[lamford]

---

IMPs
This hand got quite nasty this week at a North London club. West led the six of spades and East won and made the natural return of a heart to West's ace. A second trump was deadly, and South, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, could not even get out for one off. The -500 did not compare favourably with the many +790s on other tables, and cost 15 IMPs.

"Director", bellowed SB loudly. The TD arrived and SB continued: "West's opening lead showed a clear indication of UI from another source, and two Italians were recently referred on the basis of one hand only." He paused for breath. "I suspect West overheard something from another table or has hacked in to the club's duplimate program." "Either that, or East signalled for a spade lead in some way."

West was almost lost for words. "Actually, I thought I had led the ace of hearts", he riposted, "but I have arthritis and accidentally took out the six of spades, the card next to it."

"A likely story", replied SB, "you clearly had that old chestnut ready for when the **** hit the fan".

How would you rule, and what action would you take against SB?

[mr1303]

I would ring Gordon and ask what to do...

[mgoetze]

I would ring Frances and ask her to put it on the agenda for the next L&E meeting...

[blackshoe]

No infraction by EW. Result stands. Twice the standard DP to SB for violation of the Best Behaviour @ Bridge policy/Law 74A. SB's accusations go too far.

[sfi]

Last time this sort of public accusation happened during play when I was there, the accuser was banned for an extensive period of time. At the very least I would expect a formal investigation of declarer's behaviour leading to disciplinary action.

[lamford]

 mgoetze, on 2015-September-13, 21:02, said:

I would ring Frances and ask her to put it on the agenda for the next L&E meeting...

Sadly, the "North London club" in question is not affiliated, and SB is not a member of the EBU so neither they nor Gordontd has jurisdiction.

[billw55]

Result stands, record hand, and suspend SB.

[blackshoe]

For how long? Thirty days seem reasonable?

[lamford]

 billw55, on 2015-September-14, 06:04, said:

Result stands, record hand, and suspend SB.

There is no fitting on the ceiling at this particular club ... I must admit that I would be very suspicious if Fantoni or Nunes led the six of spades on this hand, and they then claimed that they had "temporarily lost their mind". And what West gave as a reason is not that relevant. He would say that, wouldn't he? I would certainly be recording the hand.

[billw55]

 blackshoe, on 2015-September-14, 07:02, said:

For how long? Thirty days seem reasonable?

That's good for a first offense. Although I suspect for this SB, it is not. Perhaps we can prevail on Lamford to disclose the disciplinary records of the North London Club

Tolerating bad behavior is one of the best ways to destroy a club. Let things like this go, and good people stop showing up.

[weejonnie]

 lamford, on 2015-September-14, 08:38, said:

There is no fitting on the ceiling at this particular club ... I must admit that I would be very suspicious if Fantoni or Nunes led the six of spades on this hand, and they then claimed that they had "temporarily lost their mind". And what West gave as a reason is not that relevant. He would say that, wouldn't he? I would certainly be recording the hand.

Sometimes the reason given by a player might actually be correct - 'don't assign to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence'.

And whilst quoting platitudes 'one swallow doth not a summer make' - so recording the hand seems a very Solomonic decision. Presumably you advise West that the lead was very unusual but effective and thus is being recorded (as well as his explanation), but there is no stain, as yet upon EW's escutcheon.

SB should not only be suspended but his body drawn and quartered. He may feel righteous anger but has to learn to control his temper. (Or alternatively forced to play an evening duplicate with the club equivalent of Ch.Ch.)

[lamford]

 billw55, on 2015-September-14, 09:08, said:

Perhaps we can prevail on Lamford to disclose the disciplinary records of the North London Club

SB has been a member for ten years and has a much better disciplinary record than Luis Suárez (a soccer player), who has had two suspensions for biting opponents. SB has had 117 DPs in total, an average of about one per month, all for being rude or unpleasant to an opponent or the TD. He has, however, never had a PP, as he follows the laws to the letter. All DPs were for breaches of 74A2 and 74B5. Despite blackshoe's arguments, SB normally only gets the standard DP, and he records them meticulously in his diary.

[blackshoe]

120 DPs over ten years? Sounds to me like the SB now considers a DP once a month as part of his "table fee".

Screw that. Suspend him for 30 days, since you haven't seen fit to suspend him before this. When he comes back, the first outburst that would have netted him a DP before should result in permanent expulsion — and that should be explained to him when he is suspended, and again on the first day of his return.

If SB is breaching 74A2 and 74B5 then he is most certainly not following the laws to the letter.

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2015-September-14, 10:17, said:

When he comes back, the first outburst that would have netted him a DP before should result in permanent expulsion

If you do this we will not get any more SB reports from lamford...

[lamford]

 blackshoe, on 2015-September-14, 10:17, said:

If SB is breaching 74A2 and 74B5 then he is most certainly not following the laws to the letter.

SB does not agree he does. He thinks he is quite entitled to tell the TD that "West's opening lead showed a clear indication of UI from another source", and to ask for a ruling. The declarer who reported Nunes and Fantoni to the prosecuting authority in Italy based on one hand has been shown to be vindicated. If SB had been West on this hand, you would all have been quick to want a public lynching.

[blackshoe]

A DP is given in aid of the TD's duty to maintain order and discipline. While I have never considered doing it, and think that players, at least, will see it as "too much", there's nothing in the law that I can see that precludes a TD issuing both a DP and a PP for the same infraction.

But I don't think that's the point. I don't want to lynch the SB, as attractive as that idea sometimes seems. Nor do I want to expel him from his club. I want to get him to stop acting like a jerk.

[barmar]

 sfi, on 2015-September-13, 22:14, said:

Last time this sort of public accusation happened during play when I was there, the accuser was banned for an extensive period of time. At the very least I would expect a formal investigation of declarer's behaviour leading to disciplinary action.

As much as I dislike C's, if we could get a year or so without SB it would make for a more pleasant playing experience.

[mycroft]

I really don't have much of an issue with SB's calls and logic. His attitude to partner, opponents and the TD are what would earn him an "invitation to the world" at my club.

Having said that, I understand the context, and compared to HH, he's actually pretty good. HH would likely not just be "invited", he might be trussed up like the Hog he is :-).

Note that I am *not* looking for this "investigation of corner cases to potentially improve the situation" things to go away, just pointing out that it had *better be* theoretical behaviour :-)

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2015-September-16, 09:16, said:

As much as I dislike C's, if we could get a year or so without SB it would make for a more pleasant playing experience.

You and blackshoe are insistent that threads on here should not include the actual names of offenders, and yet you are unhappy when a mythical character is substituted, whether or not the hand is actual, constructed, or an embellished mixture.

[blackshoe]

I'm not unhappy the character is mythical, nor that the hand is constructed. The former is reasonable given the complaints made from some of our readers that giving too many actual details of an incident that occurred in England makes the players involved too easy to identify — although frankly I've always wondered why anyone would bother. The latter is mostly okay too, though I do tend to dislike edge cases — it makes these forums seem too much like blml's endless and usually futile discussions on situations that will come up rarely if ever at the table.. I don't want us to become that.