[Phil]

Matchpoints, opps are vul

♠AJ9 ♥Jx ♦AK7x ♣QJ7x

1N - (x*) - 2♥** - (p)
2♠ - (p) - 3♥ - (p)
?

* = "meckwell" - either one minor or both majors
** = announced as a transfer.

FWIW, this pair does not play Smolen, so 3♥ could be a 5-4 (or was explained to me as such)

Thanks in advance

[lalldonn]

You're missing the option I want to choose. "3♠ or 4♠ but 3NT is not ok"

[TimG]

I think I've got to bid some number of spades to let partner know we have a fit. Although I voted for "definitely 4S" I don't think it's really important whether I bid 3S or 4S as long as I don't bid 3N.

[Phil]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-02, 18:19, said:

You're missing the option I want to choose. "3♠ or 4♠ but 3NT is not ok"

I could have bifurcated this more sure. But as you shall see soon, it doesn't matter a whole lot how many spades you bid as long as you believe 3N is not on your radar screen.

[JLOGIC]

3S is just normal

[barmar]

Don't you want to know what we consider, in addition to what we actually choose?

[Trinidad]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-02, 18:19, said:

You're missing the option I want to choose. "3♠ or 4♠ but 3NT is not ok"

Me too.

Rik

[bluejak]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-02, 18:19, said:

You're missing the option I want to choose. "3♠ or 4♠ but 3NT is not ok"

Me2.

The problem, of course, with this poll, is that with a trustworthy partner, 3♠ is forcing and stronger than 4♠, so I would choose that. With a less trustworthy partner, perhaps a client or pickup partner, I would bid 4♠ since partner might pass 3♠.

barmar, on 2012-November-02, 23:19, said:

Don't you want to know what we consider, in addition to what we actually choose?

I consider 3♠, I consider 4♠, I consider 4♦ but reject it because with a good partner I believe it agrees hearts, with a poor partner it merely confuses.

I don't consider pass or 3NT. I could imagine 3NT being the winning action, in fact, but that is true of so many hands where one bids 4M with a known fit and it is very difficult to pick out the ones that are suitable. Here 3NT cannot involve partner in the decision so would be a guess in the dark.



Ok, we have the votes: now tell us that this hand passed and it was the correct thing to do - goodness, I am surprised. Who would have thought it, on a rulings forum? Reminds me of Clyde E Love's book on squeezes, where on one hand he says "Ha ha: hearts were 3-3 all along: fooled ya [sic]!" He then put a footnote that 3-3 breaks occur in real life about 36% of the time, in books on squeeze play less than 1% of the time.

I am always reminded of this when people post here or in RGB that claims should not be allowed or people should not claim because they cause so much trouble. Claims are challenged in real life well under 1% of the time, in rulings forums well over 95% of the time!

[Phil]

A little background: The player that held this hand is a pro that recently moved back into the area and west is a weak client that he used to play with on a weekly basis 5-6 years ago.

As you might have surmised, there was something going on here. I was called to the table by NS after the 3♥ call. Apparently there was considerable table talk by the 2♥ bidder and it was obvious to everyone she didn't have spades. EW didn't deny the chit chat. I explained to East that he might be in the possession of UI, and should act accordingly. I told N to call me back after the hand if he thought there was a problem. As I was walking away, East bid 3N and it quietly went down 1.

Unsurprisingly, West held x Axxxxx xxxx xx.

When I came back I asked him why chose NT over spades, and his rationale was:

- Its matchpoints
- We don't play Smolen so she could be 5-4 (but I asked what 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♠ is? )
- With the r/w interference, either spades are breaking terribly or one of the minors is sitting over his holdings, so 3N is better protection against the bad splits.

I adjusted to 5♥x'd -4 (Hearts went 5-0 - LHO did have the majors). It seemed a very likely auction that this hand bids 4♠ and West cannot sit (NS actually make 4♠ but the timing is tricky).

