[bluejak]

It is mild compared to most things that DPs are given for, and if that is the level that a DP should be given for then there were at least five or six occasions at my table alone. In practice a fair amount of tolerance is given to players who have a momentary lapse because of anger, and it really is an unnecessarily harsh approach if every sign of anger was penalised.

According to our team-mate, before this occurred, his opponents had had three loud and unfriendly disagreements with each other. But despite everything a certain amount of tolerance is normal.

[bluejak]

jeremy69, on Mar 1 2010, 11:48 PM, said:

Quote

there were a myriad of other incidents this time that were worse.

Sounds a pleasant event!

Oh, come off it, Jeremy, how many congresses have you played with no signs of anger at any time from the opponents?

[jeremy69]

Quote

Oh, come off it, Jeremy, how many congresses have you played with no signs of anger at any time from the opponents?

Not uncommon to hear a cross word from opponents or even our side but it is all a matter of degree. Of course you don't give everyone a DP for this and if one opponent called the other an ox I would not dream of summoning the director but if, on the other hand, he throws his cards on the table with all the restraint of a child in the middle of a terrible twos tantrum or declines after several invitations to get on with the next hand then I don't think his behaviour should be condoned. As a director I would expect you to be prepared to uphold Law 74.
At a club I play at one player harangued his partner to such an extent that the director was called (and this is not usually done). The director asked him to be quiet but was then called back about 3 boards later when another rant was heard. He again asked the player to stop but the player declined saying he" had not finished explaining to his partner why he was wrong"! He was, unsurprisingly in my view, asked to leave.
In the situation described if you allow players to throw their cards around and not bother to play then you are sending the wrong message if you don't discipline the player. You ought to give him a DP not so much for the severity of the offence but to discourage this sort of behaviour. When, in England, if you do not then, as a director, (and I appreciate that you were not on this occasion) you are sending the message that you do not approve ofor support the EBU policy on such matters which is not your entitlement whilst you act as a TD.

[barmar]

Who among us has not had partner pass us in a cue bid or splinter? It's no excuse for acting like a child. Tossing your hand in like this is the bridge equivalent of throwing a tantrum.

Sometimes it may be a waste of time to play out the hand, so you might just want to concede early, but should do it in a calm manner. But several times I've found myself in silly contracts, and I still found it challenging to see how well I could minimize the damage. And I presume the defenders may be seeing how well they can maximize it. It's not as much fun as playing a hand where you actually have a more realistic goal, like making your contract, but it's still bridge, not 52-Pickup.

[bluejak]

Oh, sure, and I personally find it quite fun to try a different challenge. But most people don't. The problem is that, with the best will in the world, we cannot get rid of cross words between partners, even if they should not happen, and playing contracts in cue-bids leads to cross words.

[nige1]

bluejak, on Mar 1 2010, 08:01 AM, said:

Ok, so far, we seem to have
6 tricks [2 votes]
5 or 6 tricks [1 vote]
5 tricks [1 vote]
3 or 6 tricks [1 vote]
Fewer than 6 but more than 0 tricks [1 vote]
The TDs decided he had abandoned the hand and conceded all the tricks. So they ruled 9 off.
I did not feel that was correct, and asked them to re-consider. I asked them to consider 4 tricks, 5 off, and they agreed with that.

Seems right to me

[pran]

bluejak, on Mar 3 2010, 03:03 AM, said:

Oh, sure, and I personally find it quite fun to try a different challenge. But most people don't. The problem is that, with the best will in the world, we cannot get rid of cross words between partners, even if they should not happen, and playing contracts in cue-bids leads to cross words.

It happened recently in an event here, and resulted in laughter rather than cross words.

We do accept laughter, but we have a zero tolerance on audible cross words and the like.

[helene_t]

I think normal play is most likely to give him six tricks, but given his emotional state I will allow him to play slightly worse than otherwise. I give him five tricks.

I would not issue a PP. It wouldn't be very interesting or enjoyable to play this board anyway. As an opponent I would feel relieved not to have to play this hand. Of course his behaviour is not quite correct, but it doesn't really cost anything except that the TD had to spent a few seconds on the board.

There are tons of other behavioral issues that I would penalize sooner than this one. People postmortemning the previous hand while playing, for example. Not to mention the really nasty things like people teaching opponents that they can't bid due to their p's hesitation, or the use of rhetoric questions during the post-mortem ("why didn't you give me a ruff?", said with a voice that makes it obvious that it means "you must be a low-grade moron since you didn't give me a ruff").

[barmar]

bluejak, on Mar 2 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

Oh, sure, and I personally find it quite fun to try a different challenge. But most people don't. The problem is that, with the best will in the world, we cannot get rid of cross words between partners, even if they should not happen, and playing contracts in cue-bids leads to cross words.

There's a difference between cross words (e.g. the possibly apocryphal "Where's the hand you had when you were bidding?") and throwing your cards down and stomping away from the table.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Mar 3 2010, 05:00 AM, said:

I think normal play is most likely to give him six tricks, but given his emotional state I will allow him to play slightly worse than otherwise. I give him five tricks.

