The Rabbit Remembers

[mycroft]

And he does get (and accepts and gloats about) the occasional PP. OO gave him one for "addressing the director in a boorish manner" a while back. How this amounts to expulsion from the club is beyond me.

Well, here's what happens at a tournament:

The Board of the English Bridge Union will not tolerate abusive behaviour, whether verbal, written or physical, by any member of the English Bridge Union towards any of its staff, Tournament Directors or voluntary workers. If a member behaves in such a way, the EBU will cease to deal with the individual concerned and may implement its disciplinary process which can result in expulsion from the Union.

I know for a fact that at any venue I have directed, club, tournament, or home game, if I was treated the way SB treats directors, Management would assist me in throwing his **** out. I know there are clubs that wouldn't, which is why I'm glad I've never directed at one. I'm reasonably certain that appeals against said decision to the EBU would be met with "if you did that at any of our events, we'd do that too, and expel you from the Union. Next!"

 

If, after being warned by me against this behaviour (to me or to players), he didn't immediately and eternally change it, which I am required to do by L81C(1 and 6 in particular), it would be my responsibility from L81C(4 and 7, this time), to penalize (L90B8 and many instances of "not limited to"), and I might, in order to "maintain order and discipline", have to L91A. I might check with Club Management about L91B as well (as I said, the places I've worked, the only time this was relevant, I was just shooting the breeze with my fellow TDs (and, in this case, club owners) before a game, and their response to "wanna hear what this person tried to pull on me last week?" story was a 3-month suspension that I neither intended nor asked for. YClub'sMMV).

 

I note that the model EBU club constitution (which I'm sure does not bear much resemblance to the North London club's constitution, because it was chartered well before the EBU, but still), states:

Each member of the Club shall be required, whether at or away from the bridge table, to conform to the standards of fair play, courtesy and personal deportment prescribed by the Bye Laws and regulations for the time being of the EBU, including the fundamental principle set out in the EBU’s “Best Behaviour at Bridge”.

 

The Club shall have the powers and the procedures for the enforcement of the [above]requirement [].

 

[said enforcement, if the complaint is upheld, can be penalized with]

1. [A] written reprimand to the offending member(s),or
   
2. Suspend the offending member(s) from all or some of the competitions sponsored or licensed by the Club for such period as it shall determine.
   
3. Expel the offending member(s) from the Club.

[lamford]

Well, here's what happens at a tournament:

 

I know for a fact that at any venue I have directed, club, tournament, or home game, if I was treated the way SB treats directors, Management would assist me in throwing his **** out.

SB has never been abusive. His last three PPs have been for making his own ruling, for mimicking the TD's stutter and for calling the TD too loudly.

 

And please don't waste my and everyone else's head space trying to get a mythical character banned. I am fed up of responding to it.

[lamford]

If SB wishes to insinuate that this is not the case - that RR is lying to him, to the TD, and to the club management about when he noticed his error - well, he'd better have CAT-level proof of that, or it will be treated as any other such allegation.

He made no such insinuation. You did, and if you were to continue, and were SB not to be a mythical character, he would send you a solicitor's letter. SB just asked for a ruling. He had one, that there was MI, and that he would have switched to the jack of clubs half the time based on those polled. FWIW the TD decided that SB had absolutely no obligation to enquire about the announced NT range. A weighted score of 50% of 3NT= and 50% of 3NT-2 was ruled on and neither side appealed. The TD declined to give a PP to RR.

[lamford]

I'm sure that Pran is aware that, over 1NT (and 2NT), lots of 5-card Stayman versions are available

He stated that he had never heard of five-card Stayman. Are you saying he is lying?

[nige1]

He stated that he had never heard of five-card Stayman. Are you saying he is lying?

So far, I haven't accused any BBOer of lying. I've no intention of so-doing, in the future. Here, it might be a question of nomenclature. Or perhaps Sven is mistaken. As I am, sometimes :(

 

I trust the Rabbit not to lie, especially about something that shows him in a particularly rabbit-like light. If SB wishes to insinuate that this is not the case - that RR is lying to him, to the TD, and to the club management about when he noticed his error - well, he'd better have CAT-level proof of that, or it will be treated as any other such allegation.

