[glen]

First, note I treated this as "The TD was called ... Does this warrant further investigation?", so my answer was no, since the TD was called.

As to how the TD should handle this, the TD needs to determine who asked about 2♦, which I'll assume the software cannot tell them. Once one of the defenders owns up to asking about it, then the next question is why ask. Since we don't know the answers to these questions, one can't guess how it all turns out, but if the ♦ void bidder was the one asking, and can't put forward a good bridge reason for asking, then as TD I would assign a procedural penalty, as well as making a note on their file.

[inquiry]

Well, I could see why someone might want to know if 2♦ was forcing or not, and after the jump to 5♣ would 3♦ over 1♠ have been a fit jump. I can also see a lot of players looking at all those diamonds in West thinking that maybe 2♦ was a transfer to 2♥ or something.

Since this was online, and since the TD doesn't know who "asked" (clicked) the 2♦ bid, it is not even clear that UI could have been passed between the partners. What ever South typed in the alert box after the bid could just have easily been a delay description offered without any click.

On the other hand, I can see no reason for either player asking anything about this auction. It is perfectly normal. And I can see no way for EW to have taken advantage of any question short of some illegal agreement that "if I ask about my RHO bid after you overcall, then I have shortness in your suit" type of agreement, and that seems totaly insane type of agreement to have.

So at best, a stern lecture seems appropriate here, but then Fred has much more experience and knowledge about these issues, so I guess his view is probably the correct one.

[glen]

While Fred does have "experience and knowledge" to the max, if the 1♠ bidder asked about 2♦, Fred, if acting as TD, first needs to ask why before he tries "to punish the 1S bidder for his completely inappropriate question".

[jtfanclub]

fred, on Feb 12 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

I don't think I said I would accuse my opponents of cheating.

I would tell the TD that I thought that my opp had asked a highly inappropriate question and let the TD take it from there.

Maybe I was not clear as to why it is really bad to ask what 2D means when you have a diamond void.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. And I certainly understand why it's really bad.

I'm taking this from a face-to-face standpoint. At BBO, you should be able to ask all sorts of strange questions without revealing anything, since you'll ask it privately. If you do this at a club, or worse still at a tournament, EVERYBODY is listening. The pair in question is going to be mortified, or furious. A reputation for this sort of thing will follow that pair for a long time.

If damage occurred at the time, then you don't have any choice but to call the director right away. But if no damage was done, then I really think that the best thing to do is deal with it after the game...just have the TD sit down with the pair in question and explain what's wrong with it, if you think they didn't know any better or think that everybody does it.

When I was younger and stupider, if I'd been playing in a club, somebody called the director, claimed I was signalling my partner, and I received a stern lecture or a penalty out in front of everyone, I would not have returned to that club (I wouldn't return now, for that matter). I'm not sure I would have kept on playing bridge at all.

It's a heck of a thing to accuse somebody of in public.

I understand that, technically, you're not accusing them of cheating....

Quote

This is a question you would never ever ask under normal circumstances (because you should know that, since 2D was not alerted, it was natural and forcing).

Suppose you have experienced the auction 1C-1S-2D 100 times in your bridge career. On how many of those 100 do you think someone asked "what is 2D?".

Once? Twice? 5 Times? Zero?

Whatever the number I don't think it is a lot. That's why asking such a question when you have void in diamonds is such a bad thing to do.

Your partner knows you have asked a very strange question that naturally draws his attention to DIAMONDS.

But it sure sounds like you're implying it. That's how I would certainly interpret it, if I were the partner of the guilty party.

[fred]

jtfanclub, on Feb 13 2007, 02:28 PM, said:

fred, on Feb 12 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

I don't think I said I would accuse my opponents of cheating.

I would tell the TD that I thought that my opp had asked a highly inappropriate question and let the TD take it from there.

Maybe I was not clear as to why it is really bad to ask what 2D means when you have a diamond void.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. And I certainly understand why it's really bad.

I'm taking this from a face-to-face standpoint. At BBO, you should be able to ask all sorts of strange questions without revealing anything, since you'll ask it privately. If you do this at a club, or worse still at a tournament, EVERYBODY is listening. The pair in question is going to be mortified, or furious. A reputation for this sort of thing will follow that pair for a long time.

If damage occurred at the time, then you don't have any choice but to call the director right away. But if no damage was done, then I really think that the best thing to do is deal with it after the game...just have the TD sit down with the pair in question and explain what's wrong with it, if you think they didn't know any better or think that everybody does it.

When I was younger and stupider, if I'd been playing in a club, somebody called the director, claimed I was signalling my partner, and I received a stern lecture or a penalty out in front of everyone, I would not have returned to that club (I wouldn't return now, for that matter). I'm not sure I would have kept on playing bridge at all.

It's a heck of a thing to accuse somebody of in public.

