[jh51]

---

After the bidding ended, I asked whether there was a failure to alert. Not only did I nor receive an answer, West said to her partner, "Well, was there?" and threw her bidding cards at her partner.

I suspect that there were a couple of infractions here deserving of PPs.

West who had confused their agreements over their own NT opening with their agreements over opponent's NT openings. She meant 2♠ as a transfer to clubs, but their card (which I looked at after the actions descrived above) said that it was natural after our 1NT call.

• There would certainly seem to be a ZT violation if only for the thowing of the bidding cards.
  
• There would seem to be a violation of the requriement to dislose partber's failure to alert. I am not so sure of this one, as their agreement did not require an alert, but West made a bid that she thought should have been alerted and appareently still beleived at the time I asked the question.

There was no apparent damage to our game from this - 2♠ -1 was a top for us. At all the other tables we were going down in NT or spades. We were the only plus in our direction.

Any thoughts on this?

[ArtK78]

Of course there is a zero tolerance violation for throwing the bidding cards. You don't need zero tolerance to get in trouble for throwing the bidding cards.

As for a failure to alert, alert what? A natural 2♠ call? The agreement was that 2♠ was natural. The fact that West thought that 2♠ showed clubs doesn't alter the partnership agreement.

Now, I understand your point that West thought that her 2♠ bid was conventional, and, given that, she should have announced that there was a failure to alert at the conclusion of the auction, even if there was no actual failure to alert. But her failure to let you know what was going on in her own head turns out to not be a violation since one cannot be penalized for a failure to announce that there was a failure to alert when there was, in fact, no failure to alert (sorry - that last sentence gives me a headache).

Suppose you were driving at 40 MPH in what you thought was a 25 MPH zone, but is, in fact, a 45 MPH zone. Should you turn yourself in to the cops because, in your mind, you were speeding?

That may not be a perfect analogy, but here is one that is a bit gruesome, but closer to the point. Suppose you intend to kill John Doe. You plan out how you are going to do it, get a gun, load the gun, and go out to find John Doe. You come across John Doe slumped over a chair. You pull out a gun and shoot him five times. It turns out that John Doe was already dead before you came across him and shot him. Are you guilty of murder (or even attempted murder) because you intended to kill him and you shot him five times, which would have killed him but for the fact that he was already dead? You can't be guilty of murder if your act did not result in the victim's death. I don't think that you can be guilty of attempted murder under these facts, but I am not an expert on criminal law, so I leave that to others (possibly a good law school exam question).

Here, you can't be guilty of a failure to alert if there was no alert, even if you thought there should be one.

[sfi]

Since the agreement was natural, there was no failure to alert. That is all the information you were entitled to about the opponents' auction and there is no irregularity here.

I haven't played with ZT regulations, but I would not consider issuing a PP for the situation you describe regarding the bidding cards unless really egregious.

What strikes as more of an issue is your question. There appears to be no reason to ask that in this sort of an auction, so strongly suggests that you have long spades in your own hand. Now partner has UI that can affect the defence and can also highlight a misbid by West (which it clearly did). If I were director, I would consider whether this knowledge made a material difference at the table and potentially award extra tricks to E-W on that basis.

[TimG]

 jh51, on 2012-November-15, 15:11, said:

After the bidding ended, I asked whether there was a failure to alert.

Why would you ask? It can only suggest to your partner that you have reason to believe there was a failure to alert because you have long spades. That's UI information to your partner.

[RMB1]

The laws (Law 40B2(b)) allow the declaring side to consult their own system card during the clarification period - but this may be disallowed by the regulating authority. This would allow West to look at their own card, find that they play 2♠ as natural, determine that they have misbid, and so not "correct" partner's failure to alert.

[blackshoe]

It might, Robin. But West did not look at her system card, she was too busy disrespecting her partner.

Under the ACBL's ZT policy, West's outburst would result in an immediate DP of 25% of a top. A second ZT violation would result in West's ejection from the event.

A player who believes that her partner's explanation was in error (or, as here, that her partner failed to alert when an alert was required) must call the TD at the appropriate time, and explain this belief. Whether she's right or wrong is irrelevant. For the declaring side, the appropriate time is before the open lead is chosen (Law 20F5b(ii)). When a player has failed to do something she "must" do, this is a very serious matter, more serious than failing to do what she "shall" do. Since the latter should incur a PP more often then not, this West should receive a PP of (again, in the ACBL) the standard 25% of a top. So she gets whatever bad result she gets for going down in 2♠, plus penalties of 50% of a top. Harsh? Yeah. So? IMO she deserves it, and the rules require it. Certainly the DP is required - the TD is given no leeway on that.

Passing UI to partner may be silly, but it's not illegal. Also, perhaps West can console herself with the knowledge that the implication of North's question is AI to her.

All that said, I am well aware that (a) even in events in which lip service is paid to ZT, the penalties are often not applied (especially at clubs) and (b) club directors in particular are reluctant to issue PPs for any reason. So this West might well get away with just her bad score. Oh, and the possible (probable?) dissolution of her partnership.

[glen]

 jh51, on 2012-November-15, 15:11, said:

... I asked whether there was a failure to alert. Not only did I nor receive an answer, West said to her partner, "Well, was there?" and threw her bidding cards at her partner ...