Another Strawman. RR isn't lying, either. His infraction is an honest mistake and he accepts the adverse MI ruling with good grace.

[mycroft]

Okay, this is unbelievable.

 

Someone misspeaks, you know they misspoke because have evidence of it, you are required to clarify it if you can do so without damaging your side, you choose not to do so, you chose the obviously least likely option, and there's damage? There was MI, I absolutely agree, but there's damage? Pull the other one, it doth have bells on.

 

As soon as there's an attempt to use L72C, you have to show that any reasonable player could have known, *at the time they misAnnounced*, that this could possibly damage the opponents. How? Without active malice, I mean.

 

Rabbit violated a MUST clause. The only MUST clause in play here is one that is adequately refuted by "Oh, did I say that? It must have been a braino from my partner's comment." and satisfied by the obvious next sentence: "I meant 12-14, like I've played for the last 40 years, with all 5 of you."

 

Some people want to be allowed to turn their brains off as soon as their opponents say anything, even if it clearly makes no sense, or if it contradicts what they heard 20 seconds before. Luckily, the laws and regulations say otherwise, so far.

 

I don't hold with "they did something wrong, we get a good score", and neither do the lawmakers. If you think the laws or regulations should be more clear on that point, fine. That's an excellent reason for a North London story.

 

Anybody who wants a ruling out of this one deserves the stories that will be told behind their back at the bar; anyone who gives them one should also.

[nige1]

... Anybody who wants a ruling out of this one deserves the stories that will be told behind their back at the bar; anyone who gives them one should also.

Such tittle-tattle is abhorrent and disgraceful: If attention is drawn to an infraction, then the law obliges players to call the director; but, in any case, you shouldn't criticise a player for calling the director; also, directors are human and prone to errors of judgement; although, here, the director's adjustment seems equitable.

[lamford]

Such tittle-tattle is abhorrent and disgraceful: If attention is drawn to an infraction, then the law obliges players to call the director; but, in any case, you shouldn't criticise a player for calling the director; also, directors are human and prone to errors of judgement; although, here, the director's adjustment seems equitable.

I agree wholeheartedly. In this case, I would have called the TD myself and accepted whatever ruling he gave. If someone cannot announce their no-trump range correctly they deserve everything they get. And if I (accidentally) found myself in an event directed by mycroft, I would withdraw, and encourage others to do the same.

[mycroft]

I agree. I would have called the TD (when I was made aware that there was misinformation), and would accept the ruling given.

 

I would not have done what SB did, nor would I argue the ruling after it was given - it sure looks like it isn't being accepted.

 

That's fine.

 

As I said, the TD call was appropriate. The ruling: "you are obligated to clear up misinformation you are known to have, at a time that is not damaging to your side. You had ample opportunity at the end of the auction. You chose not to do so. Any damage caused by the misinformation - which, I remind you, you were entirely aware of - is not a result of the misinformation, it is a result of you not following procedures that would have cleared up the misinformation. Score stands."

 

Listen, if this had been board 8 of the match, that's different. If it was board 2, even that might have been different. If this wasn't someone who has played against this player for decades, knowing he's never played a strong NT, that might change the ruling. But anybody who says that having just heard "weak NT, 3 weak 2s" and seeing "15-17", that they were not aware that one or the other statement was wrong, and they might want to find out which, is at best trying one on. Anybody who then goes on to say "of course, everything I did was totally innocent, but it is likely that my opponent knew when he misspoke that misspeaking could damage me" and not expecting "tell me. Does not 'failing to clarify misinformation known to you, and then choosing a line from two based not on the agreement, but which one could have been dissuaded by the right version of that misinformation' meet 'a player could have known, at the time of the irregularity, that this could damage his opponent'?" is, of course, a total innocent who should be believed unquestioningly.

 

There absolutely was misinformation. There was no damage caused by the misinformation that would not have been cleared up by SB - or his partner, who's also seen "15-17" pop up on the screen - calling the TD at the end of the auction *as required by regulation*.

