[bluejak]

In so many of these threads we are somewhat short of facts, but I think we can deduce some things from what we know. If the system that this pair played included opening 2♥ on this hand then I am sure someone would have said so. Please can we assume that for this pair, the 2♥ bid is out of range.

To be honest, of the people I know who play this sort of 2♥ bid it would be out of range for all of them.

So we can safely assume that pass is an LA for this player and go on from there.

[Cascade]

I think before you can decide what a logical alternative is you first need to decide what is normal for a 2♥ opening when partner is barred. This would seem to be a non-trivial question.

My thoughts are that

1. a bid does not have to show the same values it would show without partner being barred

2. a weak bid could be stronger than normal e.g. I might open 2♥ on a minimum opening hand that I was unwilling to have a bash at game opposite an average hand

3. any bid could be lighter than normal. The ruling has forced a player into doing all of the bidding for his side on the first round of the auction. This necessitates taking liberties

4. Suit lengths (and quality) might not be what is normally expected e.g. in this situation there is diminished utility in promising a minor when partner cannot take that into account early in the auction

5. Partner and the opponents on general principles should expect our bids to be shaded (up or down)

Given all of this what does 2♥ show.

It seems to me to be irrelevant that the bid normally shows 5-9 with five hearts and a minor. I would expect a wider range at both ends, no guarantee of a minor and six or seven hearts as possibilities.

I am not sure what a normal expectation for a lower limit would be and I am not even sure how relevant that is.

To get an idea of what the UI that partner is weak suggests I did some double dummy analysis:

Our expectation with this hand opposite a random partner in hearts was a little under 6 tricks.

The opponents expectation in spades in the same circumstances was nearly 10 tricks (and they might have a different game).

When partner was restricted to being a passed hand the numbers changed to:

Expectation in hearts just over 4 tricks

Expectation in spades over 11 tricks.

So it was both more likely that the opponents hand game (suggesting we bid) and more likely that 2♥ will be already too high (suggesting we don't bid).

Therefore I am far from convinced that the UI that partner is weak suggests bidding over PASS with the given hand.

[bluejak]

I do not see what difference it makes what 2♥ shows.

Surely, all that matters is whether pass is an LA, and whether bidding is suggested over passing by the UI?

Incidentally, I am not particularly convinced that 2♥ is random when partner must pass once. When you make a pre-emptive bid the opposition often do not pass, and so frequently partner will get a chance for a second round bid. Are you sure you want him bidding 4♥ [for example] on the second round when you have elected to open a pile of nothing? I think we must remember that a one-round pass opposite a weak hand is completely different from passing throughout.

[Codo]

What I honestly do not understand:

If we have to pass as long as pass is a LA, why is this not stated in the laws?

I thought that the penalty for partners pass out of turn is that he must pass next turn. So, I have to make a descission at my first round of bidding.
So, if the lawmakers will force me not to psych, why didn't they write it in the laws?
Before I read this threat, I had never seen anything wrong with the 2 ♥ bid.

[RMB1]

Codo, on Apr 8 2010, 06:42 AM, said:

What I honestly do not understand:

If we have to pass as long as pass is a LA, why is this not stated in the laws?

It is stated in the laws: it is in Law 16 not in Laws 28/29/30 for Pass out of rotation.

Law 16D says partner's withdrawn Pass out of rotation is unauthorised information.

Law 16B says you must pass if Pass is a logical alternative and other logical alternatives are suggested over Pass by the Pass out of rotation.

[gnasher]

I hadn't really considered the consequences of this part of the laws before. Suppose that I have a balanced 14-count and my partner passes out of turn. If all that I knew was that partner was barred for one round, I might open 3NT, because it might be the normal contract and will often have play even if it isn't. Presumably therefore, I'm obliged to open 3NT?

Likewise, if partner opens out of turn and the bidding reverts to me, how strong must I be before I'm allowed to open at the game level?

[McBruce]

If the TD decides that North's 2♥ call was based on UI and ruled that Pass is a LA, what is the next step? The TD must now judge what the outcome of the deal might be if North passes.

