[lamford]

---

IMPs Table Result 4♦xx= EW+920

The North London Club resumed its internal competitions this week, and there was a curious incident when SB and Colin the Corgi met Oscar the Owl and the Rueful Rabbit in the Chairman's Cup. CC, North, had played fairly well until this late board. OO, West, knew they were losing the match, and decided to try something, knowing that his 4♦ was systemically diamonds and major, and expecting to create a random result, possibly with RR forgetting. RR alerted 4♦ and initially described it as both majors, but when pressed by CC who said that 2♦ was a multi, not a weak two in diamonds, his memory was jolted, and he replied, "then I think that is diamonds and a major, but I am not sure". North doubled, alerted by SB, South, and correctly explained as "Bid your major if you have a weak two". RR was rather confused by all this technology but he wanted to play in his partner's major if he had one. He also doubled, assuming it would have the same meaning as North's double. SB gave him a withering look. "Why do we need the TD on just about every hand you play, RR?" he asked rudely. "Director, please" he called, almost apologetically.

The TD arrived and read out Law 36. RR was now fully confused and substituted Redouble. He knew that could only be SOS as he was not allowed to redouble for business with any of his North London partners. When his partner passed (perforce) he went a bright red and apologised profusely when he put down the dummy. Oscar the Owl had no difficulty guessing the diamonds on the bidding and was soon notching up +920. "We might manage the rara avis of +920 in both rooms despite the adverse vulnerability" commented OO, but SB was far from amused.

"You could have been aware that making an initial inadmissible double and then substituting redouble could well damage the non-offending side", he shouted at RR. "And you also breached Law 72B1 in that you deliberately broke a law and were prepared to pay the penalty," he continued. If you had just redoubled without doubling first, West would still have passed, but now North would have known that West had very long diamonds and would have bid 5♣, which I might well have raised to six. And you are unlikely to have found the ace of hearts lead. So, rather than -920, I think the score should be changed to +920. In addition there was potential MI unless E/W can prove that 4D showed diamonds and a major." "I can," replied OO, "and have a complete system file here". "Not that RR remembers any of it mind you," he added. "But his second explanation was indeed correct".

How would you rule?

[helene_t]

Rub of the green. And the usual DP for accusing an opponent of cheating.

[blackshoe]

Isn't the SB's usual DP about 4 tops?

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2016-September-25, 11:49, said:

Isn't the SB's usual DP about 4 tops?

3 times an evening, so he's going to score negative matchpoints a lot

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2016-September-25, 08:42, said:

Rub of the green. And the usual DP for accusing an opponent of cheating.

I don't think SB accused anyone of cheating. Invoking a Law 23 adjustment only means that someone could have cheated been aware.

[blackshoe]

I think it depends on how SB words it. Not going back to check, though.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-September-25, 12:23, said:

I think it depends on how SB words it. Not going back to check, though.

SB, in the presence of the TD, offered the opinion that RR had deliberately breached a Law and if he had not done so, his side would have reached Six Clubs. He also stated RR could have known his infraction could well damage the non-offenders. He is quite entitled to make both claims, just as he is entitled to claim that an opponent deliberately used UI. He did not use the "ch" word. RR might have been adopting a cunning plan to pretend he had a diamond fit (by silencing his partner before redoubling) to try to bully the opponents into bidding 4M, knowing the suit was breaking 5-0. The fact that he got lucky (because OO had psyched) is irrelevant.

If SB had been East, I am sure we would all want to hang him from the rafters. We should treat all players equally, or the integrity of directing disappears.

And where does this expression "rub of the green" come from? I don't find it in any of the Laws, nor in the glossary.

[sanst]

Maybe it isn't an accusation of cheating when you state that your opponent has deliberately breached a law, but it it comes so near that I can't tell the difference. It's certainly a breach of the only law SB always forgets: 74A2.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2016-September-25, 14:45, said:

Maybe it isn't an accusation of cheating when you state that your opponent has deliberately breached a law, but it it comes so near that I can't tell the difference. It's certainly a breach of the only law SB always forgets: 74A2.

I don't think Law 74A2 should apply when the TD is present. Otherwise any statement to the director about another player could cause embarrassment. In this case, the TD remained until the end of the hand. Perhaps SB should make the claim in the third person to the TD, rather than to RR directly.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2016-September-25, 14:51, said:

I don't think Law 74A2 should apply when the TD is present. Otherwise any statement to the director about another player could cause embarrassment. In this case, the TD remained until the end of the hand. Perhaps SB should make the claim in the third person to the TD, rather than to RR directly.

Where in the laws does it say that law 74 should not apply in the presence of the TD? Actually, I'm of the opinion that that law is the most important in the book, and should be followed by all players at all times, no matter what.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2016-September-25, 16:24, said:

Where in the laws does it say that law 74 should not apply in the presence of the TD? Actually, I'm of the opinion that that law is the most important in the book, and should be followed by all players at all times, no matter what.

Rubbish. If it was the most important it would say A player MUST carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game, rather than SHOULD. The introduction says: “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized). SB is quite happy to cock a snook at the Laws here, and is indeed very rarely penalized for his abrasive and confrontational manner. Certainly, he has no intention of following this law, unless he has to do so, and when he mimicked the TD's stutter in another thread he pointed out that Law 74A2 did not include "TD" only "player" and that 74B5 is another "should" clause.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, I do not share SB's approach to the game in the slightest. And his reply to this thread was reportedly "Cut out the etiquette and now rule, please."

[blackshoe]

74A may say "player" and not "TD", but disrespect to the TD is prejudicial to good order and thus can incur a disciplinary penalty. And if the SB doesn't like it, he can whine to an appeals committee. Of course, they can't do anything about it except recommend to the TD that he change it, if they think that's appropriate.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-September-25, 21:06, said:

74A may say "player" and not "TD", but disrespect to the TD is prejudicial to good order and thus can incur a disciplinary penalty. And if the SB doesn't like it, he can whine to an appeals committee. Of course, they can't do anything about it except recommend to the TD that he change it, if they think that's appropriate.

I agree that the TD has almost unlimited powers under Laws 90 and 91. The good TD however does take note of the laws which say "should" and notes that "breaches of such laws are not normally punished". I did however agree with the DP suggested by I think sanst for SB mimicking the TD's stutter.

[blackshoe]

"not normally" is not the same thing as "not often". The law says the latter. It would not be (or at least should not be) abnormal to issue a PP for violation, particularly repeated violation, of a should law.

[richlp]

"Could have known" falls into the realm of using Douglas Adams' Improbability Drive.