 

As an example of how far this goes, I reiterate that where I live, if the auction goes 1♥-p-3♦ unAlerted(*) - p; p and I don't clarify the known misinformation - whether I have looked at their card and seen weak jump shifts, or not - that *my partner* has no recompense if she'd been damaged by the failure to Alert. I found that (and still do find that) a little excessive, but the same argument applies. "You had the opportunity with [no|some] damage to your side, to clarify the misinformation, and you didn't. You are responsible for the damage. Score stands."

 

(*) Please note, this Alert is not long for the ACBL (I am very much in favour of this change). But for the last 20 years, it has been required, no matter how stupid.

[mycroft]

Anybody who wants a ruling out of this one deserves the stories that will be told behind their back at the bar; anyone who gives them one should also.

Such tittle-tattle is abhorrent and disgraceful: If attention is drawn to an infraction, then the law obliges players to call the director; but, in any case, you shouldn't criticise a player for calling the director; also, directors are human and prone to errors of judgement; although, here, the director's adjustment seems equitable.

First, clearly I did not mean "don't call the TD", I meant "expect a ruling other than 'Score stands'." OF COURSE, you call the TD (although, OF COURSE, you call the TD when required by regulation by preference, rather than taking the "who's the bastard in the black" doubleshot). Such sophistry is beyond this bird (remind me again, what's my "North London persona" CV?)

 

Second, I notice that I made no mention of what the "stories" would be. I mean, I'm sure they'll be all "hey, did you hear about that row at RR's table? Isn't it great that SB is finally getting what we all deserve when players misspeak? He deserves a drink when he comes in", or "you know I'm glad to see that some directors actually listen to players, especially players who know how to actually play the game. Wouldn't it be better if more were like that?". And what's wrong with that?

[lamford]

As an example of how far this goes, I reiterate that where I live, if the auction goes 1♥-p-3♦ unAlerted(*) - p; p <snip>

There is a world of difference between the announcement of the range of 1NT and the failure to alert a weak jump shift. The auction there makes it clear that 3♦ should have been alerted, and I would call the TD at the end of the auction, as all NF meanings of 3D are alertable (certainly in the EBU and I presume in the US).

 

The difference is that there is no obligation whatsoever on anyone to read the chat to find out if the announcement of 1NT was correct, and one should, nay must, be able to rely on the announcement as accurate, certainly if it is not corrected. If it were not announced at all, that would be a different matter. In fact, you can disable the chat, and just rely on the announcements and explanations sent privately. Peregrine the Pedantic Penguin arrived at SB's table, and said, "We play 12-14 no-trump, sometimes upgrading good 11 counts, multi and Lucas twos (always 5-5 vulnerable), reverse carding but normal Smith (high likes by both sides). Enjoy the round."

 

SB replied "I joined BBO to play bridge not to get a pen-friend. Can we get on with the game, please?"

[mycroft]

You are absolutely correct (though I find that difficult to understand as a player or as the TD. I know that some small phones/tablets are hard to deal with the chat window, but it's kind of important). And if it were anyone else, that might be a point.

 

But it isn't, it's the SB, who records chat for evidence. And calls the TD when they *don't* post their basic system, and when they post their basic system to the table rather than to the opponents after the cards come up.

 

*He* doesn't get that out. *He* wasn't damaged. Others might have been.

[lamford]

You are absolutely correct (though I find that difficult to understand as a player or as the TD. I know that some small phones/tablets are hard to deal with the chat window, but it's kind of important). And if it were anyone else, that might be a point.

 

But it isn't, it's the SB, who records chat for evidence. And calls the TD when they *don't* post their basic system, and when they post their basic system to the table rather than to the opponents after the cards come up.

 

*He* doesn't get that out. *He* wasn't damaged. Others might have been.

SB has an app that presses Control+PrintScreen and sends a jpg to his dropbox account every few seconds. He often does not read the chat. But even if he did, it would be irrelevant. He is absolutely entitled to rely on the announcement of the NT range without needing to scroll up to check if it is correct. In any case the finding as to whether there was MI is for OO, the TD, not for mycroft who is an irrelevant bystander.

[blackshoe]

In any case the finding as to whether there was MI is for OO, the TD, not for mycroft who is an irrelevant bystander.

If we "bystanders" here are irrelevant, why are you bothering to post?

[mycroft]

How do you rule?

