[JohnJP]

Well, I was west. I realise that people might want the full story..........which I'm not going to give, as this may not be the end of the matter. What I will clarify is that a) my partner never walked.............he stood to walk but was persuaded to remain and finish the match and b) the account you have been given is very incomplete, and the snippet you have been given is a distortion at best, and quite inaccurate.

[Trinidad]

I am puzzled why the OP was posted to begin with.

I would start a thread if:
- I have a question
- I want to start a discussion
- I want to share a story that I think might be educating or entertaining to others

This is not a question, nor the start of a discussion. At best it seems to be a biased story that is neither educating nor entertaining. At worst it is dumb gossip. Either way, posting this is only sad and doesn't do bridge any favors.

Rik

[mrdct]

Posters also need to bear in mind that even when they try to de-identify the individuals involved in a case, bridge is a very small world and it's relatively easy to work out who the subjects are.

[Cascade]

RMB1, on 2011-October-05, 07:29, said:

But lots of people who were there would know who East was if East walked out and refused to play; and at least one person who was not there (MickyB was playing in Manchester that day) know about the incident.

So what. If he walked out then he walked out. If he didn't (as another post has subsequently suggested) then he didn't.

It is interesting to consider such situations even if the facts are not 100% - they seldom are.

We still get a general feeling given the 'facts' as presented who others think was out of line.

[mrdct]

Cascade, on 2011-October-05, 17:43, said:

So what. If he walked out then he walked out. If he didn't (as another post has subsequently suggested) then he didn't.

It is interesting to consider such situations even if the facts are not 100% - they seldom are.

We still get a general feeling given the 'facts' as presented who others think was out of line.

The problem is that the OP could be read as East asking stupid questions and getting a harmless sarcastic remark in reply to which he had a serious over-reaction; whereas the emerging facts paint quite a different picture as to what actually happened. When we are talking about a real-life case where the identities of the individuals are widely known and/or easily discoverable, it's quite important that "facts" be presented in an unbiased and complete manner. The hand, the auction, the system, the alerts, the earlier questions and the earlier explanations are all required to properly discuss how a TD ought to handle this sort of situation.

I'm still keen to see the actual hand and the auction.

[Cascade]

mrdct, on 2011-October-05, 19:07, said:

The problem is that the OP could be read as East asking stupid questions and getting a harmless sarcastic remark in reply to which he had a serious over-reaction; whereas the emerging facts paint quite a different picture as to what actually happened. When we are talking about a real-life case where the identities of the individuals are widely known and/or easily discoverable, it's quite important that "facts" be presented in an unbiased and complete manner. The hand, the auction, the system, the alerts, the earlier questions and the earlier explanations are all required to properly discuss how a TD ought to handle this sort of situation.

This is an internet forum not a court of law.

There are not standards for evidence or even requirements for facts to be accurate. The OP even stated that he had "heard about" this case. So we know from the beginning that it is not a first hand report. Therefore we know that facts might have been distorted or incomplete or even plain wrong.

If east in the post as opposed to east in real life has asked stupid questions and if south in the post as opposed to south in real life has made a sarcastic reply then we can learn from that and the discussion of the information in the post as opposed to what may or may not have happened in real life. An opinion expressed here is obviously an opinion based on the 'facts' presented here. It may or may not bear a resemblance to some situation in real life.

[aguahombre]

mrdct, on 2011-October-05, 19:07, said:

The problem is that the OP could be read as East asking stupid questions and getting a harmless sarcastic remark in reply to which he had a serious over-reaction.

Could be read as? The third question, after the second question was answered, can only be read as stupid. But, now we seem to be in doubt about the accuracy of even that part; so a big YES to all who object to how this whole thread was handled.

BTW, "What part of NO don't you understand?" has become such a common quip in my culture that it has lost any bite of intended harshness. That might not be the case, where the incidence occured.

[blackshoe]

OP presented a situation. Everybody seems to want to talk about a different situation, or perhaps several different situations. I suppose it's human nature but it seems rather silly to me.

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-05, 20:37, said:

OP presented a situation. Everybody seems to want to talk about a different situation, or perhaps several different situations. I suppose it's human nature but it seems rather silly to me.

He should have given it a different title if he didn't want it interpreted in a way that suggested he was talking about a real event, or a "based on, this is not exactly what happened" clause.

[Trinidad]

Cascade, on 2011-October-05, 20:23, said:

This is an internet forum not a court of law.

There are not standards for evidence or even requirements for facts to be accurate. The OP even stated that he had "heard about" this case.

This is an internet forum, not a gossip column.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-06, 03:49, said:

This is an internet forum, not a gossip column.

Rik

Some times I fail to notice the difference.

[lamford]

BunnyGo, on 2011-October-05, 07:17, said:

I see nothing inherently wrong with posting a story about anonymous players.

I agree. But if it is made up, mrdct sees it as "academic fraud".

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on 2011-October-05, 20:23, said:

The third question, after the second question was answered, can only be read as stupid.

I fail to see how anyone can reach that conclusion without seeing the hand, the auction, North-South's system, the pre-alerts, the alerts, the questions, the explantions, east's hand, prior knowledge of system deviation by North-South, state of the match, the clarity of previous explanations, previous boards where similar auctions came up, etc.

