TD at own table
Koen Grauwels
MP
W/-
W N E S
1 S - pas - pas - dbl
pas - 1 ZT - 2 S - pas
pas - 2 ZT - 3 S - pas
pas - DBL - pass
EW: rather beginners that bid strange and not always correct.
N: Club TD. (I'm also club TD and played at another table).
North had 11 HCP and was surprised by East's bidding. First not enough
to bid, later enought to go to 3S
East dummy appears to have 8 HCP, 4 card Spades and a doubleton. Asked
by North why he did pass he says: "That is normal; I always bid like
that; I can still bid afterwards". North's opinion is that his partner
knows about this habit (considering EW's level, I'm not sure about this)
and should have alerted. Contract 3S! was made.
North complained to EW and proposed them to change the score to 3S made.
EW agreed with this.
Afterwards E complained to me that the score was changed from 3S! to 3S.
I was not called at the table about this incident, but in my opinion it
was not possible that North played TD at his own table. I changed the
score back to 3S! made for EW. I didn't even verify what happened at the
table. (I was also playing, so not really a lot of time).
Questions:
1. Do you think I had to verify the complete situation or can I consider
the change of the score as a seperate unallowed case.
2. For complete case: Probably correct to change the score to 3S?
Sven Pran
"Koen Grauwels" <kgra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5iSAd.18$8F2...@news.oracle.com...
A rather awkward situation, particularly because EW are described as
rather beginners. (I do allow a lot from beginners that I do not allow from
more experienced players)
With you available in the room I cannot understand why you were not
summoned when East's hand was revealed. This is a failure by North
which I consider sufficient reason to deny any adjustment.
Now to the substance of the case:
I consider it most likely that with correct information on East's bidding
habits South might not care to balance (we have not been told South's hand)
so I would probably have adjusted the score to 1S made with 9 tricks.
And of course you must establish the complete situation (hearing both
sides) before making your ruling.
regards Sven
Koen Grauwels
table. North did change the bidding without calling the director (played
TD at own table). This is not allowed, so I changed the score back to
3S! made and I informed both parties of this change.
I will not treat the real issue now because I was not yet called for it.
N/S can call me again for it if they want.
The message is: Do not/never change the score without calling TD.
...correct?
Sven Pran
"Koen Grauwels" wrote ...............
> The message is: Do not/never change the score without calling TD.
> ...correct?
Absolutely correct!
See for instance Laws 10A and 10B
And a playing Director should obviously never make any ruling at
his own table if there is another Director available in the room.
regards Sven
David Stevenson
I doubt it is really obvious. Club TDs will often make such a ruling
- and will be expected to. Of course, it depends somewhat on what type
of ruling.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
Peter Smulders
East is willing to pass his partner's 1S opening, even though he has 8 hcp
and 4 spades. This is just bad bridge and not a special agreement or
convention. The 2S and 3S bids express nothing else then the desire to play
those contracts. So, what is the reason to adjust the score?
Peter Hayes
Perhaps North got upset that East managed to convince NS that he
overbid.
--
Peter
Sven Pran
> Sven Pran schreef
>
>>
>> "Koen Grauwels" <kgra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5iSAd.18$8F2...@news.oracle.com...
>>> Following situation in local clubtournament:
>>> MP
>>> W/-
>>>
>>> W N E S
>>> 1 S - pas - pas - dbl
>>> pas - 1 ZT - 2 S - pas
>>> pas - 2 ZT - 3 S - pas
>>> pas - DBL - pass
>>>
>> Now to the substance of the case:
>>
>> I consider it most likely that with correct information on East's
>> bidding habits South might not care to balance (we have not been told
>> South's hand) so I would probably have adjusted the score to 1S made
>> with 9 tricks.
>>
>> And of course you must establish the complete situation (hearing both
>> sides) before making your ruling.
>
> East is willing to pass his partner's 1S opening, even though he has 8 hcp
> and 4 spades. This is just bad bridge and not a special agreement or
> convention. The 2S and 3S bids express nothing else then the desire to
> play
> those contracts. So, what is the reason to adjust the score?
The main reason for South to reopen the auction is that he will expect a
maximum of 5HCP with East and thus North and South together quite
likely has the "lion's share" of the cards.