Keep in mind that this is a concession of all the tricks, not a claim. In particular, declarer should get only those tricks he cannot lose by normal play, not those he might make by normal play.

barmar said:

There's a difference between cross words (e.g. the possibly apocryphal "Where's the hand you had when you were bidding?") and throwing your cards down and stomping away from the table.

True, but in the instant case, no one stomped anywhere.

[jdonn]

I wonder where to draw the line. Partner overbids by 2 points? Raises my weak 2 bid on a doubleton? Or am I only allowed to not have to play the hand with no repurcussions if he passes my cuebid (and it turns out to be a bad contract)?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Mar 3 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

Keep in mind that this is a concession of all the tricks

Is it? The declarer told the defenders to take as many tricks as they wanted, but it seems to be implied that they will not want 13.

[blackshoe]

I see no such implication.

[mycroft]

jeremy69, on Mar 2 2010, 05:10 AM, said:

At a club I play at one player harangued his partner to such an extent that the director was called (and this is not usually done). The director asked him to be quiet but was then called back about 3 boards later when another rant was heard. He again asked the player to stop but the player declined saying he" had not finished explaining to his partner why he was wrong"! He was, unsurprisingly in my view, asked to leave.

I should hope so. I would hope, were I called in that situation and got that response, I would have the quickness of thought to say my immediate reaction to this story:

"Oh, I can do that for you in one sentence - he agreed to play with you. Luckily I can rectify his mistake; your game is done for the night. Please leave - I will find a new partner."

I hope also a report to the club management took place, so that the vacation from bridge could be more than just the one night.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on Mar 3 2010, 06:52 PM, said:

I see no such implication.

So you really think that it would have been reasonable for the opponents to say, "OK then, we'll have the lot"? And that declarer would have been amenable to this?

I certainly don't think so.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on Mar 3 2010, 01:30 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 3 2010, 06:52 PM, said:

I see no such implication.

So you really think that it would have been reasonable for the opponents to say, "OK then, we'll have the lot"? And that declarer would have been amenable to this?

I certainly don't think so.

Two entirely different questions.

Do I think it reasonable for opponents to accept all the tricks? No, of course not. In the event, the opponents in fact asked the director to reconsider his ruling, on the grounds that they (the opponents) believed the declarer was entitled to at least some tricks. That is IMO the right thing to do here, but it has nothing to do with whether there was an implication in declarer's concession that he did not intend to concede all the tricks. As for what declarer would have said if the opponents hadn't asked the director to reconsider his ruling, I have no idea. Anyone acting as irrationally as this declarer apparently was might do anything.

If I were to draw an inference from declarer's actions when conceding, it would be that he didn't expect to get any tricks, and didn't care whether he did or didn't.

[pran]

Vampyr, on Mar 3 2010, 06:48 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Mar 3 2010, 05:35 PM, said:

Keep in mind that this is a concession of all the tricks

Is it? The declarer told the defenders to take as many tricks as they wanted, but it seems to be implied that they will not want 13.

Absolutely:

From OP: After seeing the dummy, declarer [North] threw his hand on the table, saying have as many tricks as you want.

From Law 68B1: A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand.

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

IMO the correct ruling is to start with Law 68B1 and then continue with Law 71:

A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:

1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards.

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, “normal” includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Mar 3 2010, 10:46 PM, said:

Do I think it reasonable for opponents to accept all the tricks? No, of course not. In the event, the opponents in fact asked the director to reconsider his ruling, on the grounds that they (the opponents) believed the declarer was entitled to at least some tricks. That is IMO the right thing to do here, but it has nothing to do with whether there was an implication in declarer's concession that he did not intend to concede all the tricks. As for what declarer would have said if the opponents hadn't asked the director to reconsider his ruling, I have no idea. Anyone acting as irrationally as this declarer apparently was might do anything.

No, they did not. A team-mate, acting as captain, asked the TD to reconsider the ruling.

pran, on Mar 3 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

[blackshoe]

bluejak, on Mar 3 2010, 06:00 PM, said:

No, they did not. A team-mate, acting as captain, asked the TD to reconsider the ruling.

A team-mate of whom? The declarer? Not that I think it matters to the ruling.

Quote

pran, on Mar 3 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

That is exactly what happened here. Declarer threw his cards on the table, indicating he wanted no more tricks. Or didn't care if he got any. Either way, he abandoned his hand, we apply Law 71, and he gets only those tricks he could not lose by any normal play. He acted (and spoke) in a fit of childish pique, and while I agree that there doesn't appear to be sufficient reason in this case to give him a DP, I don't see any reason to give him any more tricks than the law entitles him to either.

[pran]

bluejak, on Mar 4 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

pran, on Mar 3 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

If his action here wasn't that of abandoning the hand I don't know one when I see it.

Players have been known to put their hands away, or throw them on the table, indicating they want no more tricks. That did not happen here, and it surprises me greatly you think this a typical case. A typical case is where you offer the opponents all the tricks, not the number they want.

WHAT ! ? ! ? ! ?