[Ranmit]

MinorKid, on 2018-June-26, 23:25, said:

The sequence of events on that board was like that.
1. West whispered "so many spades!" before putting up a Pass card (UI).
2. North opened 1♦.
3. East ask West "how many spades do u have?" (UI). West replied 5 by extend all fingers from her hand (UI).
4. East overcalled 4♠.
5. South called the director.

I was visualizing this exchange and laughed way more than I should have.

[pran]

FelicityR, on 2018-June-28, 11:27, said:

That is probably very, very true. Perhaps I was a bit too harsh throwing the rule book at the novices, but something procedural and official beyond that one board needed to be done immediately. What if the same or a similar sequence of events happened at another board later in the evening against different opponents? I can understand their opponents being ruffled, perhaps disconcerted by what has happened, and whilst it is easy to say it's just one board and the best thing is to forget about it and carry on, that's easier said than done.

Maybe to some extent North was at fault for opening the bidding as he/she should have summoned the tournament director as soon as West whispered "So many spades" and then passed. The whole incident might have been nipped in the bud. But I do wonder how myself and a partner would have reacted if East/West had provided UI in this manner at my club? I am sure few players have come across such a blatant breach as this. It sounds like something out of a Marx Brothers' film

Not bothering about who should have called the Director and when:

Once the Director has arrived at the table and learned why he was called, realizing that E/W were novices he should (in a friendly way) have told them about extraneous remarks, why they are unacceptable and the consequences of receiving UI.

He should then as best he could try to save a reasonable result on the board. To achieve this he could for instance have asked East what he would have bid without the UI he received from West. I am convinced that a good Director and with sensible players could have discussed the situation and agreed upon a reasonable auction, contract and/or result.

Of course this is not according to the laws, but in situations like this (and at the apparent level of competition) I consider satisfaction between the players (with the result that they continue playing bridge) far more important that strictly applying the laws with the result that you never see the players again.

[Ranmit]

Some years back when I was in college, just learning bridge, the local club organized a tournament and gave our college some wildcard spots, to 'encourage bridge among the younger generation'.
We played there and did make obvious UI mistakes against the experienced players - though nothing quite so brazen as this one - but we readily accepted the UI as errors on our part and the suggested resolutions. (The UI was a reactionary gasp & clicking of the tongue after realizing that a very wrong bid had just been made . Understanding the rule and thereafter bidding the alternative not suggested by the UI, we ended in a part score in what was a potential slam).
Playing in a tournament with good quality opponents, even though we finished expectedly near the bottom, definitely increased our interest in the game.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I agree with ahydra and pran on not giving PP or strong warnings here, but rather a clear explanation of the rules - and see if they accept it sincerely and in the right spirit. If they dont, then of course one should tone up the harshness.

[blackshoe]

ahydra, on 2018-June-27, 20:06, said:

explain to the whole table that this is how the UI law works, and that any use of UI will always result in a score adjustment and may well result in a PP on top.

With the last part of that, the PP, I agree. However, use of UI will result in a score adjustment only if the NOS are damaged.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2018-June-28, 11:46, said:

Of course this is not according to the laws,

I'm surprised that a competent director would even consider giving a ruling that is not according to the laws.

[pescetom]

Vampyr, on 2018-June-28, 10:45, said:

Most clubs I am familiar with allow visitors without vetting them in advance.

Of course they do, but it is very rare that a pair of novices turn up at a club that is not their own.
Much more likely that they are taking a course with the same club, or at least that some club official invited them to play.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-June-28, 13:22, said:

I'm surprised that a competent director would even consider giving a ruling that is not according to the laws.

Slightly OT:
Many years ago I was called to an irregularity involving among the players one of the absolute top directors at that time.
I no longer remember the actual case other than being a matter of TD judgement.

My ruling went against that player, a bit lenient on the less experienced pair, and I added: "This is such a case where I rule differently in 1st and 5th division".

My fellow TD burst into a laughter exclaiming that she had absolutely no problem with that.