East may pass with his 8HCP and full support to partner as much as he wants,
but we have been told that East has a habit of passing such hands expecting
to get a second round in the auction. This is "partnership experience" (if
not
directly an agreement) of which North and South must be informed.
Such information will certainly lessen the temptation for South to balance
so
when this habit on East is not disclosed properly I shall normally rule that
South might have selected to pass rather than to balance and consequently
adjust the score accordingly. The reason for adjusting the score is not that
East plays bad bridge, it is that he has a habit, known to his partner but
which
is concealed from his opponents and which could have influenced opponents'
actions.
Note that I do not just remove the final double. If EW in this case had
eventually
reached a contract of 4S and it made then I would still have adjusted to 1S
made 10 tricks (in that case) for EW!
Sven
Peter Smulders
The way I see it the EW pair has such a degree of inexperience that the
term "partnership experience" hardly applies. While E thinks it is normal
to pass in the given situation one can not expect his partner to know that
this is very unusual. If EW had spent an hour or so studying an
introductory booklet on bridge this thing might not have happened. But
assuming that ignorance is no excuse and E's pass is alertable, let's look
at the further bidding. We see that N fully describes his hand with 1 NT,
but nevertheless makes 2 further bids in the sequel, even though his
partner, (who apparently gave a balancing double on something like 7-8
hcp), remains silent. N may expect less then 6 hcp with E, but knows little
about the strenght of S and W. If 3 of E's 8 hcp had been with W there
might have been the same bidding sequence and there would have been no
case, for instance. He might have left it up to his partner to double 3S. I
would let him bear the full consequence of his speculative double. Not to
talk about his initiative to adjust the score in his own favor.
Sven Pran
..............
> The way I see it the EW pair has such a degree of inexperience that the
> term "partnership experience" hardly applies. While E thinks it is normal
> to pass in the given situation one can not expect his partner to know that
> this is very unusual. If EW had spent an hour or so studying an
> introductory booklet on bridge this thing might not have happened. But
> assuming that ignorance is no excuse and E's pass is alertable, let's look
> at the further bidding. We see that N fully describes his hand with 1 NT,
> but nevertheless makes 2 further bids in the sequel, even though his
> partner, (who apparently gave a balancing double on something like 7-8
> hcp), remains silent. N may expect less then 6 hcp with E, but knows
> little
> about the strenght of S and W. If 3 of E's 8 hcp had been with W there
> might have been the same bidding sequence and there would have been no
> case, for instance. He might have left it up to his partner to double 3S.
> I
> would let him bear the full consequence of his speculative double. Not to
> talk about his initiative to adjust the score in his own favor.
I already covered these items in a previous post where I wrote something
like:
"I accept much from inexperienced players that I do not accept from more
experienced ones". But as the existence of partnership experience is
independent of partnership quality I would still adjust if I find that EW
failing to
inform their opponents of their particular style could have damaged
opponents.
They have no excuse believing that it is normal to pass out partner's
opening
bid with a good fit and 8HCP unless they are playing at a bridge party where
they are about to learn that such a hand calls for a bid at the first
opportunity.
And as the crucial point is when South had the choice of balancing or
passing
the further activities by North and South are relevant only to the extent
they
fall into the category of "wild and gambling".
Finally I believe we do not need any more discussion on a playing director
taking action like this in spite of another director being available in the
room.
regards Sven
Frances
If the other potential TD is also playing, I do not think this is true.
I would expect a playing director to make a standard lawbook ruling at
his own table if required. He's the director, let him direct rather
than ruining the round of someone else in the room who isn't the
official TD for the evening.
A score adjustment is of course a completely different matter. I
wouldn't object to a playing TD adjusting against himself (e.g. after a
bum claim) but giving a ruling in his favour? Even if it's cut and
dried (which this isn't by any means) then it's just bad for club
morale to do so.
Sven Pran
................
>> And a playing Director should obviously never make any ruling at
>> his own table if there is another Director available in the room.
>>
>> regards Sven
>
> If the other potential TD is also playing, I do not think this is true.
May I remind you that I wrote "another Director _available_ in the room"?
