[eagles123]

Well this happened a couple of weeks ago, apart from a minor difference, but just imagine the hypothetical situation: it's MP

Board 1:

the opponents bid uninterrupted to a cold 4H contract yet manage to go down on the most ridiculous line of play by declarer


Board 2:

this happens: http://www.bridgebas...post__p__825451 (see post on last page - the 3 diamond raise)


Board 3:

---

2n made exactly for 25/30 mp - 3n-1 would've been 18/30

my question is, is there any point in calling director in this situation or is their actions in board one and two, when there was no UI, evidence that they are just dumb players who will by fluke get it right occasionally?

thanks,

Eagles

This post has been edited by barmar: 2014-December-31, 10:21
Reason for edit: linked directly to post

[Trinidad]

eagles123, on 2014-December-30, 17:45, said:

my question is, is there any point in calling director in this situation or is their actions in board one and two, when there was no UI, evidence that they are just dumb players who will by fluke get it right occasionally?

LOL.

I have no problem with anybody calling the TD. But I would just let it go and hope that I am not playing more than 3 boards per round.

I might even go to the TD and tell him about all three boards to inform him that these guys simply don't know what they are doing and that it seems to you that UI has very little to do with their stupid actions. After all, it may be that what happened on your board 3 will happen on the first board of their next round. If that happens, their opponents and the TD will kill them, as they sit completely clueless about what they might have done wrong. As a TD, I like it when I get this kind of information from players. It would not affect my ruling at that next table, but it would affect the way I am going to give it.

Rik


P.S. You might want to link directly to your post for board 2 (htt p://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/48968-most-hopeless-clueless-comment/page__view__findpost__p__825451 remove the space after "htt") or just copy it here (with a reference to the previous thread).

[barmar]

What to do about incompetent players violating the rules is a point of contention here. See this post in another thread

http://www.bridgebas...post__p__826728

where the quoted post and the reply typify the two opinions.

[Trinidad]

Tough I fundamentally disagree with Cascade on this, I don't think the comparison is entirely fair.

In the thread that Cascade was replying to, there possibly was a clear infraction. A player may have actively used UI to chose an action. That warrants a PP according to the Laws and just like Cascade I would give a PP too (pending a little investigation that I suggested). What form that PP should take is a completely different matter.

In this thread, given the NS "style", there is no indication that there actually is an infraction. The opponents concluded that, though there was a BIT, it had nothing to do with South's choice to "balance". For South (can we find any peers? ) there was no LA to his stupid action. Most likely South never noticed the BIT and perhaps, given North's normal tempo, technically it wasn't even a BIT. Anyhow, South never used the BIT and did not chose a suggested LA over another (what other?!?).

No foul means no adjustement and no PP. But I think it will be hard to tell that to the opponents at the next table.

Rik