I don't doubt that E-W will almost certainly get to 6♠.

I do doubt very much that South will elect to lead a heart away from KJT8 against a slam without any reason for so doing.

Without a heart lead, what chance does declarer have in 6♠? 100%: declarer will pull trumps and establish a diamond winner to take care of the losing heart.

So I rule 1430 to E-W. How many teams walk out as a result? I recommend a lengthy suspension for all of them to the appropriate committee of the tournament organizer or regulating authority.

As for the gloating, I think it needs to be serious enough to elicit a call from an offended player at the time. I'm all for Zero Tolerance if done correctly: call the TD if you are made uncomfortable, and we will decide: perhaps a penalty, perhaps a warning, perhaps a discussion and an apology will be the result, depending on what took place. But don't expect much if you choose to practice Full Tolerance and put up with it at the time, only to complain about it later.

[gnasher]

McBruce, on Apr 8 2010, 11:35 AM, said:

I do doubt very much that South will elect to lead a heart away from KJT8 against a slam without any reason for so doing.

Really? If you made me choose a lead from the South hand without telling me anything except that the contract was at the six-level, I'd lead a heart.

[Bbradley62]

It's not among the questions at hand, but...
Sitting West, I would have quickly bid 2NT over South's out-of-turn pass, to avoid having something strange happen before I got to show my hand.

[blackshoe]

McBruce, on Apr 8 2010, 06:35 AM, said:

I'm all for Zero Tolerance if done correctly: call the TD if you are made uncomfortable, and we will decide: perhaps a penalty, perhaps a warning, perhaps a discussion and an apology will be the result, depending on what took place.  But don't expect much if you choose to practice Full Tolerance and put up with it at the time, only to complain about it later.

I guess you disagree with the ACBL's ZT policy, then:

Quote

The director, when called, shall make an assessment of the situation. If it is established that there was unacceptable behavior, an immediate ¼ board disciplinary penalty (3 IMP in team games) shall be assigned to all offenders.

The only warning players get comes when

Quote

At the start of each event, the director shall make an announcement that the tournament will be observing ZERO TOLERANCE for unacceptable behavior. It is requested that the director be called whenever behavior is not consistent with the guidelines outlined above.

The only decision is whether the behavior meets the guidelines. The policy does say that the director should be called immediately when a violation occurs.

[Bbradley62]

RMB1, on Apr 8 2010, 04:05 AM, said:

Codo, on Apr 8 2010, 06:42 AM, said:

What I honestly do not understand:

If we have to pass as long as pass is a LA, why is this not stated in the laws?

It is stated in the laws: it is in Law 16 not in Laws 28/29/30 for Pass out of rotation.

Law 16D says partner's withdrawn Pass out of rotation is unauthorised information.

Law 16B says you must pass if Pass is a logical alternative and other logical alternatives are suggested over Pass by the Pass out of rotation.

If this is the case, then it should have been explained to North before he made his bid. If this was not explained, then his bid was completely reasonable and N/S deserves to keep their +100. The only adjustment E/W could possibly be entitled to is one on account of Director's Error, but I don't think they should get that either. Result stands.

What might be gloating to one person could be just "telling a funny story" to another, so we should need details before determing what to do about that.

If anyone walked out of my game, I'd bar them for as long as the governing laws allowed me to do so, and I'd report them to all jurisdictions (unit, district and ACBL for me).

[McBruce]

blackshoe, on Apr 8 2010, 06:26 AM, said:

I guess you disagree with the ACBL's ZT policy, then:

Quote

The director, when called, shall make an assessment of the situation. If it is established that there was unacceptable behavior, an immediate ¼ board disciplinary penalty (3 IMP in team games) shall be assigned to all offenders.

The only warning players get comes when

Quote

At the start of each event, the director shall make an announcement that the tournament will be observing ZERO TOLERANCE for unacceptable behavior. It is requested that the director be called whenever behavior is not consistent with the guidelines outlined above.

The only decision is whether the behavior meets the guidelines. The policy does say that the director should be called immediately when a violation occurs.