 

For the life of me I can't figure out where that quote came from. But that's okay, I'll continue to kibitz.

[lamford]

If we "bystanders" here are irrelevant, why are you bothering to post?

I did not say or intimate that you were irrelevant for deciding how to rule, and the same goes to mycroft whose opinion on that is welcomed and noted. My response was to the wrong assertion by mycroft that there was no MI. I wrote: "the finding [of fact] as to whether there was MI is for OO". Under 85A1 it is his role: "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." He decided that the wrong announcement of "15-17" was MI because the NS methods were a weak NT. That should not be challenged.

 

So far most of the posts have been regarding SB's behaviour. For the avoidance of doubt he is an imaginary member who combines the worst elements of members at the North London (and I suspect other) bridge clubs. Most of my posts are constructed, although around half based on actual events, embellished.

 

I did ask "How do you rule?" Most have not answered the question.

[lamford]

But as I have developed a very limited interest in the events at this North London club I have not bothered to consider the situation any further.

Why do you respond (dare I say ad nauseam) in that case? You might find a post on 5-card Stayman in the Novice and Beginner Forum more to your taste.

[mycroft]

First, a penalty for causing damage to the game by crashing the table.

Second, there certainly was misinformation...

Sorry, you had prima facie misinformation...

Someone misspeaks, you know they misspoke because have evidence of it...

I would have called the TD (when I was made aware that there was misinformation)

My response was to the wrong assertion by mycroft that there was no MI. I wrote: "the finding [of fact] as to whether there was MI is for OO".

Interesting. Now who's listening? What I said from the first was "there was no *damage from the MI* in this case" (and later, "given this 'non-offender' and his known habits").

 

In general, I expect players not necessarily to play "bridge at their level", as the ACBL puts it, but to suddenly not forget decades of experience or what was said to them literally 15 seconds before. It's amazing how many players are brilliant, and have great table presence, and can play their opponents - especially the ones they know well - like a violin, but as soon as they are told something, all of that goes out the window in favour of "how was I supposed to know they don't play something nobody in the world plays" (or "that he's never played in 20 years, except the one time I convinced him and I remember how that went", or "oh either he passed a forcing bid, or he failed to Alert. Clearly, it's the former" or anything of that ilk.) And they all tell the director, with pure innocence, when what they knew was correct (but wasn't done correctly) turned out to be the case: "They told me [] and of course I believed them. Why wouldn't I?"

 

And this isn't a new opinion, I'll leave with another quote from 2017 (my 2020 emphasis):

 

Okay. Go ahead and ask as many people as you want what (1♥)-2NT means in their partnership. Call me back when you find one that plays it as spades and a minor (no points if they play a weird Ghestem variant where it shows spades and a *specific* minor); collect if they don't know that that agreement is Alertable. Note that I have run into one pair who played it that way. In 25ish years of playing.

 

Any expert who decided "oh, these C players must play this backwards from EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE ACBL" rather than "South is confused; she's got the meanings for Michaels and Unusual 2NT backwards." - I want to know how much he's paying the pro that won the other 3400 Masterpoints for him, because clearly *he* can't figure out which one of the 99% vs 1% lines to take on all the other hands either.

 

Similarly, if I believed the expert when he told me that, as opposed to "I know they're having a bidding misunderstanding, let's not disabuse them of it, and collect our good score. Oops, it was us that got trapped by it. Director, <smarm>please</smarm>!" - I too would be up for most gullible of the year award.

 

It's not that you have to challenge every clearly-given explanation to protect yourself. If it's reasonable that the explanation is correct, these people are just weird, fine. It's the ones that are mindbogglingly obviously WRONG, or that almost certainly are brainos, that you have to protect yourself against. At least enough to check the card.

 

But, of course, asking to check the card might wake up South to the fact that he got the explanation wrong, and we wouldn't want that, would we?

[blackshoe]

I wonder. While on the facts presented I agree that the OS has mis-informed their opponents, and that it is OO's opinion that counts at the table regarding that point, would you consider the opinion of an appeals committee on the point irrelevant? If not, then is not posting ruling problems here akin to asking us to act as a sort of appeals committee (not that we could overturn Oscar's ruling, of course)?

