[pescetom]

 EugeneLS, on 2026-November-04, 10:53, said:

I can remember another incident which, quite by accident, played havoc with the whole afternoon's session. My partner - alas! - was partly to blame: I think he was relatively new to duplicate.

The club had the familiar oblong boards, in which North and South face the short edges and East and West the long edges. Sitting North, I was dummy and my partner rotated the board 90° to give me more space to table the dummy. I, and the opponents, should have noticed and stopped him, but we didn't.

You can guess the rest! We replaced our cards in the wrong slots; it wasn't noticed until the scoring computer threw a wobbly, and the whole board had to be cancelled.

I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't the only ones! But luckily my partner, who owned up, wasn't penalised. Lesson learnt!

Everyone at the table is to blame for the rotation and deserves a penalty for causing problems to the tournament.
Not sure why people feel happy rather than guilty when a punishment they know they deserve fails to arrive, or resentful with TD rather than with themselves when it does arrive, but such is human psychology. The important thing is to learn the lesson

[jillybean]

EugeneLS, on 2026-November-04, 10:39, said:

In my experience, in my f2f bridge days, at our small club the Director was also one of the players (hopefully, a matter of trust, that they wouldn't take advantage of seeing a board they hadn't yet played). It was all, 99% of the time, very friendly. If we had to call the Director it was usually to rule on an obvious infringement like a revoke or insufficient bid - and no-one could object to that.

However, I recall a slightly unpleasant incident when "Director!" was called against me. I'd just doubled my RHO's bid and he promptly called the Director, I couldn't fathom why. It transpired that he'd seen my partner 'grimace' in some way when I doubled. I'd not noticed this at all, I was looking at my hand and the bidding cards. Honest!

The Director, thankfully, ruled that this was a non-event and the board should be played out as normal. But for some time after that I harboured a bit of a grudge against the opponent in question. Could he have handled his suspicions a bit more tactfully?

"Director!" was not called against you, but because your partner made a visible reaction to your double. This conveys your partner's disapproval, shock, or surprise at the bid. Because this constitutes unauthorized information (UI) for you. The Director will not consider whether you actually saw the reaction or not.

What do you think your opponent suspected you of? Perhaps they could have called the Director in a calmer, kinder tone—I like to insist on "Director, please"—but the style of calling is less important than ensuring the Director is called whenever an anomaly occurs.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-November-04, 11:22, said:

Everyone at the table is to blame for the rotation and deserves a penalty for causing problems to the tournament.
Not sure why people feel happy rather than guilty when a punishment they know they deserve fails to arrive, or resentful with TD rather than with themselves when it does arrive, but such is human psychology. The important thing is to learn the lesson

Eugene is probably playing in North America, we don't give out penalties.

[axman]

EugeneLS, on 2026-November-04, 10:39, said:

In my experience, in my f2f bridge days, at our small club the Director was also one of the players (hopefully, a matter of trust, that they wouldn't take advantage of seeing a board they hadn't yet played). It was all, 99% of the time, very friendly. If we had to call the Director it was usually to rule on an obvious infringement like a revoke or insufficient bid - and no-one could object to that.

However, I recall a slightly unpleasant incident when "Director!" was called against me. I'd just doubled my RHO's bid and he promptly called the Director, I couldn't fathom why. It transpired that he'd seen my partner 'grimace' in some way when I doubled. I'd not noticed this at all, I was looking at my hand and the bidding cards. Honest!

The Director, thankfully, ruled that this was a non-event and the board should be played out as normal. But for some time after that I harboured a bit of a grudge against the opponent in question. Could he have handled his suspicions a bit more tactfully?

ES>> I'd just doubled my RHO's bid and he promptly called the Director, I couldn't fathom why. It transpired that he'd seen my partner 'grimace' in some way when I doubled. I'd not noticed this at all, I was looking at my hand and the bidding cards.

Concerning fair play. When it is likely (probable) that a player was unaware of inferences due to being oblivious (attention was directed elsewhere –judged here by the TD) I don’t want inferences created improperly by drawing attention unnecessarily when it could be done later. (however, when an opponent gratuitously makes such a remark I consider it on him that he caused/ converted UI to AI for my side) even when the bridge authority policy is for the player to immediately stand on the table and accuse the his opponent by drawing attention to such an incident lest to do so later forfeits ALL credibility.

So yes, because I choose to not ‘prematurely’ draw attention to (possible) inferences the policy frequently forfeits redress when the opponents ‘fortuitously get it right’ yet ‘improperly’ deny they created inferences and that leaves a bad taste.

[jillybean]

axman, on 2026-November-05, 05:08, said:

ES>> I'd just doubled my RHO's bid and he promptly called the Director, I couldn't fathom why. It transpired that he'd seen my partner 'grimace' in some way when I doubled. I'd not noticed this at all, I was looking at my hand and the bidding cards.

