an invitational hand opposite a 15-17 NT I will invite, and any suggestion as to what I should have done instead is uncalled for. I will ask for lessons if I think I need them. Unsolicited lessons by a TD are ... well, let me be diplomatic .... inappropriate.

 

If your partner, on the other hand, finds that you are a bit underweight for your invite, you can have an amicable chat about it after the round is over. Not that I approve of that either, by the way. I suggest that you wait with post-mortems and the like until you have a chance to discuss it when no one else is around.

 

Roland

[Rebound]

Sorry, I never intended to take the thread so far off topic. I agree completely, of course, Roland. Such behaviour by any TD is appalling.