This annual event at Christmas time was one of the most popular we had with participation from absolutely top level to "below average".

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-June-28, 14:06, said:

Of course they do, but it is very rare that a pair of novices turn up at a club that is not their own.
Much more likely that they are taking a course with the same club, or at least that some club official invited them to play.

Although I can describe an exception that proves the rule.

A few years ago a woman showed up at our club out of the blue. She'd never played bridge before, nor even took a class, but she knew "bridge whist", which I guess is one of the forms of the game from the transition from whist to bridge. Someone gave her a brief explanation of the rudiments, and we allowed her to sit in and play and try to figure it out as she went. We recommended some books she could read and suggested she take our class that January.

She ended up playing pretty regularly for a while, but then disappeared.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-June-29, 08:20, said:

Although I can describe an exception that proves the rule.

A few years ago a woman showed up at our club out of the blue. She'd never played bridge before, nor even took a class, but she knew "bridge whist", which I guess is one of the forms of the game from the transition from whist to bridge. Someone gave her a brief explanation of the rudiments, and we allowed her to sit in and play and try to figure it out as she went. We recommended some books she could read and suggested she take our class that January.

She ended up playing pretty regularly for a while, but then disappeared.

Here if someone turns up out of the blue and has never played we would try to talk them into joining a course or watching a tournament to see what it is all about. If she knew the rudiments we would also pair her off with a tutor to play in the more tolerant Friday tournament, which doesn't have a real TD anyway. But we wouldn't allow her to play with another beginner or to play in a real competitive tournament where you must have a licence anyway.
The dividing line is club membership which entails a significant annual fee, so people who aren't really hooked or have had mixed experiences will often disappear when payment arises.

[axman]

pran, on 2018-June-28, 23:24, said:

My ruling went against that player, a bit lenient on the less experienced pair, and I added: "This is such a case where I rule differently in 1st and 5th division".

I have some recollection of my inaugural session. I had accumulated a couple dozen hands over the lunch table and read a Goren cheat sheet. It so happened that I fortunately had stumbled into the strongest 45 table game for 5-600 miles. At least half were sharks. I was paired with a Norwegian International. And for all the nervous trepidation it was a good time.

But if the TD had said, "This is such a case where I rule differently in 1st and 5th division." it would have been the last session. Actually, it almost was the last session because after the scores were posted what was said was, 'You have a lot of talent.' Which I translated as solicitous manipulation.

There is much dignity in being treated as a bridge player; which is lost when treated as a piece of meat.

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2018-June-29, 11:00, said:

But we wouldn't allow her to play with another beginner or to play in a real competitive tournament where you must have a licence anyway.

Hm. Who issues these licenses? How much do they cost?

The concept of a license to play bridge surprises me, but then so did the concept of a license to watch television when I lived in England.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2018-June-29, 19:00, said:

Hm. Who issues these licenses? How much do they cost?

The concept of a license to play bridge surprises me, but then so did the concept of a license to watch television when I lived in England.

Licenses are issued by the national federation, as in all Olympic sports, to which Bridge is equated.
You can't play in a federal club or event without having a federal licence, and you can't currently get a licence without being a member of a club.
The licence doesn't demonstrate any level of ability, just commitment and verified identity.
IIRC a club pays 500 Euros annual affiliation to the federation independent of it's membership.
Each member of a club pays annual membership which includes the fee for a federal licence.
The licence fee varies between 20 Euros for a beginner or someone who can only play social games in his own club, to 50 Euros to be able to play in any club and up to regional championships, to 100 Euros to compete at any level.
So the annual membership fee for a beginner varies from about 50 Euros to 120 Euros according mainly to size of club and whether or not it pays rent.
About 30 Euros a year more for a competitive player.
But actual play costs less than many countries, a national simultaneous tournament is usually around 6 Euros often with the possibility of winning modest cash prizes.