He got a little belligerent with me as he tried to lawyer his way out of the mess. He even suggested that his partner bid a natural 4N over 4♠ (?!). I said that if that was the case that you would definitely land in 5♥ since 4N is RKC.

I just walked away instead of giving a ZT - I think the ruling was enough of a wake-up call and attitude adjustment for someone that has probably cajoled directors for a long time.

(Later I decided that he might bid 3♠, and I'd allow a 4♥ correction for only 500. It made one matchpoint difference ).

[ggwhiz]

The only better outcome I can think of is if this bird took it to committee where the ruling would be for the guillotine.

[axman]

Phil, on 2012-November-03, 09:23, said:

A little background: The player that held this hand is a pro that recently moved back into the area and west is a weak client that he used to play with on a weekly basis 5-6 years ago.

As you might have surmised, there was something going on here. I was called to the table by NS after the 3♥ call. Apparently there was considerable table talk by the 2♥ bidder and it was obvious to everyone she didn't have spades. EW didn't deny the chit chat. I explained to East that he might be in the possession of UI, and should act accordingly. I told N to call me back after the hand if he thought there was a problem. As I was walking away, East bid 3N and it quietly went down 1.

Unsurprisingly, West held x Axxxxx xxxx xx.

When I came back I asked him why chose NT over spades, and his rationale was:

- Its matchpoints
- We don't play Smolen so she could be 5-4 (but I asked what 1N - 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♠ is? )
- With the r/w interference, either spades are breaking terribly or one of the minors is sitting over his holdings, so 3N is better protection against the bad splits.

I adjusted to 5♥x'd -4 (Hearts went 5-0 - LHO did have the majors). It seemed a very likely auction that this hand bids 4♠ and West cannot sit (NS actually make 4♠ but the timing is tricky).

He got a little belligerent with me as he tried to lawyer his way out of the mess. He even suggested that his partner bid a natural 4N over 4♠ (?!). I said that if that was the case that you would definitely land in 5♥ since 4N is RKC.

I just walked away instead of giving a ZT - I think the ruling was enough of a wake-up call and attitude adjustment for someone that has probably cajoled directors for a long time.

(Later I decided that he might bid 3♠, and I'd allow a 4♥ correction for only 500. It made one matchpoint difference ).

1. ew have breached L73B1 and this warrants a PP of at least 1/2 board; because of aggravating factors I think it should be closer to 1 board

2. it is important to establish what AI existed [system to the auction] before contemplating an adjusted score

[Trinidad]

Just so I understand this correctly: The pro is the 1NT opener?

In that case, I don't agree with your ruling at all. I would adjust to 5♥X-4 and given a well deserved PP for flagrant use of UI, in a situation where the pro was even warned that he had UI!

And for the record: I would not adjust to 4♥. After all that is a cue for a spade slam and the 1NT opener will sign off in 4♠ (assuming they play mixed cues!) leading to 5♥X too.

Rik

[bluejak]

Law 12C1E requires you to give the most unfavourable result that was at all probable to the non-offending side. Even if you think 4♥ a possible outcome, it is certainly not the most unfavourable result that was at all probable.

Despite some specious arguments, 3NT is a deliberate attempt to take advantage of the UI. Since it was deliberate it is important you give him a PP otherwise he will just do the same next time. The standard ACBL quarter-board sounds ok.

Depending on how he argued with you, it sounds offensive to me. If it was then a half-board penalty as a DP is required as well as the PP. If he does not like the ruling, he should appeal.

There seems to me to be an impression that in the ACBL pros do not have a high ethical standard, unlike the UK where pros generally are very ethical. TDs must fight against this.

[Phil]

The practical effect of 800 v 500 was one matchpoint. I could even concoct an absurd auction like:

3S - 4H*
5D** - 5H***
6S

* - Concentration of values
** - Cue
*** - Last Train promising a club control

This could be the most unfavorable result in principle.

The practical difference between 800 and 1100 is nothing. Between 800 and 500 its nil. 4♥ is the wrong ruling I agree.