Sven
David Stevenson
I am surprised at this from someone whose postings I respect very
highly. Circumstances alter cases. To suggest it is always bad for
club morale I think is just ignoring this fact.
The last time I had to make a judgement ruling at my team-mates' table
I ruled in our team's favour. Naturally I explained my ruling in such a
way that the other team accepted the ruling was right.
Why did I rule at their table? Because *they* insisted - especially
one of the opponents.
As for ruling for your opponents is safe, but for yourself is bad for
morale, that will lose you respect.
No, Frances, it may be rarely right to rule at your own table, but if
it is right do it correctly: bum rulings are much worse for club morale.
Peter Smulders
Well, at least we agree that the original poster made the correct
decision, and we are just discussing the hypothetical case that the
available TD had been called in time.
Whether EW's bidding style is merely inexperience or an alertable tactic is
debatable. I would extend your philosophy "I accept much from inexperienced
players that I do not accept from more experienced ones" also to this case.
In any case, not knowing opponents habit of trying to settle for the
cheapest contract rather than investigate game does not relieve NS of using
common sense in their further bidding. Furthermore, I doubt if NS are
damaged. If S knows that E may very well have spade support, the risk of a
balancing double is smaller and the likelihood of lifting opponents to the
2- or 3-level larger. It was not S who complained.
Frances
Circumstances certainly alter cases. You are a well-known and
well-respected national TD. I would suggest your rulings will generally
be better accepted than a ruling in their own favour from an occasional
club director who may be less experienced at explaining the logic
behind a ruling.
> As for ruling for your opponents is safe, but for yourself is bad
for
> morale, that will lose you respect.
>
> No, Frances, it may be rarely right to rule at your own table, but
if
> it is right do it correctly: bum rulings are much worse for club
morale.
>
Have you misunderstood me slightly? I would never give a bum ruling
(well, not deliberately, anyway). If I saw the potential for a ruling
in my favour I would prefer someone else to give it. Or perhaps, in a
judgement case, to consult with someone else in front of the opponents.
If I saw a straight lawbook ruling or a ruling against my side I would
be happy to give it.
I think the following chain of events is bad for morale:
a) Club TDs are often one of the better players in the club
b) There is often the assumption from poorer players that the club
"experts" tend to get rulings in their favour.
c) Surely this may lead to resentment when one of the better players
then adjusts the score on the board in their own favour. Particularly
if the ruling is close or not explained well.
In my experience, a MAJORITY of non-straightforward rulings by playing
club TDs are either definitely wrong or arguably wrong. Luckily they
are rare: knowing the LOOT, insufficient bid and revoke laws and
running the movement well is 99.9% of the job requirement.
In general, this whole situation comes up extremely rarely because
- playing TDs only exist in club events which they TD generally sees as
unimportant
- playing TDs accept they will get a worse score than usual if they TD
as well
- therefore it is rare for a playing TD to bother to want a judgement
ruling in their favour, as they're usually not expecting to do well in
the first place.
Educating opponents can be done without needing a ruling if you are the
TD as you have the authority to explain what they have done wrong.
John (MadDog) Probst
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
A lot of players who know me will ask me to rule at the table. Under
those circumstances I do so. I rule against myself of course and just
shrug if the opponents have got something through against me. In those
circumstances i might mention it in the bar afterwards.
>
> As for ruling for your opponents is safe, but for yourself is bad for
>morale, that will lose you respect.
>
> No, Frances, it may be rarely right to rule at your own table, but if
>it is right do it correctly: bum rulings are much worse for club morale.
>
--
John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou
451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou
London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john
DavJFlower
>wouldn't object to a playing TD adjusting against himself (e.g. after a
>bum claim) but giving a ruling in his favour? Even if it's cut and
>dried (which this isn't by any means) then it's just bad for club
>morale to do so.
>
That depends how 'cut and dried'.
Would you object to a playing TD awarding himself the master trump when
declarer had claimed the rest of the tricks ?
Dave Flower
Mike Bell
davjf...@aol.com (DavJFlower) wrote:
I know that it is technically not the case, but in effect he is making a
ruling against himself in this scenario - he has to win the master
trump, so he is giving declarer any benefit of the doubt that he
wouldn't find a way to lose any more tricks.