[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

Winston, I mean this as a serious question. What action would you take if your brain tripled in size after you made the first bid and you instantly realized that your previous brain was bad at bridge and had grossly underbid?

Seriously, it would be a guess. Personally, I would pass because I take the partnership unity more seriously than the result of any one hand.

Passing captaincy and then taking it back would seriously tilt many of the players I have partnered - it would not be worth the extra bad boards after this one.

[orlam]

jdonn, on Feb 7 2009, 11:14 PM, said:

Winston, I mean this as a serious question. What action would you take if your brain tripled in size after you made the first bid and you instantly realized that your previous brain was bad at bridge and had grossly underbid?

Unless I am a bridge pro, I would get up, leave the game, and find a better job where I can put my new brain to use.

[jtfanclub]

I don't understand the overall logic here. Does this mean the auction

1♠ 1NT
2♥ 4♥

is impossible, since 1NT said 'I don't have enough to force game' and 2♥ didn't show any extras?

On the specific hand, since it has 6(!) clubs, you knew you had a fit the first time. But I don't think it's uncommon that an invitational hand becomes GF when we find a fit. Even on this hand, with one more diamond and one less club I'd have some sympathy for 2♦ and then 6♣, especially if partner dealt.

[orlam]

jtfanclub, on Feb 8 2009, 02:42 AM, said:

I don't understand the overall logic here. Does this mean the auction

1♠ 1NT
2♥ 4♥

is impossible, since 1NT said 'I don't have enough to force game' and 2♥ didn't show any extras?

On the specific hand, since it has 6(!) clubs, you knew you had a fit the first time. But I don't think it's uncommon that an invitational hand becomes GF when we find a fit. Even on this hand, with one more diamond and one less club I'd have some sympathy for 2♦ and then 6♣, especially if partner dealt.

Did you notice that 2♦ already promised a fit?

[Hanoi5]

I think TC has made a great job of presenting us with this problem the way he did.

No matter what 2♦ means (invitational or invitational +) we have two possibilities in general: Pass or getting to a slam. Our agreement is not the problem! The problem is how we judge the hand, and probably that's why there's so much fighting about it.

That has been settled, then the tank before bidding 5♣ is what should lead us to pass (a Logical Alternative), and that's exactly what the Director ruled 5♣ +1.

On other point, I do think TC was a bit rude when he said "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you". He's not only implying that the opponent is unethical but also calling him a liar. And I do not know what Zero Tolerance means but, I'm sure calling people liars is very bad.

[blackshoe]

ZT means that if you call someone a liar, you will be taken out in back of the building and shot.

In other walks of life, "zero tolerance" policies have led to all sorts of ridiculous extremes - like the five year old who was suspended (or expelled, I forget which) from school because he drew a picture of a weapon. In bridge that doesn't seem to happen, because (or so it seems to me) the ZT regulation is more often than not ignored by TDs, particularly at club level.

[JanM]

blackshoe, on Feb 9 2009, 09:19 AM, said:

ZT means that if you call someone a liar, you will be taken out in back of the building and shot.

I'm reading a book at the moment (Elizabeth Moon - VICTORY CONDITIONS) where the laws of a society make courtesy mandatory, and under those laws it's okay to lie to someone but VERY BAD to call someone a liar. One character, wanting an excuse to prevent his daughter from socializing with a young man, deliberately lied to the boy's guardian so that she would call him a liar and he would have an excuse to cut off relations with the family. And now I read this thread and we're talking about the same sort of thing.

[blackshoe]

Moon is good. I haven't read that one. I'll have to look it up.

[mycroft]

I hate ZT - in general, not just as it applies to the bridge table. I understand that there are stupid people who can't make reasonable judgements, but that's no excuse for building a judgement-free policy that is, by definition, more unreasonable and on occasion, actively ridiculous. And while that "will never happen", it does. And it does because people get pressured to make ZT *Z*T.

What happens in practise is that either people don't follow the policy (in which case they're back to making the judgements the promulgators were scared of, and it encourages violation of other, more valid policies), or they do follow the policy, right down to ridiculousness (which is a PR nightmare when it comes out).

In anecdotal situations ("bad behaviour", "sexist or racist remarks", and the like) as opposed to evidential situations ("no knives") you have the additional issue that people lie to trigger "bully by proxy". Yes, I have years of experience with that (even before ZT), and somehow I'm sure I'm not the only one.

