[bluejak]

In reply to one of the few on-topic answers. Your suggestion is strange: anyone local knows what Leeds is. You may wish to follow gossip: I merely want to follow anyone who is interested in the OP, nothing else.

[phil_20686]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-06, 08:16, said:

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.

As opposed to the doubless accurate and complete version I will presently hear on the grapevine anyway?

[Trinidad]

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

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.

Do I understand this post that your intention was to sollicit opinions on what you should do if you were the TD and were called at the table? Then why is it relevant that this took place in Leeds, that South was well known and had a tricky attitude?

But I will answer the question that you never asked below. (This explains why you get very few of what you consider on topic answers: you forgot to ask the question.)

If I were the TD and would be called to the table, I would:
- instruct East to sit down.
- tell South that what he and his partner consider funny, may be annoying or embarrassing to other players.
- tell South that -according to the Laws- he should:
    - maintain a courteous attitude at all times.
    - carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.
- tell South that if he failed to do so that it might result in a penalty.
- explain to South what "full disclosure" means. Depending on the auction and its meaning I will let South give a complete explanation of their partnership understandings, in such a way that East understands what is explained.
- instruct East and the other players to continue playing.

Depending on the precise situation, I might tell the players to grow up, I might stay at the table for a while or turn around and walk away immediately. I might also buy one or more of the players a beer.

Rik

[mrdct]

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

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.

How can you imply that the details of the hand are not relevant? Surely, for a TD to work out what sort of penalty to assess on South he needs to know what (if any) ambiguous or misleading explanation he gave about the bid in question to prompt East's seemingly unusual line of questioning.

[Bbradley62]

mrdct, on 2011-October-06, 18:35, said:

Surely, for a TD to work out what sort of penalty to assess on South he needs to know what (if any) ambiguous or misleading explanation he gave about the bid in question to prompt East's seemingly unusual line of questioning.

According to the conversation we were given, South answered two simple and straight-forward yes/no questions with "no". Couldn't TD just ask East why he asked the "seemingly unusual" third question?

[mrdct]

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-06, 19:11, said:

According to the conversation we were given, South answered two simple and straight-forward yes/no questions with "no". Couldn't TD just ask East why he asked the "seemingly unusual" third question?

How, pray tell, are we to assess the reasonableness of East's third question without seeing the hand and the auction?

[Bbradley62]

mrdct, on 2011-October-06, 19:34, said:

How, pray tell, are we to assess the reasonableness of East's third question without seeing the hand and the auction?

Unless there is history between East and South, East's third question is not at all reasonable after his second question was asked and answered.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-October-06, 12:11, said:

In reply to one of the few on-topic answers. Your suggestion is strange: anyone local knows what Leeds is. You may wish to follow gossip: I merely want to follow anyone who is interested in the OP, nothing else.

It may have been a club game or a league match in Leeds; there does not seem to be any reason to pinpoint the event.

phil_20686, on 2011-October-06, 12:42, said:

As opposed to the doubless accurate and complete version I will presently hear on the grapevine anyway?

Well, indeed. I expect that I will hear one or more versions in Stratford, but at least then I can evaluate the source and come to my own conclusions. David's voice on this forum carries some authority, so I fear that I and others may be reluctant to discount his relating of the facts.

Anyway, in response to the OP, I would ban East for whatever the statutory length was in the given venue/event, and tell South that he should be more patient with beginners.

[mrdct]

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-06, 20:07, said:

Unless there is history between East and South, East's third question is not at all reasonable after his second question was asked and answered.

As I touched-on earlier, take a scenario of North-South playing a short club system with transfers the auction starts 1♣:(pass):1♠!

The following conversation ensues:

East: "Does that show four spades?"
South: "No"
East: "Can she have four spades?"
South: "No"

East now picks up the North-South convention card sees "no M unless with a ♦ suit and GF" and is a little bit confused so asks a further question:

East: "Can she have four spades and four diamonds?"
South: "Oh sorry, if she has a game forcing hand with a diamond suit and a four card major she would still bid 1♠ initially and then if she bids that major over what I do next it would show that sort of hand"

[Bbradley62]

I presume that didn't happen, or South wouldn't have made his final smart-ass response. And if it did happen, TD would find that out by asking East why he asked his third question, just as I suggested above. By asking East rather than looking at the card, TD can find out about (a) something odd seen on NS's convention card, or (b) a history between East and South wherein South was less than forthcoming with explanations.