I understand that, technically, you're not accusing them of cheating....

Quote

This is a question you would never ever ask under normal circumstances (because you should know that, since 2D was not alerted, it was natural and forcing).

Suppose you have experienced the auction 1C-1S-2D 100 times in your bridge career. On how many of those 100 do you think someone asked "what is 2D?".

Once? Twice? 5 Times? Zero?

Whatever the number I don't think it is a lot. That's why asking such a question when you have void in diamonds is such a bad thing to do.

Your partner knows you have asked a very strange question that naturally draws his attention to DIAMONDS.

But it sure sounds like you're implying it. That's how I would certainly interpret it, if I were the partner of the guilty party.

So are you suggesting that people not call the TD when their opponents do something wrong out of fear that you might hurt their feelings?

Do you think this is fair to the rest of the field?

As I said in my first post in this thread, I would not even conclude that my opponents were cheating if this happened. Other possibilities include a lack of experience (maybe they don't know that when 2D is not alerted that means it is natural and forcing) or a temporary loss of consiousness (maybe the player was an expert who was not thinking about the possible consequences of asking his question).

When an irregularity has taken place and you call the TD, you are not implying that the opponents intentionally committed the irregularity in question. I realize that many inexperienced players do not understand this.

Of course I would give inexperienced players considerable lattitude with respect to asking stupid/inappropriate questions - if I knew I was playing against novices I would not even think to call the TD (but I might try to explain to them, in a nice way, why what they did was wrong).

Please note that I (perhaps wrongly) offered my opinions here is a "pure bridge context". Playing online (or behind screens) it might be different since in some circumstances there would be no UI.

Not that this is an excuse for asking questions that you already know the answer to...

Also please note that, while I am a very experienced player, I am almost completely inexperienced as a TD and I would never claim to be anywhere close to an authority on the Laws. I do know enough about the Laws to know that some questions should not be asked.

And my experience as a player suggests that "what is 2D?" is one of those questions.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jillybean]

I’m with Fred on this one

Let me clarify a couple of things, firstly I was south here and this was a free BBO tournament.

I called the TD after the hand, until the hand was played I did not know East was void in Diamonds, law9A2 prohibits dummy from calling attention to an irregularity until after the hand. In any case I believe we are allowed a double shot here, If the opps have failed to disclose a partnership agreement or have passed UI etc I can wait until the hand is completed to call the TD.

After I explained the problem to the TD they later got back to me and said the board was completed normally and other tables had the same result so I left it at that.

I’m not jumping up and down accusing people of cheating nor would it need to be handled like that by the TD. Law16 is there for a purpose and players should be aware of the laws and be careful not to pass UI.
The same thing happens at the club and players are calmly reminded of the laws.

If someone is being accused of cheating its being handled very badly by the players or the TD. We need to get off this whos-cheating bent and look at it more of an opportunity to educate players.

[cherdano]

Fred, what you are saying may be true in an environment as NA where pretty much everyone plays 2♦ as forcing (and those who don't, they know that it is alertable). But if I were playing in a BBO tourney against European opponents I would think there is a pretty good chance that they play it as non-forcing and didn't alert it because they forgot, or don't know that that is an alertable treatment by WBF standards, or because they are lazy, distracted, whatever. (If I were given a dollar for every case where my opponents on BBO forget to alert a call even though they are an established partnership and should know better, I would be rich by now...)

Of course East can make a lead and then complain later if it turned out that 2♦ was non-forcing and this would have changed his lead. But that approach will often just lead to more hassle than appropriate for a BBO tourney.

Arend

[blackshoe]

jillybean2, on Feb 13 2007, 10:36 AM, said:

Let me clarify a couple of things, firstly I was south here and this was a free BBO tournament.

I called the TD after the hand, until the hand was played I did not know East was void in Diamonds, law9A2 prohibits dummy from calling attention to an irregularity until after the hand. In any case I believe we are allowed a double shot here, If the opps have failed to disclose a partnership agreement or have passed UI etc I can wait until the hand is completed to call the TD.

After I explained the problem to the TD they later got back to me and said the board was completed normally and other tables had the same result so I left it at that.

I’m not jumping up and down accusing people of cheating nor would it need to be handled like that by the TD. Law16 is there for a purpose and players should be aware of the laws and be careful not to pass UI.
The same thing happens at the club and players are calmly reminded of the laws.

If someone is being accused of cheating its being handled very badly by the players or the TD. We need to get off this whos-cheating bent and look at it more of an opportunity to educate players.

Certainly you can wait until the hand is completed to call the TD - in fact as you said yourself the law requires you to wait. This is in no way a "double-shot" case.

IMO, players should make an effort to ensure that when they call the director, they assure opponents (including, as appropriate, CHO) that the call is intended to ensure everyone's rights are protected, and not as an accusation. Note also that the tone in which you call the TD can imply accusation, and can also get you in trouble for dissing the TD. So be careful of tone (generally not applicable on BBO, I know).

