[gartinmale]

North America, club team game, IMPs, short matches. The auction proceeded:

---

When North bid 2♥, South said nothing, so East asked what it meant. South explained it (correctly) as "natural and to play - it is *not* a transfer".

West is hard of hearing and only heard "transfer", thus interpreting East's call as lead-directing. West then bid 3♥, natural.

North inquired about 3♥ (to decide whether he should double as an anti-lead-director, but that's not relevant) and received the reply "Undiscussed - but since you've shown hearts, in similar auctions it would ask for a stop."

At this point West called the director. West admitted he could tell the explanation was longer than "transfer", but didn't ask because everyone plays transfers.

The director allowed West to change his bid to 2♠. East asked what was authorized information to him and received the answer "Only that West bid 2♠ over your double". East objected and stated that he would bid 3NT if he could take partner for some heart length. The director told East to stop talking during the auction, and East elected to pass out 2♠.

2♠ just makes. 3NT is iffy, but might make if South leads a heart.

So...

1. Is West's attempted bid of 3♥ authorized to East?

2. Is West's attempted bid of 3♥ authorized to North/South? If so, South will probably make his natural non-heart lead, which will definitely set 3NT.

(For full disclosure, I was South. I spoke to the director privately after the round because I felt like E/W had been damaged on this hand (I could have simply said "natural" instead of giving a longer explanation, for one thing. I felt I had spoken loudly enough and had looked at both opponents, but you never know). She reconsidered and looked at the hand but ruled that the result stood).

What's going on?

[RMB1]

I do not think West was misinformed by the opponents, so 3♥ should stand.

If West has been misinformed, he is allowed to change his call and his side is non-offending: the withdrawn 3♥ bid is authorised to his side and unauthorised to NS (Law 16D).

I am sorry if this sounds uncharitable, but I think the TD knew West should not be allowed to change his call and made a ruling so that EW did not gain too much.

[campboy]

The TD's ruling makes no sense. If it was right to allow West to change his call (which IMO it isn't) then the withdrawn call would be AI to East, since certainly EW are a non-offending side (law 16D).

[lalldonn]

gartinmale, on 2012-August-04, 16:25, said:

West is hard of hearing
...
West admitted he could tell the explanation was longer than "transfer", but didn't ask because everyone plays transfers.

So West, who is hard of hearing, knew he hadn't heard everything, but decided to assume the part he hadn't heard was meaningless rather than finding out what it was? It sounds like West should have gotten nothing.

[gartinmale]

I sort of sympathize with West on this point, actually - this sort of thing probably happens to him more than occasionally (people not alerting/announcing NT ranges, transfers, fourth suit forcing, etc.), and his partner is the type who will ask about everything. So he's thinking what he missed was something like "Oh sorry! That's a transfer", not the uncommon "Natural, *not* a transfer". I guess you could make the argument that the 10-12 NT is sufficiently nonstandard for a club game that West should be more on the ball, but it must suck to keep asking and slowing down the game when most of the time the bid is what you thought it was.

[blackshoe]

If I were hard of hearing, I would make damn sure I understood what was said, particularly when it is obvious to me that I didn't hear it all.

Director error. Apply Law 82C.

[bluejak]

I am somewhat hard of hearing. I ask people to repeat what they said if I did not hear it, even if I think I know what they said. If I did not, I would consider myself at fault.

I have always liked the comment on ACBL score-sheets which says something like "ASK don't ASSUME". To me people who assume are at fault.

[Fluffy]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-04, 17:24, said:

If I were hard of hearing, I would make damn sure I understood what was said, particularly when it is obvious to me that I didn't hear it all.

Director error. Apply Law 82C.

I think you would not, at some point you feel ashamed of yourself for having everyone repeat basic things, it doesn't change the fact that its your fault though

[bluejak]

Fluffy, on 2012-August-07, 07:24, said:

I think you would not, at some point you feel ashamed of yourself for having everyone repeat basic things, it doesn't change the fact that its your fault though

I don't. If I don't hear properly, I ask them to repeat. I don't feel ashamed.

[blackshoe]

Why in Hell would anyone feel ashamed about some physical problem he can do nothing about?