VLT is useful and appropriate, but requires intelligence to apply. And a certain cynisicm and a fair bit of training in the part of the administrators. And we will make mistakes, as we do with any of our judgement calls. I still remember (and you can search for the story on this site, I've told it before) the very loud, very NSF(Whatever) comment from the very drunk table that ended with "And another thing I like about directors is that they have selective hearing." Even though it was a blatant violation of ZT, I didn't think it was either impolite (nobody it was aimed at had a problem with the statement) or improper (nobody who could hear it took offense either). Wrong? Certainly. Worth penalizing? I'm guessing the very public embarrassment was punishment enough. But I could have been wrong. I'm sure that using that obvious case as a public example would also have been effective and a correct way of doing things.

[bid_em_up]

Oh geez, now I have to spell it out:

Me, politely to director and RHO:

"The gentleman took an excessive amount of time, both before 1C and before 5C. Now I don't know what he was considering but it was likely either 1) a systemic strong opening (before 1C) or some sort of cuebid or game try (before 5C)"

RHO, quite snippishly:

"I was considering nothing of the sort".

ME:

"Given your hand and the hesitations, I'm sorry, but I find that difficult to believe".

I wasn't even "rude" about it. It was a statement of fact. Period. And just because I don't believe him, does not mean that I am calling him a liar. He may well be telling the truth from his perspective, but that does not mean I have to agree with him or believe what he says.

If this violates any sort of ZT policy, then it isn't worth playing in f2f tournaments anymore. Kapiche?

[blackshoe]

I've gone back and reread the beginning of the thread, and I'd like to say something about correct procedure.

Law 16B1 says that a player may make available information extraneous to the actual bids and plays in his hand, and that such information is unauthorized to his partner.

Law 16B2 says that a player who believes an opponent has made such extraneous information available to his partner may announce that he reserves his right to call the director later, unless the Regulating Authority prohibits doing so. The ACBL used to prohibit it, and require calling the director immediately, but no longer does so. So you should make that announcement. If the opponents disagree, they should call the director immediately.

Law 16B3 says that when a player has substantial reason to believe that UI may have been used, he should summon the director when play ends (emphasis mine). So it's incorrect (but not illegal) to call the director in the middle of the auction because you suspect UI may have been used.

If you call him before the end of the play, all he can do is remind the players of their obligations and require play (and bidding, if appropriate) to continue. So long as the opponents agree that there was an event that may have transmitted UI (which is not, btw, an agreement that it did), there is no need for the director until after the play - and by then you will, or should, have a better idea if he is needed.

Perhaps if more people followed this correct procedure, there would be fewer problems. Perhaps there would not. Still it seems a worthwhile endeavor to try.

One other thing: when the director is at the table, players should be speaking to him, not to each other. The player who called the TD has the floor, and everyone else should keep quiet - the TD will give each a chance to speak, in due time.

[Hanoi5]

bid_em_up, on Feb 6 2009, 06:01 PM, said:

He swore up and down that he didn't act in that manner.  When I said, "I'm sorry, but I just don't believe you".  I get informed by the director that I could be subject to a Zero Tolerance penalty. 

That's different from:

Quote

Me, politely to director and RHO:

"The gentleman took an excessive amount of time, both before 1C and before 5C. Now I don't know what he was considering but it was likely either 1) a systemic strong opening (before 1C) or some sort of cuebid or game try (before 5C)"

RHO, quite snippishly:

"I was considering nothing of the sort".

ME:

"Given your hand and the hesitations, I'm sorry, but I find that difficult to believe".

So I'll concede it wasn't as bad as I had first thought. Anyway, you have to recognize that you were angry and that your answer was out of anger. Even writing it here, you describe your opponent as being 'snippy' and you say ME instead of Me.

Ok, maybe a little exaggeration from me but just try to be a little more patient on f2f situations, after all the Director was there and you can always appeal if he doesn't take the correct decision (or come to us for support )

[bid_em_up]

Please stop trying to read things that aren't there. You weren't at the table. I wasn't angry. Ask my partner, TylerE on BBO, who was at the table. Ask him if the opponent was snippy, you don't have to take my word for it. Ask him if I was "angry".

And trying to read something into ME vs. Me vs. me is taking things waaaayyy too far.

The only difference is that I NEVER expected to get a bunch of bullshit from someone simply because I didnt type every detail of the scenario. I was trying to relate a story, without being long and drawn out, and instead get a bunch of crap for it.

[P_Marlowe]

Pass.

We are missing 4 Aces, p will have 2, but if he has more
than min. and 3 Aces, he should have choosen a different
call.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

I would pass because I always seem to get some silliness like

Kxx
x
xxx
AKQxxx

across.