As written, I do disagree with the policy. But in this part of the country at least, nobody has heard a ZT pre-game announcement at a tournament in five years. I believe it would be a much improved and more effective program if TDs had the option to smooth things over when somebody makes a joke that someone else gets miffed over. As written, the policy gives TDs no leeway when someone misinterprets a joke for rudeness. Our local version (which I developed) uses instead the phrase 'unquestionably unacceptable behavior' and allows a TD the option of diplomacy when an incident doesn't quite get to that level. Quite often one can establish that a comment was misinterpreted and the commenter is genuinely sorry that it happened. Under ACBL ZT, this is a DP if the TD is called and frustration if there is no TD called. In our Unit we encourage the TD call, find out exactly what happened, and give a simple warning when we can see that no harm was meant and the person who caused the situation gives an apology for the misunderstanding. (Players can complain later if they feel a TD has gone too far in playing down an incident.)

But the original point was that the gloating was alleged after the fact. There's really no way to reasonably judge something like this unless the TD is called at the time. With the passage of time, the versions of the incident change so much that it's impossible to judge. That's why I use the phrase Full Tolerance to describe those who choose to let an incident go without a TD call, then later claim that Zero Tolerance didn't work for them. If you practice FT, of course ZT is going to fail.

[McBruce]

Bbradley62, on Apr 8 2010, 07:09 AM, said:

RMB1, on Apr 8 2010, 04:05 AM, said:

Law 16D says partner's withdrawn Pass out of rotation is unauthorised information.

Law 16B says you must pass if Pass is a logical alternative and other logical alternatives are suggested over Pass by the Pass out of rotation.

If this is the case, then it should have been explained to North before he made his bid.

This is the lesson of this thread for me: I know I have been guilty of not explaining the UI/AI in BOOT/POOT situations. It makes for a far more difficult time giving a ruling if the players feel you've held something back.

[blackshoe]

McBruce, on Apr 9 2010, 03:07 AM, said:

As written, I do disagree with the policy. But in this part of the country at least, nobody has heard a ZT pre-game announcement at a tournament in five years. I believe it would be a much improved and more effective program if TDs had the option to smooth things over when somebody makes a joke that someone else gets miffed over. As written, the policy gives TDs no leeway when someone misinterprets a joke for rudeness. Our local version (which I developed) uses instead the phrase 'unquestionably unacceptable behavior' and allows a TD the option of diplomacy when an incident doesn't quite get to that level. Quite often one can establish that a comment was misinterpreted and the commenter is genuinely sorry that it happened. Under ACBL ZT, this is a DP if the TD is called and frustration if there is no TD called. In our Unit we encourage the TD call, find out exactly what happened, and give a simple warning when we can see that no harm was meant and the person who caused the situation gives an apology for the misunderstanding. (Players can complain later if they feel a TD has gone too far in playing down an incident.)

But the original point was that the gloating was alleged after the fact. There's really no way to reasonably judge something like this unless the TD is called at the time. With the passage of time, the versions of the incident change so much that it's impossible to judge. That's why I use the phrase Full Tolerance to describe those who choose to let an incident go without a TD call, then later claim that Zero Tolerance didn't work for them. If you practice FT, of course ZT is going to fail.

Personally, I don't like "zero tolerance" policies much. In the first place, there are already laws in place to deal with the things ZT would punish. In the second place, the "punish immediately, no recourse" of such policies can well lead to ridiculous situations, as you say. But if you're (generic "you") going to say "we follow the ACBL's ZT policy", then you ought to by God follow it, starting with making the announcement at the beginning of every session. If you're going to develop your own local version, then you ought to follow that — although I'm not entirely sure (running from memory, I haven't looked) that a Unit can legally do that, absent permission from ACBL HQ.

It is of course true that players who do not call the TD right away are likely to get less satisfaction than they would have — that's true of any judgement ruling. So? I tell such players that if they can't be bothered to call the TD when they should, they damn sure shouldn't expect him to rule in their favor. They'll bitch about it — it is in the nature of such players that they'll bitch whenever things don't go their way, and whatever the reason — but who cares? You can't stop 'em from bitching, it's pointless even to try.