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-07, 07:55, said:

Why in Hell would anyone feel ashamed about some physical problem he can do nothing about?

Strange question. Disabilities of all sorts have provoked, and continue to provoke, unpleasant reactions from other people - people with disabilities have been made to feel ashamed.

[barmar]

I don't know if it's shame, but maybe embarassment or self-consciousness. People don't like sticking out, or drawing attention to their disabilities, even if it's not their fault. Some people are better at dealing with it than others.

Also, some people don't like inconveniencing others. If they have a problem, they try to overcome it themselves. If you're hard of hearing, you probably spend much of your life hearing partial sentences and filling in the missing pieces (in fact, even "normal" hearing involves quite a bit of inferencing like this, it's how you can hold a conversation at a noisy party, so HoH people are just extending it). So I'm a bit sympathetic to the player who heard "blah blah blah Transfer" and inferred what the blah's were.

I don't think this is what the ACBL was talking about when they wrote that recommendation on the CC. They were talking about situations where you don't bother to get an explanation at all, and just assume 1♠-2NT(alert) must be Jacoby 2NT. In the case in this thread, there was an explanation, and the HoH player's brain does what it naturally does to compensate for his ears' problems.

[Zelandakh]

The problem is that there are some players who try to make their opponents feel ashamed for asking any question. The same players are often fond of a minimalistic style of answering.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-August-07, 08:59, said:

The problem is that there are some players who try to make their opponents feel ashamed for asking any question. The same players are often fond of a minimalistic style of answering.

They're a-holes. Unfortunately, this likely makes people with disabilities more reluctant to ask for help. Better to risk a mistake like in the OP than the condemnation of players like this.

But in my experience, players who play unusual systems are not like this. In fact, it's quite the opposite: players with unusual systems tend to give the best explanations. If your system is like everyone else's, you tend to assume they'll fill in the blanks with GBK. But if you're playing Precision in a 2/1 world, you know that the opponents have little intuition about your methods.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2012-August-07, 08:22, said:

Strange question. Disabilities of all sorts have provoked, and continue to provoke, unpleasant reactions from other people - people with disabilities have been made to feel ashamed.

The shame in these cases belongs on those with the unpleasant reactions, not the people with disabilities. The only thing they have to be ashamed about is that they allowed the jerks to "make them" feel ashamed.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-August-07, 16:36, said:

The shame in these cases belongs on those with the unpleasant reactions, not the people with disabilities. The only thing they have to be ashamed about is that they allowed the jerks to "make them" feel ashamed.

That's how it should be. But people are not rational about things like this, and we must deal with the way people actually react. As unfair as it is, people ARE embarassed by their disabilities.

Have you never heard of people with vision or hearing problems who avoid wearing glasses or hearing aids out of vanity? Contact lenses and miniaturization of hearing aids were a big boon for these people.

[blackshoe]

Oh, I understand how people react to such meanness quite well, thank you. I don't much like the "zero tolerance" concept — I think it can and does too often lead to abuses in the name of ZT — but it's a tool I'll use as a director against bullies (and that's what they are) if I hear about it happening when I'm directing. It's a real shame though when the bullies get away with it.

[barmar]

I definitely agree with that. The problem is getting the victims to overcome their embarassment to call the director when it happens.

As in many of these threads, I seem to be lucky to play in a relatively well-behaved environment. I've rarely heard of players with disabilities being the subject of such behavior.

[lalldonn]

Geez people are talking about this person like he is missing both arms, or lives in a bubble. He is just hard of hearing, and even heard "transfer". Even people who aren't hard of hearing occasionally have to ask someone to repeat something. If I ask someone to repeat something, which takes approximately 0.3 seconds, they don't generally assume I'm disabled and treat me with shame. Do you assume your opponent is blind if he asks to see the last card you played?

[barmar]

Actually, it's BECAUSE he's hard of hearing that I think he's less likely to ask for repetition. If he asked this every time he only heard part of something, he'd be doing it all the time, inconveniencing everyone around. People with disabilities sometimes try harder so as not to be a burden.

On the other hand, if you have normal hearing, you don't feel self-conscious about asking someone to repeat themselves on the infrequent occasions when it's needed (you unconsciously assume it's their fault for not speaking clearly in the first place).