[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

---

West North East South

 -     3♠    Dbl   RDbl
 **td call 

Hi,

I was called to the table by East complaining that NS were talking about the bidding.
North had said to the table ‘why did you redouble partner??’ - South did not answer.

I asked them to carry on, I would look at the board after it was completed and went to attend other td calls.


West North East South

 -     3♠    Dbl   RDbl
 Pass  Pass  4♦    Pass
 Pass  4♠    Dbl   Pass
 Pass  Pass  

Result was 4♠= (corrected).

I talked to E after the board and said I could not see that any UI had been passed or any damage, result stands. Talking at the table is discouraged but does not carry an automatic penalty.

We continued the discussion after the tournament. East was sure that an adjustment should be made, that you can not ask your partner about their bids at the table, shouldn’t bid again after a preempt and that the board had been fouled.

We agreed to disagree and to post the call here.

I am particularly interested in how I should have handled the call when I was first called to the table. Was asking the players to continue reasonable or had the board been fouled and should have been abandoned?

tyia
jb

[chicken]

i think u did everything according to the rules. if u think that the pair should be penalized because of the talking then a procedural penalty should take place, but in my opinion this is no UI problem.

[hrothgar]

Complicated problem:

I don't believe that an adjustment based on U/I is appropriate.

1. Its clearly inappropriate for North to be asking questions to partner during a live auction. With this said and done, South didn't answer nr did South take any other actions.

2. I really dislike East's bidding. I think that the second double could be considered wild, speculative, or gambling. The second double could break the causal link between the infraction and the board result.

3. How did 4♠ doubled make? I'm trying to figure out how North-South avoided two Spade losers and two Heart losers.

With this said and done, a proceedural penalty does seem appropriate.

[jillybean]

hrothgar, on Dec 10 2005, 09:56 AM, said:

With this said and done, a proceedural penalty does seem appropriate.

How can I convert this to a fair result online?

The play:

A♥ led
♣ taken by Q♣
♣return to J
♥ loser pitched on A♣

[hrothgar]

jillybean2, on Dec 10 2005, 08:13 PM, said:

The play:

A♥ led
♣ taken by Q♣
♣return to J
♥ loser pitched on A♣

>How can I convert this to a fair result online?

Short term, there's not much you can do.

Long term, Fred or Uday might decide to add functionality to support proceedural penalties. We've seen a lot of cases discussed on the forums which would require this functionality. With this said and done, I suspect that there are bigger fish to fry...

[jillybean]

Also,
Would this offence carry a proceedural penalty in live bridge?
Asking your partner what a bid means is clearly against the rules but in this case there was no information passed or advantage gained, I don't understand why a procedural penalty would be given rather than a warning?

[awm]

There are certain actions that are blatantly unethical, and probably attempts to cheat. It's not in the best interest of bridge if these types of actions go unpenalized, even if there's no direct "damage."

My impression is that this is the main reason for procedural penalties. Asking your partner what his bid means in the middle of a live action is so blatantly illegal that one shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, even if partner didn't answer the question.

I could see giving a stern warning if these players are beginners, but in any serious event a penalty should be assessed. On the other hand, at one point my two expert opponents discussed the meaning of their calls, in the middle of a live auction, during a national-championship event. When I called the director to the table, he did nothing. So I guess my interpretation of the rules is not universal.

[hrothgar]

jillybean2, on Dec 10 2005, 08:28 PM, said:

Asking your partner what a bid means is clearly against the rules but in this case there was no information passed or advantage gained, I don't understand why a procedural penalty would be given rather than a warning?

A. I'm a hard ass

B. I consider this infraction egregious. I can see an argument that a self ranked beginner should be given a warning. However, if the player in question considered themselves an intermediated or better, he deserves a penalty...

[pigpenz]

in the real world we might see a roll of the yes or a frown etc.....Redoubles have been discussed so much here, that you think people woulld hav clear understandings on them.

I would let the result stand

[han]

I agree with Richard. Give north a warning not to talk to partner about a hand that isn't over yet. But clearly EW were only hurt by their only mistakes, not by the question.

[candybar]

No UI, no damage, no adjustment.

Warning about table talk is adequate. I'd make a note in the profile about the warning and if it happened again, then warn of procedural penalty, and on the 3rd infraction, boot offenders from the tourney.