[lamford]

I wonder. While on the facts presented I agree that the OS has mis-informed their opponents, and that it is OO's opinion that counts at the table regarding that point, would you consider the opinion of an appeals committee on the point irrelevant? If not, then is not posting ruling problems here akin to asking us to act as a sort of appeals committee (not that we could overturn Oscar's ruling, of course)?

An AC is certainly able to consider whether the MI damaged SB. Current best practice is to poll Easts of similar ability to SB. But I don't think the AC should disagree with the TD on the finding of fact. If RR had said that he was sure that he had announced 12-14, but the TD found from the video on BBO that he had announced 15-17, I think that one has to accept OO's finding of fact. It then becomes a call or play based on misinformation. I did a SIM with 12-14 and found that, with the diamonds sown up, a second spade was a narrow winner, but the jack of clubs chased it hard on the rails. SB was NOT trying it on here. There are members who insist on playing strong NT with RR and it is reasonable of him to assume the announcement is correct.

 

So, yes, the opinion of the AC, and the opinion of this forum, on whether there is damage is absolutely fine. But I think we have to leave the finding of fact to the TD, OO. And I did not reply to mycroft's post as I fell asleep before ....

[mycroft]

This argument begs the question, by not including the facts that show that the SB knew there to be misinformation.

Stating that "OO says there was MI, therefore we rule MI" palms a pretty important card. Two or three, to be precise. I'm sure OO said a bunch more things in terms of facts and rules and regulations. If he didn't, I assume that someone on the AC would ask, or at least the Chimp would mention the missing facts in his time to speak, and then the AC would ask.

 

I knew lamford was the SB's amanuensis. I didn't realize he was his barrister.

[lamford]

This argument begs the question, by not including the facts that show that the SB knew there to be misinformation.

Stating that "OO says there was MI, therefore we rule MI" palms a pretty important card. Two or three, to be precise. I'm sure OO said a bunch more things in terms of facts and rules and regulations. If he didn't, I assume that someone on the AC would ask, or at least the Chimp would mention the missing facts in his time to speak, and then the AC would ask.

 

I knew lamford was the SB's amanuensis. I didn't realize he was his barrister.

The chat to the table is inadmissible as evidence as there is no proof that SB read it. It should in any case have been sent privately, and not used, illegally, as a (failed) attempt to remind RR of the methods. SB reads all private communications. The announcement "15-17" is enough on its own to rule MI. Res ipsa loquitur as they say. If there had been a typed correction to the table, you would have a valid point. And I am SB's nirmita. Not his amanuensis or his barrister.

[blackshoe]

And I am SB's nirmita.

So you don't actually exist. That explains a lot.

[lamford]

If it's reasonable that the explanation is correct, these people are just weird, fine. It's the ones that are mindbogglingly obviously WRONG, or that almost certainly are brainos, that you have to protect yourself against. At least enough to check the card.

This was the argument ChCh made to the TD, but it was brushed aside as SB had pointed out that in the dim and distant past, the previous week in fact, RR had played a strong NT when he was host, with a (virtual) visitor who normally played in ACBL events. RR had scored 48%, well above his average, so SB was quite entitled to assume that he was now a convert to that method, at least vulnerable, when that was the announcement.

[mycroft]

it is evidence, and absolutely admissible. Of course there is no proof that SB read it; his statement that he did not do so is also evidence, and admissible. However, frankly, if SB was on the other side of the appeal, he would be referring to his own statement with another term - one starting with 's'. And that is also true, but also not a condition of inadmissibility.

 

SB's manner, behaviour, and past cases are also evidence.

 

"The TD should indicate any inferences used to determine facts that may have been relevant to their ruling." says the White Book.

 

The appeals committee are absolutely entitled to judge the credibility of "people who have records of everything except, by sheer luck, what harms their case", and apply a decision of whether SB was aware.

 

Proof is not required, the AC will decide based on the facts and the inferences presented by the TD and the players, and the arguments and rebuttals of the players, based on the balance of probabilities. And, if they believe that SB was in fact misinformed, then they will determine whether his peers in playing cards, rather than people, is such that he was damaged; and adjust accordingly.