[Chris3875]

Bidding goes 1S - 1H Director called. You ask LHO if they accept the 1H bid but before they can say anything their partner says YES (or maybe they say NO). Apart from telling the partner that they shouldn't comment, what other action could be taken?

[blackshoe]

Partner's comment is UI to the player making the decision. Tell the latter that he must carefully avoid taking an advantage of the UI (Law 73C), and that failure to do so could result in an adjusted score. I would read Law 73B1 to the players, leaving out the bits that aren't relevant. Something like "Partners shall not communicate by means such as …extraneous remarks or gestures…" and then explain that the laws tell us that when a player "shall not" do something, and he does it, he should receive a PP "more often than not". In a club game, unless the player who shot off his mouth is experienced enough to be expected to know all this, I'd issue a PP in the form of a warning: "so here's your PP: don't do it again".

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-24, 07:53, said:

In a club game, unless the player who shot off his mouth is experienced enough to be expected to know all this, I'd issue a PP in the form of a warning: "so here's your PP: don't do it again".

Unless the player is not an experienced enough human being to know that he should not interrupt when one person (the director) is speaking directly to another person (his partner), I'd show zero tolerance and hit him with an actual PP.

[blackshoe]

Heh. You're the first person I've met who would be more inclined than I am to issue a PP in matchpoints. And people tell me I'm too hard on players.

Further comment: if you talking about the ZT regulation, that would be a DP, not a PP. Same effect on their score, of course.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-November-27, 19:43
Reason for edit: added comment

[mycroft]

When I have this situation, I add a statement to make it clear that no consultation or information from partner is allowed. It usually works...when it doesn't, the person with UI is usually too new to be able to use it. When she isn't...

[iviehoff]

mycroft, on 2012-November-26, 11:31, said:

When I have this situation, I add a statement to make it clear that no consultation or information from partner is allowed.

Sounds like with this pair it would have had to be the first thing you said.

[paulg]

iviehoff, on 2012-November-27, 05:44, said:

Sounds like with this pair it would have had to be the first thing you said.

Perhaps with all pairs, given that either player can accept a lead out of turn and it is easy to confuse the two situations.

[mycroft]

iviehoff, on 2012-November-27, 05:44, said:

Sounds like with this pair it would have had to be the first thing you said.

Yep, it usually does have to.

"you may, without consultation from partner,..."

[bluejak]

I always say "You, and only you, may accept ...".

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-24, 17:28, said:

Further comment: if you talking about the ZT regulation, that would be a DP, not a PP. Same effect on their score, of course.

OP is in Australia, so the Zero Tolerance Policy is not in force. I meant lower-case zero tolerance; having no tolerance for people who try to take unfair advantage of situations and don't do as they're told in the process. I have less than zero tolerance if the offender is the husband of his partner, but that's probably my own issue...