You really think you didn't get your answer?

[wank]

Episodes like this are what gives a little colour to the game. I, for one (possibly a minority of one), hate this zero tolerance stuff or BB@B as we have in England.

In particular, arguments between partners are not something with which rulesmakers need to be interfering. These people chose to play with each other. If one of them is offended they have the choice not to play again.

[campboy]

 wank, on 2012-November-16, 01:55, said:

Episodes like this are what gives a little colour to the game. I, for one (possibly a minority of one), hate this zero tolerance stuff or BB@B as we have in England.

In particular, arguments between partners are not something with which rulesmakers need to be interfering. These people chose to play with each other. If one of them is offended they have the choice not to play again.

FWIW the EBU guidelines for TDs do acknowledge that "partners are considered to have chosen to play with each other" and only mandates a warning in the first instance for rudeness to partner, and then only if it is sufficiently egregious for another pair to complain. However they also specifically mention throwing cards across the table as something which should get a DP on the first offence (and disqualification on the third).

[Codo]

I hate rudeness to the partner, even if this was done by the opps. So, I like ZT.

By the way: I watched a minor league soccer game, where the referee gave a red card to a player who had been verbally rude to his team mate.

[Fluffy]

If West though 2♠ was transfer, and transfers are not alerted on that land, instead of calling director for a failure to alert, he should stay there and wait for dummy to come down with a psyche 1NT bid with a ton of spades. I wonder if you can penalice a player for not calling director for a failure to alert, when on the bidding he though happened was no failure to alert at all.

[blackshoe]

 Fluffy, on 2012-November-16, 06:29, said:

I wonder if you can penalice a player for not calling director for a failure to alert, when on the bidding he though happened was no failure to alert at all.

You certainly can.

[jh51]

 glen, on 2012-November-15, 20:11, said:

You really think you didn't get your answer?

I was pretty darn sure that West thought there was a failure to alert. But I was not sure at that point whether that was the case or whether West had made a bid she imagined to be altertable but was not. I thought that a complete answer if it was indeed alertable would tell me eomething about West's hand that I was entitled to know. In the latter case, I imagine I am not entitled to know what West thought her bid meant.

[jh51]

 blackshoe, on 2012-November-15, 20:10, said:

All that said, I am well aware that (a) even in events in which lip service is paid to ZT, the penalties are often not applied (especially at clubs) and (b) club directors in particular are reluctant to issue PPs for any reason. So this West might well get away with just her bad score. Oh, and the possible (probable?) dissolution of her partnership.

This was a small club game (3 tables) and West was the (on this occassion non-playing) director's girlfriend. So there was some additional reason for reluctance to issuing a PP.

[glen]

 jh51, on 2012-November-16, 15:12, said:

I was pretty darn sure that West thought there was a failure to alert. But I was not sure at that point whether that was the case or whether West had made a bid she imagined to be altertable but was not. I thought that a complete answer if it was indeed alertable would tell me eomething about West's hand that I was entitled to know. In the latter case, I imagine I am not entitled to know what West thought her bid meant.

Say you had:

♠ QJT
♥ 53
♦ 7642
♣ 7642

and the bidding was the same (1NT-2♠-All pass). Would you ask "was there a failure to alert?". If your hand is telling you to ask that question, then you are possibly giving unauthorized information to partner, such as "I have the spades, not West". It would be better to ask East what 2♠ was, and if told was natural, wait until the end of play before further questions.

In a three table game I wouldn't be too concerned about ZT, since if there are bad feelings, future sessions may not have enough players for any game.

[barmar]

 glen, on 2012-November-16, 16:41, said:

In a three table game I wouldn't be too concerned about ZT, since if there are bad feelings, future sessions may not have enough players for any game.

With a club this small, you may be damned if you do, damned if you don't. Give a penalty, and that player may decide to stop coming; not give a penalty, and some of the others may give up. Either way, you're screwed.

[blackshoe]

 jh51, on 2012-November-16, 15:17, said:

This was a small club game (3 tables) and West was the (on this occassion non-playing) director's girlfriend. So there was some additional reason for reluctance to issuing a PP.

This would create a real dilemma for me. On the one hand, I wouldn't want to piss off my girl friend. OTOH, the fact that she is my girlfriend makes me even more reluctant to avoid issuing PPs than I normally am. A director can't afford to give people the impression he plays favorites.

[Fluffy]

 blackshoe, on 2012-November-16, 20:55, said:

This would create a real dilemma for me. On the one hand, I wouldn't want to piss off my girl friend. OTOH, the fact that she is my girlfriend makes me even more reluctant to avoid issuing PPs than I normally am. A director can't afford to give people the impression he plays favorites.

Unless you are french and opponents are spanish I'd say

[blackshoe]

Heh. Perhaps.

[bluejak]

 sfi, on 2012-November-15, 15:25, said:

I haven't played with ZT regulations, but I would not consider issuing a PP for the situation you describe regarding the bidding cards unless really egregious.

 jh51, on 2012-November-16, 15:17, said:

This was a small club game (3 tables) and West was the (on this occassion non-playing) director's girlfriend. So there was some additional reason for reluctance to issuing a PP.

Just to clarify, a penalty for behaviour is a DP [Law 91], not a PP [Law 90].