[jillybean]

McBruce, on 2011-May-27, 19:20, said:

I think that an vital part of a Director's job is to not do things that make people leave and never come back. If you start assuming that players with no prior "history with the police" (this player frequently plays at our tournaments, coming a fair distance to do so, and has never caused a problem) are deliberately pretending to misunderstand in order to gain an advantage, you may as well trot out the C-word whenever it might be accurate. There is an infraction here, but almost certainly not a deliberate one. We adjust the score if there is damage, and we ask the player to ensure he understands in a similar situation in future, but going further is getting into the "I don't believe you" zone, which I just don't think is appropriate here.

I don't know if the offending side was cheating. I never considered it and as you say, it is rather brazen to be cheating with the TD standing there.
I hope that you nor any TD would not accuse the player of cheating. I think it would be highly inappropriate and would likely make people leave and never come back.

However, I am very concerned that you seem to be saying that an infraction by a frequent, non trouble maker will be overlooked or an infraction will only result in a penalty when it is deliberately malicious. Then players who infract on the laws by accident or due to ignorance, stupidity or laziness are exempt from the laws. It has nothing to do with "I don't believe you". The player was given a clear instruction from the TD and then acted in complete defiance of the instruction (explained by saying he had not really listened carefully enough).

If this does not attract a penalty, what will? Make it a token penalty, but imo a penalty is needed.

[matmat]

Phil, on 2011-May-26, 09:04, said:

Lecture, yes. Penalty, no.

Hell no. Penalize the offenders. A lecture they will ignore, a loss of MP they will remember.

[barmar]

jillybean, on 2011-May-26, 10:20, said:

Are you saying that as long as there is no malice, players can ignore a TD's directions ?

I don't think it's a question of malice, but of intent.

[mycroft]

Following on to barmar, I think ignoring TD's directions is a problem. I don't think that happened here from my feel of what McBruce said. I feel that it was a fairly complicated ruling for players, and that many a similar ruling involves "partner is barred", and the player heard what he expected to hear, and not what was said.

This Happens. This frequently happens amongst the Life Cs or the Life Bs - and we really do want to keep these players.

An adjusted score is "we don't think you did anything *wrong*, we just don't agree with your judgement about whether it's the only alternative". A procedural penalty is "you caused a problem with the game" or "you did something improper, and you should have known better."

The discussion sounds like it was "you did something improper, because you misunderstood. Here's what should happen here, here's what would have happened if we believed that you got an advantage from it, and *here's* what would have happened if we even had an inkling of a belief that it wasn't a misunderstanding. Look. This is *really* *not* *on*, and you *really* never want to do this again." territory.

But I would be looking at if, on 1D-2C; 3C-3NT or 1D-2C; 2NT-3NT it is likely/at all possible that South will find a spade - and I'd be likely to adjust at least E-W. But if the TD-consulation judgement is "no adjustment", then "no adjustment".

[ggwhiz]

Whether the result was destined or the contract would fail after a sane auction is too tough for me to determine. I might hand out a procedural penalty and gently explain why. Probably an adjusted score to protect poor N/S.

We want them to come back too.

Definitely a case for education vs punishment but it should come at a cost to have real perceived value.

[bluejak]

Players often do not listen to TDs. So, it goes wrong, and because they are Flt C we do not penalise, and what happens? They do not listen next time, either. Simple.

I have never liked the quarter-board penalty in the ACBL, too harsh, so halve it: give him an eighth-board penalty. Explain to him it is only a little penalty [because the ACBL has told you to penalise - always easiest to blame the ACBL!] but he really must listen in future.

As to an adjustment, it is a pity it is the ACBL, because naturally we would weight an adjustment over here. You just have to decide whether an adjustment is justified because of the different auctions. However, if you do adjust, don't penalise. I know, all the people will come out of the woodwork to tell me this is against the Geneva convention or something. It is plain commonsense. I was only penalising to try to get him to listen next time: an adjustment will do that so a penalty is no longer needed.