[Vampyr]

mrdct, on 2011-October-06, 20:58, said:

[previous post but one]

This is plausible, but the OP does not provide any information on whether this might be the case.

[mrdct]

Alternatively, perhaps East has identified a potential system inconsistency if North has ♦ and ♠ and just wants to double-check that this particular hand-type can be ruled out. My main point is that it's very hard to opine on a Laws and Rulings situation when there is no hand, no auction, no system information and an incomplete transcript of what was said at the table.

[blackshoe]

The suggestion that the transcript of what was said at the table is incomplete comes only from others who claim to have knowledge of the event, not from the OP. It would be perfectly reasonable to treat the OP as including a complete transcript of what was said. As to a ruling, we are asked, it seems to me, to rule on the question of whether the Proprieties have been violated, and if so by whom and to what extent, and what penalties, if any, should be awarded. We are not, as I read it, being asked to rule on whether there was MI or use of UI or whether there should be a score adjustment on the basis of one of those infractions. Knowing David, I find it highly unlikely he would post as he did if he wanted a ruling on the latter points.

[gnasher]

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

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.

I think I must be rather missing the point both of these forums and of this thread. Until now, I thought that the purpose of this forum was:
(a) To discuss rulings.
(b) To discuss what the Laws currenly mean and how they are currently interpreted (but not in the way they do it on BLML).

How does telling a "short story" fit with that purpose?

[bluejak]

Well, yours was post 54 on the thread so it is obviously worth discussing.

[Trinidad]

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-06, 20:07, said:

Unless there is history between East and South, East's third question is not at all reasonable after his second question was asked and answered.

They say that dumb questions deserve dumb answers. I would add to that that dumb answers to good questions deserve dumb follow-up questions.

(Or are you really sure that the answer "No" to the first two questions adds up to full disclosure?)

Rik

[Bbradley62]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 09:25, said:

(Or are you really sure that the answer "No" to the first two questions adds up to full disclosure?)

If East wants a complete description, he should not be asking yes/no questions. Since the first two questions were yes/no questions, the responses were either correct or incorrect, but they cannot be incomplete. East should accept the answers he was given as correct and call the director if/when it becomes clear that they weren't.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-October-07, 08:39, said:

Well, yours was post 54 on the thread so it is obviously worth discussing.

OK, so I can post in this forum about any topic that I please, as long as other people are willing to discuss it? Good, I'm glad we've cleared that up.

[mrdct]

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-07, 09:44, said:

If East wants a complete description, he should not be asking yes/no questions. Since the first two questions were yes/no questions, the responses were either correct or incorrect, but they cannot be incomplete.

I don't necessarily agree with that. If a player is asked a yes/no question about a bid, particularly if it's the first question asked about the bid, some effort ought to be made to provide an answer that actual conveys the meaning of the bid, e.g:

East: "Does that show four spades?"
South: "No, it actually denies a four card major"

However, in the Orange Book 3 B 9 there is some guidance on this 'if an opponent merely says “Weak or strong?” it is not unreasonable for a player to answer “Weak”, since this is true (and since more complete answers have been known to elicit comments such as “I did not ask that.”)'. The EBU guidance doesn't actually say that you should or shouldn't give more comprehensive answers to binary choice questions. It seem common sense to me that one would actually make some effort towards explaining the meaning of a bid rather than giving a yes/no response which will inevitably lead to further questions; but under EBU rules it is "not unreasonable" to do the latter.

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-07, 09:44, said:

East should accept the answers he was given as correct and call the director if/when it becomes clear that they weren't.

After the second yes/no question, East obviously hadn't got the bottom of what North's bid meant as all he's been told is that it doesn't show 4♠ and can't have 4♠ so he wants to ask a further question or two to get a better grasp on what sort of hands North can and can't have.

[blackshoe]

Asking specific questions is dangerous. I would ask for an explanation of the agreement, and if I think the explanation given is incomplete I would ask if there's anything more I need to know. At that point, as far as I can see, I've done what's necessary to "protect myself", and besides, anything further might be viewed as harassment. If it later turns out that I wasn't told something I needed to know, then clearly I was misinformed under the law, and if damaged I'm entitled to redress.