As directors, we apply laws, not unlike judges. Yet, you see judges deviate from what the Law requires all the time - if only to make a point.

It doesn't seem like an unreasonable approach to not always apply the full extent of the law. Is this fair to the non-offenders? Probably not, but I bet that the majority of club directors would have looked at the matter and been intimidated by the gravitas of a professional player and thought, "he knows more about bridge than I do. Who am I to argue with his bridge judgement?" and allow the 3N call to stand.

A few more things:

- Our club / unit does not have an AC. All director calls are final.

- While he was belligerent he was rational as he pleaded his case. I'm telling you that this was a serious kick in his (psyche). Isn't this why a PP is handed out in the first place?

- There are some sleazy American pros. There are also extremely ethical ones. Must we generalize about such matters?

[JLOGIC]

bluejak, on 2012-November-03, 11:07, said:

There seems to me to be an impression that in the ACBL pros do not have a high ethical standard, unlike the UK where pros generally are very ethical. TDs must fight against this.

I think this is unfair. Part of the problem is that there are many levels of "pros." I would say club pros/the worst pros are often unethical because they are often not very good and need the extra edge. I would say the better pros/pros that are higher on the food chain are generally the most ethical players I play against.

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on 2012-November-03, 11:07, said:

There seems to me to be an impression that in the ACBL pros do not have a high ethical standard, unlike the UK where pros generally are very ethical. TDs must fight against this.

This appears a gross generalisation. Some players are very ethical. Some are notably sleazy. Some are in the middle. This is true of pros and amateurs in the UK as well as elsewhere.

[I am reminded of a hand against two UK pros, who no longer play with each other. One of them deliberately thought for ages before switching to a doubleton, just to make sure partner knew it wasn't a singleton. Partner, almost without thought, played him to have a singleton, letting the contract through. One of the two is very ethical. The other isn't.]

[Bbradley62]

Phil, on 2012-November-03, 09:23, said:

Apparently there was considerable table talk by the 2♥ bidder and it was obvious to everyone she didn't have spades. EW didn't deny the chit chat.

While you're penalizing East for taking advantage of UI, you should also penalize West for providing that UI. Regardless of how weak a player she might be, it certainly sounds like she's been around long enough to be expected to know better.

[bluejak]

Phil, on 2012-November-03, 12:23, said:

The practical effect of 800 v 500 was one matchpoint.

No. The practical effect of 800 v 500 is to teach the pro a lesson and to follow the Laws.

Quote

I don't see like an unreasonable approach to not always apply the full extent of the law. Is this fair to the non-offenders? Probably not, but I can tell that the majority of club directors would have looked at the matter and been intimidated by the gravitas of a professional player and thought, "he knows more about bridge than I do. Who am I to argue with his bridge judgement?" and allow the 3N call to stand.

This is awful. The majority of club TDs need to learn their job: they can poll, can't they?

When you play in a club you pay money: it appears that in the ACBL some of the money goes to the TD. If he does not rule properly in such situations he should give the money back.

It is quite obvious in this case that the pro has deliberately used UI. It is vital to not let him get away with it.

Quote

Our club / unit does not have an AC. All director calls are final.

So, I would have to pay a TD who is not prepared to rule against a pro and I cannot appeal?

Quote

There are some sleazy American pros. There are also extremely ethical ones. Must we generalize about such matters?

Feel free to disagree with me, but it is reasonable to say what I think. This is based on observations. Incidentally, generalisations are generalisations.

[lalldonn]

bluejak, on 2012-November-03, 14:50, said:

Feel free to disagree with me, but it is reasonable to say what I think.

It is not reasonable to say what you think if what you think is offensive (and that is aside from it being untrue anyway). Replace "American pros" with any group you want (how about British tournament directors?) to see how it comes across.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2012-November-03, 14:50, said:

it is reasonable to say what I think.

The fact that a lot of people mistake the above opinion for a fact is one of the bigger problems in today's western society.

And with respect to this particular thought: IMHO it was quite unreasonable to even think what David said.

Rik