[MinorKid]

I think converting to 1S was a very lenient penalty. By standard , it can be treated as simular as intentional exposed card by west prior to East's call, in which east must pass on that round (penalty under L24) but instead she made a bid, violating obligation by law to pass(L37B). If south does not call nor accept the infraction, then EW will be slienced for the whole auction. Futhermore , such enforced withdrawn should attract lead restriction penalty on both partners.(one for exposed "cards" & one for withdrawn call undet L37)!

It is a matter way beyond civil law 16 can handle. But L16 can be brought into if applicable.

[gordontd]

MinorKid, on 2018-June-30, 09:18, said:

I think converting to 1S was a very lenient penalty. By standard , it can be treated as simular as intentional exposed card by west prior to East's call

No, it can't. An exposed card could be named by one of the other players at the table.

MinorKid, on 2018-June-30, 09:18, said:

, in which east must pass on that round (penalty under L24) but instead she made a bid, violating obligation by law to pass(L37B). If south does not call nor accept the infraction, then EW will be slienced for the whole auction. Futhermore , such enforced withdrawn should attract lead restriction penalty on both partners.(one for exposed "cards" & one for withdrawn call undet L37)!

It is a matter way beyond civil law 16 can handle. But L16 can be brought into if applicable.

You can't just make stuff up to suit yourself.

Having now read your edited original post, I should also say that nor can the TD make stuff up on a whim.

[blackshoe]

Clearly the solution is to let the pair continue to do this until they've been playing for a year or two, and then take them out in the back yard and shoot them in the head.


"That's the stupidest way to raise a bridge player I've ever heard of!"

"True, but back in the 20th Century, that's how they raised their kids."

--- Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers

Actually, Heinlein was talking about raising a puppy. Call it poetic license.

[pescetom]

I'm even more lenient, it sounds to me as if they have the stuff of good bridge players.
Just take their teacher out in the back yard and shoot him in the head

[gordontd]

gordontd, on 2018-June-30, 11:00, said:

No, it can't. An exposed card could be named by one of the other players at the table.

I've realised this might not be very clear. What I mean is that if no-one at a table could name the card that is suggested has been "exposed", then it certainly wasn't. The player named part of his distribution, but no specific cards within the hand.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2018-June-29, 19:00, said:

Hm. Who issues these licenses? How much do they cost?

The concept of a license to play bridge surprises me, but then so did the concept of a license to watch television when I lived in England.

It sounds like it's something analogous to being an ACBL member.

But except for a handful of specific events, ACBL doesn't require you to be a member to play in their tournaments, although they often have a surcharge for non-members. Club games are generally even more lenient, it's quite common for non-members to play (but ACBL has incentive programs that encourage clubs to get their players to join ACBL).

[Vampyr]

pescetom, on 2018-June-30, 05:15, said:

Licenses are issued by the national federation, as in all Olympic sports, to which Bridge is equated.
You can't play in a federal club or event without having a federal licence, and you can't currently get a licence without being a member of a club.
The licence doesn't demonstrate any level of ability, just commitment and verified identity.
IIRC a club pays 500 Euros annual affiliation to the federation independent of it's membership.
Each member of a club pays annual membership which includes the fee for a federal licence.
The licence fee varies between 20 Euros for a beginner or someone who can only play social games in his own club, to 50 Euros to be able to play in any club and up to regional championships, to 100 Euros to compete at any level.
So the annual membership fee for a beginner varies from about 50 Euros to 120 Euros according mainly to size of club and whether or not it pays rent.
About 30 Euros a year more for a competitive player.
But actual play costs less than many countries, a national simultaneous tournament is usually around 6 Euros often with the possibility of winning modest cash prizes.

Wow

[Gerardo]

barmar, on 2018-June-30, 15:27, said:

It sounds like it's something analogous to being an ACBL member.

But except for a handful of specific events, ACBL doesn't require you to be a member to play in their tournaments, although they often have a surcharge for non-members. Club games are generally even more lenient, it's quite common for non-members to play (but ACBL has incentive programs that encourage clubs to get their players to join ACBL).

This policy changed recently with the introduction of temporary memberships.
Now sectionals and regionals require you to be a member.

Not sure about STACs.