My working theory is that after trying to get his head around North-South's methods, East couldn't immediately think of how North would handle a hand with ♦ and ♠ and wanted to double-check that such a layout was not a possibility.

Trinidad, on 2011-October-06, 03:49, said:

This is an internet forum, not a gossip column.

It's also the "Laws and Rulings" sub-forum for posters to "seek answers and advice on Laws related issues". Discussion should, therefore, be focussed on the application of the Laws of Bridge and applicable regulatory pronouncements. There are plenty of other place on the broader BBO forum and elsewhere for gossip, ineuendo, rumours, etc. My view on this case is that the information in the OP is completely inadequate to form any opinion as to how it ought to be handled under the rules of the game.

lamford, on 2011-October-06, 04:54, said:

I agree. But if it is made up, mrdct sees it as "academic fraud".

I wouldn't call this one "academic fraud" but I would suggest that it is well below the standard we should expect from one of the forum moderators.

[Vampyr]

Cascade, on 2011-October-05, 20:23, said:

This is an internet forum not a court of law.

There are not standards for evidence or even requirements for facts to be accurate. The OP even stated that he had "heard about" this case. So we know from the beginning that it is not a first hand report. Therefore we know that facts might have been distorted or incomplete or even plain wrong.

If east in the post as opposed to east in real life has asked stupid questions and if south in the post as opposed to south in real life has made a sarcastic reply then we can learn from that and the discussion of the information in the post as opposed to what may or may not have happened in real life. An opinion expressed here is obviously an opinion based on the 'facts' presented here. It may or may not bear a resemblance to some situation in real life.

But this incident is probably the subject of gossip and rumour, and I would not be surprised if most of the English members of the forum eventually find out which players were involved. This is why an apparently inaccurate and incomplete account of the facts is potentially damaging.

[jillybean]

bluejak, on 2011-October-04, 09:35, said:

I heard about this one! A certain "well-known" player was involved: his attitude can be ... errr ... tricky. He was South.

North made a bid. The following conversation ensued:

East: "Does that show four spades?"
South: "No"
East: "Can she have four spades?"
South: "No"
East: "Can she have four spades and four diamonds?"
South: "What part of 'No' don't you understand?"

East now walked out and refused to play!

It appears the post was made for amusement and entertainment (misguided imo) rather than asking for opinions.

[shintaro]

JohnJP, on 2011-October-05, 09:41, said:

Well, I was west. I realise that people might want the full story..........which I'm not going to give, as this may not be the end of the matter. What I will clarify is that a) my partner never walked.............he stood to walk but was persuaded to remain and finish the match and b) the account you have been given is very incomplete, and the snippet you have been given is a distortion at best, and quite inaccurate.

mmmm John

I was also there playing as was Bluejak

But this situatation is what we have TD's for and I am quite sure knowing the DIC personally that he would not shirk his responsibilities

[sasioc]

BunnyGo, on 2011-October-05, 07:17, said:

Really? The OP made a post without naming anyone that told a story that allowed us to discuss behavior based on that story.

If there is a different story, or more complete one, we can discuss the behavior in those variations. I see nothing inherently wrong with posting a story about anonymous players.

lamford, on 2011-October-06, 04:54, said:

I agree. But if it is made up, mrdct sees it as "academic fraud".

The problem is that this is *not* a story about anonymous players - many people know who these players are or can easily find out - and it is not presented as a made-up story but as the facts of a dispute that was clearly far more complex than suggested in the OP. It also appears from John's post that the incident has not been resolved and that further action may be taken against one or more of the players involved. You talk about academic fraud - try libel.

EDIT - I hadn't seen the thread lamford is referring to when I wrote this and didn't realise it was a joke.

[Cascade]

sasioc, on 2011-October-06, 10:29, said:

You talk about academic fraud - try libel.

This is not libel. Certainly not without significant additional evidence.

1. No names were mentioned

2. There is no evidence that the facts were deliberately distorted

3. It clearly states that the facts were second hand or worse and the OP was merely reporting those in all likelihood in good faith - maybe someone along the line of information deliberately defamed

If this is libel then every time we post a case based on some actual events we are potentially committing libel. As I don't see any substantial difference between this post and many other posts. That wouldn't seem to be a very sensible interpretation.

[bluejak]

There have been a number of criticisms of this thread. I really think some of you should grow up. If you really think that your main object in life when you see a short story is, rather than to to make on-topic discussion of what you do or do not, is to go on about whether you can find out who th people were, whether there was more to the story, what the hands were, whether they were wearing blue or green shirts, whether the Australian cricket team was present, and so on, then I am sorry, i thin you have completely missed the point of these forums.

One small additional bit of information, in answer to one of the earlier and more on-topic posts, I forgot myself for a moment and just said Leeds: there was an event, formerly a National event, but now taken over and revived by Yorkshire CBA, called the Great Northern Swiss Pairs, and this story came from there.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-October-06, 11:18, said:

Great Northern Swiss Pairs, and this story came from there.

Why was this posted? Just to dispel any doubt that the protagonists will be identified?