Concerning fair play. When it is likely (probable) that a player was unaware of inferences due to being oblivious (attention was directed elsewhere –judged here by the TD) I don’t want inferences created improperly by drawing attention unnecessarily when it could be done later. (however, when an opponent gratuitously makes such a remark I consider it on him that he caused/ converted UI to AI for my side) even when the bridge authority policy is for the player to immediately stand on the table and accuse the his opponent by drawing attention to such an incident lest to do so later forfeits ALL credibility.

So yes, because I choose to not ‘prematurely’ draw attention to (possible) inferences the policy frequently forfeits redress when the opponents ‘fortuitously get it right’ yet ‘improperly’ deny they created inferences and that leaves a bad taste.

Please quote the Law(s) you are using?

[barmar]

axman, on 2026-November-05, 05:08, said:

ES>> I'd just doubled my RHO's bid and he promptly called the Director, I couldn't fathom why. It transpired that he'd seen my partner 'grimace' in some way when I doubled. I'd not noticed this at all, I was looking at my hand and the bidding cards.

Concerning fair play. When it is likely (probable) that a player was unaware of inferences due to being oblivious (attention was directed elsewhere –judged here by the TD) I don’t want inferences created improperly by drawing attention unnecessarily when it could be done later. (however, when an opponent gratuitously makes such a remark I consider it on him that he caused/ converted UI to AI for my side) even when the bridge authority policy is for the player to immediately stand on the table and accuse the his opponent by drawing attention to such an incident lest to do so later forfeits ALL credibility.

So yes, because I choose to not ‘prematurely’ draw attention to (possible) inferences the policy frequently forfeits redress when the opponents ‘fortuitously get it right’ yet ‘improperly’ deny they created inferences and that leaves a bad taste.

The problem is that the opponent doesn't know whether you noticed your partner's reaction or not. They need to protect themselves in case you did notice.

It's true that this is not a perfect system. If you didn't notice you obviously couldn't take advantage. By calling the director, the opponent has now ensured that you know about it. Now you have to figure out what you're no longer allowed to do because of the UI.

But making things easier for you is not their responsibility.

[EugeneLS]

jillybean, on 2026-November-04, 17:37, said:

"Director!" was not called against you, but because your partner made a visible reaction to your double. This conveys your partner's disapproval, shock, or surprise at the bid. Because this constitutes unauthorized information (UI) for you. The Director will not consider whether you actually saw the reaction or not.

What do you think your opponent suspected you of? Perhaps they could have called the Director in a calmer, kinder tone—I like to insist on "Director, please"—but the style of calling is less important than ensuring the Director is called whenever an anomaly occurs.

I must admit, I did worry for some time about that call. Perhaps because I'm not really conversant with the Laws concerning this sort of thing.

jillybean, on 2026-November-04, 17:39, said:

Eugene is probably playing in North America, we don't give out penalties.

Absolutely NOT! I live in the UK - as my profile makes clear.

[axman]

jillybean, on 2026-November-05, 05:54, said:

Please quote the Law(s) you are using?

A rather commendable observation. I was alluding to how I conduct myself fairly- while balancing the interests of all. There is a difference between what the law calls for (which largely is unfair) and the conduct that emanates from the law. For instance there is a doctrine known as protect oneself (which entails drawing attention to significant occurrences during the hand). On many occasions I did this ‘protecting myself’ and it converted respectable scores into zeros every time (think about the reason for play stops upon a claim). From that observation I developed the policy of never ‘protecting myself’ during the hand.

[axman]

barmar, on 2026-November-05, 17:38, said:

The problem is that the opponent doesn't know whether you noticed your partner's reaction or not. They need to protect themselves in case you did notice.

It's true that this is not a perfect system. If you didn't notice you obviously couldn't take advantage. By calling the director, the opponent has now ensured that you know about it. Now you have to figure out what you're no longer allowed to do because of the UI.

But making things easier for you is not their responsibility.

The problems first of all have more to do with the doctrine: never permit any instance to go unpunished (which is compounded exponentially by the plethora of bad policies written into law). So contrary to your assertion it is the duty of the lawmakers to make it easier for the players.

[jillybean]

EugeneLS, on 2026-November-06, 03:40, said:

I must admit, I did worry for some time about that call. Perhaps because I'm not really conversant with the Laws concerning this sort of thing.


Absolutely NOT! I live in the UK - as my profile makes clear.

Eugene, my apologies. I did not check your profile—what an awful thing to accuse you of! Assuming you had to suffer through the wild west of North American club enforcement was uncalled for.
You are fortunate to be playing in a much more law-friendly environment; the EBU produces a player-friendly version of the Laws in the EBU Blue Book.


https://www.ebu.co.u...k/blue-book.pdf