Cheating at bridge happens, but I think it's much rarer than most people seem to think. I would never accuse someone of cheating without solid evidence, and I would not permit such an accusation where I am directing. Call the director, present the facts as you understand them, and keep the opinions and emotions out of it.

Once, in f2f bridge, my partner passed UI to me. As I was not sure that I had correctly complied with Laws 16 and 73, I called the TD and said that. Partner then accused me of calling the director "on her". She refused to hear my explanation that it was my action, not hers, that I was calling into question. I guess I just can't win.

[jtfanclub]

fred, on Feb 13 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

So are you suggesting that people not call the TD when their opponents do something wrong out of fear that you might hurt their feelings?

I'm suggesting talking to the director between rounds, assuming you think it was incidental/accidental and not deliberate cheating, if no damage occurred.

This has piqued my interest since, again, I'm relatively inexperienced a director. I'm going to try boiling this down and sending it to rulngs@acbl.org, and seeing what they say is the proper way to handle this.

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Feb 13 2007, 10:30 PM, said:

This has piqued my interest since, again, I'm relatively inexperienced a director. I'm going to try boiling this down and sending it to rulngs@acbl.org, and seeing what they say is the proper way to handle this.

For kicks and giggles, make sure to submit it 2-3 times. I'd be curious how many different opions you get...

[han]

IMO, players should make an effort to ensure that when they call the director, they assure opponents (including, as appropriate, CHO) that the call is intended to ensure everyone's rights are protected, and not as an accusation. Note also that the tone in which you call the TD can imply accusation, and can also get you in trouble for dissing the TD. So be careful of tone (generally not applicable on BBO, I know).


I think this is much too sensitive. It is perfectly normal just to shout "director please" in such a situation. Only when playing against novices who do not understand the role of the director should you be careful not to scare them. An experienced player understands and knows not to be alarmed when the director is called.

[keylime]

I confess I have a serious problem with the query of 2D. It screams of UI here. It's clear that the auction was forcing and therefore I am concerned. If E/W were true experts they would realize the scope of the auction and not have drawn themselves into this unfortunate situation.

[blackshoe]

Hannie, on Feb 13 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

I think this is much too sensitive. It is perfectly normal just to shout "director please" in such a situation. Only when playing against novices who do not understand the role of the director should you be careful not to scare them. An experienced player understands and knows not to be alarmed when the director is called.

You misunderstand me. A polite "director, please", even shouted (and sometimes you have to shout, or he won't hear you) is fine. It's the tone that says "*****it, director! Get your butt over here!" even when the words are "director, please!" that should be avoided.

[jtfanclub]

Here was the response I got...


"Dear Matthew,

If there was no damage resulting from the UI, then, the score itself should stand. I think that calling the director is still appropriate, however. It appears that there may have been an ethical violation. It is probably better to have it out in the opening that it is to talk about it. Another possibility would be to file a player memo.

Regards,

Mike Flader"

So that agrees with Fred. I will adjust my thinking appropriately.

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on Feb 14 2007, 06:46 PM, said:

You misunderstand me.  A polite "director, please", even shouted (and sometimes you have to shout, or he won't hear you) is fine. It's the tone that says "*****it, director! Get your butt over here!" even when the words are "director, please!" that should be avoided.

It is useful, especially in situations where the opponents aren't going to understand, to make a quiet comment about the upcoming director call - at least it seems so to me. Not necessary, especially if the tone is correct, as our Esteemed Colleague states, but sometimes useful.

I will admit that "Get your butt over here!", even in tone, tends to get Law74B5 warnings from me when I "get my butt" over there. But I think what you're referring to is what I describe as "calling the cops on the opponents" - "They did something wrong, and I want them PUNISHED!". And I know that tone, too. I still remember the slapdown my opponents got the last time someone tried that on me (he was literally standing on his chair screaming for the TD, griping about my "hestitation" after the skip bid.

1) The TD mentioned that I was not only within my rights to do this, it was expected of me (yeah, I know, nobody else in the ACBL actually does wait 10 seconds after skip bids, especially unannounced skip bids).
2) I eventually dropped Qxx Jxx 9xxx 7xx on the table as dummy, showing the world I had absolutely nothing to think about.
3) Partner lost 4 aces for a clear top.)

I try to make it clear - usually away from the table, and after the session, and to both sides - that "callling the cops" is the wrong attitude, and does more to drive players away from the game than almost anything else. It certainly drives the "social duplicate, where you don't call the director" movement - having broken up several almost fights by being calm and directing all the anger and frustration at me, I can't imagine how "not calling the director" does anything but fuel ill humours, overt or repressed.

Michael.

[blackshoe]

We are in complete agreement, Michael.