[VixTD]

Something like the following is rumoured to have occurred at our club recently, and I wondered how other directors would have tackled it:

At an ordinary club evening playing an unswitched Mitchell with four-board rounds, players sit down at the table and remove the cards from the first board. They count and start to sort the cards when someone notices the boards are switched by 90 degrees.

They return the cards to the board, discuss what they should do, and all declare that although they have looked at the cards they haven't really taken in the information. They agree to play the other three boards first and then the original board in its correct orientation. (The director is not called.)

When the board is played one player opens a pre-emptive 3♥ on a hand with 3 hcp. (These are the sort of players who don't deviate from the point counts for pre-empts given to them by their teachers (5-9, 6-10 etc.).)

If you are called afterwards because someone is not happy that a player took unusual action that could have been based on the sight of an opponent's hand, what would your approach be:

(1) Cancel the board and award A-/A-
(2) Allow the score to stand as the side claiming injury agreed to play the board under these conditions
(3) Award an adjusted score if you can see a link between the UI and the opening bid
(4) Award an adjusted score even if you can't see such a link
(5) Something else

(Of course you may decide to award a procedural penalty in addition to one of the above.)

[jnichols]

I would cancel the board and award A-/A-. It was both pairs fault that they could not play the board.

I would also award a procedural penalty to both sides. Depending on the level of the players this would vary between 10% of a board and just having to listen to a short lecture about "Call the director when you have a problem. I could have fixed this!" To be honest, I can't imagine this happening with players who are experienced enough to get the 10% penalty. Of course, some of the players might prefer that to my lecture.

[barmar]

I'm with jnichols. Had the TD been called originally, he would have just told them to play that board rotated -- it's trivial to adjust the movement to score this properly. Making their own ruling was wrong, and then complaining when they don't like the result just compounds the error.

[bluejak]

Tell the fools that if they did not want me to do my job originally, they are not going to waste my time now. Tell them to score the result as given and mention you do not want to hear from them against that night or you will automatically give a PP or DP to both sides.

Laws 9B1A, 9B2, 9C, 10A, 10B, 72A, 72B1, 90A, 90B7, 90B8.

Another word from any of them and I shall move on to Law 91A.

[blackshoe]

Calmly, David, calmly.

"Result stands", fine. A DP if they argue, fine. But to tell a contestant he is no longer entitled to call the TD in case of future infractions (or possible infractions) is not legal.

[Sadie3]

I would let the results stand as well. I would not get all bent out of shape about it, but I would certainly give the lecture "That's why I'm here, folks. I could have fixed this." I strongly encourage my players to trust me and do not jump down their throats when they make a mistake. I am 100% sure that they already regretted not calling me in the first place.

[aguahombre]

Just guessing, but I think blue might be pissed.

[blackshoe]

If by "pissed" you mean the American meaning of the term, you may well be right. It is aggravating when players pull this kind of thing. Still, I agree with Sadie, one must remain calm and objective.

[mrdct]

Can you present the actual hand that we are talking about so we can see what additional information the preempter had? In isolation I don't think a 3♥ opening with 3 hcp is necessarily unusual. These players sound to me like the sort of people that wouldn't really remember a hand from 10 minutes ago anyway, particularly if they only saw it briefly.

If it was something like a pre-empt on K1098xxx where the opener knows that xxx is offside, I would be a little bit suspicious but I'd look the prempter in the eye and ask him directly if he based his bid on his knowledge of what one of his opponent's hands were and if he denied it and represented that this is normal action for him, I would be inclined to believe him.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, all four players will be getting a stern warning about not calling the director when an irregularity occurs.

[shintaro]

mrdct, on Nov 10 2009, 10:57 PM, said:

Can you present the actual hand that we are talking about so we can see what additional information the preempter had?  In isolation I don't think a 3♥ opening with 3 hcp is necessarily unusual.  These players sound to me like the sort of people that wouldn't really remember a hand from 10 minutes ago anyway, particularly if they only saw it briefly.

If it was something like a pre-empt on K1098xxx where the opener knows that xxx is offside, I would be a little bit suspicious but I'd look the prempter in the eye and ask him directly if he based his bid on his knowledge of what one of his opponent's hands were and if he denied it and represented that this is normal action for him, I would be inclined to believe him.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, all four players will be getting a stern warning about not calling the director when an irregularity occurs.

Surely it matters not one jot what the actual board was they made thier own beds and they can lie in them

Results stands end of matter PP possibly if they argue.

David pissed (twould take a little Glen Morangie)

[bluejak]

I am certainly not going to look at the board.

It is not the end of the world if players want to make up their own rulings: both sides agree, no TD, fine, who cares?

But to call me later after a joke ruling for me to fix is beyond belief.

Quote

But to tell a contestant he is no longer entitled to call the TD in case of future infractions (or possible infractions) is not legal.

Where did "legal" come into any of this?

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Nov 11 2009, 09:04 AM, said:

Where did "legal" come into any of this?

Let me put it this way then: it's poor TDing to tell players they cannot ask for a ruling.

I would not have a problem with telling players that if they make their own rulings, screw up, and then ask the TD to fix it, they'll get short shrift. But I'd rather tell them to call the TD in the first place, and not make their own rulings at all.

[aguahombre]

Yes, Blue, I meant the U.S. version of "pissed", as in pissed off --not pissy.
Yes, Black --of course you are right. but I think the hyperbole of Blue should not have been taken quite so seriously. He expressed how he felt about it, with which I agree--and I doubt he would have really acted that way IRL.

[Pig Trader]

VixTD, on Nov 9 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

Something like the following is rumoured to have occurred at our club recently ...

For anyone who's seen the BBC TV program called "Yes Minister"

Jim Hacker: "There's a rumour that an incident happened at our club recently. Is it true?"
Sir Humphrey: "Yes."
Jim Hacker: "So the incident did happen!"
Sir Humphrey: "Did it?"
Jim Hacker: "But you just told me it did!"
Sir Humphrey: "No I didn't!"
Jim Hacker: "But I just asked you if it was true!"
Sir Humphrey: "No, you asked me if it was true that there is a rumour that the incident happened!"
Jim Hacker: "Ah! So there is a rumour then?"
Sir Humphrey: "Yes, you just told me there is a rumour!"

[shintaro]

[quote name='aguahombre' date='Nov 11 2009, 11:58 AM']Yes, Blue, I meant the U.S. version of "pissed", as in pissed off --not pissy.
Yes, Black --of course you are right. but I think the hyperbole of Blue should not have been taken quite so seriously. He expressed how he felt about it, with which I agree--and I doubt he would have really acted that way IRL

mmmm

[mycroft]

I've in fact given that ruling before.

Third to bid passed as opening call out of turn. They told him "just put it away, we don't care." The auction then goes P-P-2S, and I get called *now*. Of course, OOT bidder has a third-hand, but not first-hand, preempt. So?

My response was almost exactly what David said: "If you'd called me when it happened, I would have explained the laws, which would have included the fact that if you didn't accept the pass, he'd have to pass at his first opportunity. But you decided to make your own ruling, and I see no reason to overrule it just because it happens not to be to your benefit. Next time you'll call me when something like this occurs."

Yet again, "trying to keep it polite and happy" just leads to more animosity, and not at the TD who's getting paid to take it.