[Fluffy]

---

MPs, East is pro, West is probably client, south calls director upon seeing dummy, director tells everyone to proceed and call if there is damage, NS calldirector at the end when they get almost a bottom for -110.

If you care to ask, west will tell you that he did bid 2♥ because supporting with only 2 is not possible on first round

[lalldonn]

I'm not sure what you are asking Fluffy.

Are you allowed to bid badly? Yes

Are you allowed to get lucky? If not then my opponents have all been violating the rules all these years.

Did this pair fail to disclose their agreements? They obviously don't have agreements. Even if 2♥ could show that hand then east wouldn't pass it.

[Fluffy]

well that's more or less what I though, but then director said something that there is a rule that you cannot control a psyche, so if you psyche partner with 15 cannot bid this way and that you should get 0%-60% for that, doesn't matter if it is intentional or not.

[barmar]

Something certainly seems fishy -- to know that game has no chance you pretty much need a wire on the whole hand. But you can't rule based on "fishy", you need evidence of what they did. Otherwise, players are allowed to bid as they wish, and if they luck out, the opponents get fixed.

The TD should ask East and West why they bid as they did. Is East's hand within the normal 1st/2nd seat openings for their partnerships (and does your jurisdiction require alerts for such light openings)? But the real question is for West -- with a strong NT hand, why did he not even invite game?

Did NS notice anything that might be UI, suggesting how weak East's hand was? But even if West knew that East only has 10 HCP, he would still want to be in game.

[barmar]

 Fluffy, on 2012-July-07, 15:23, said:

well that's more or less what I though, but then director said something that there is a rule that you cannot control a psyche, so if you psyche partner with 15 cannot bid this way and that you should get 0%-60% for that, doesn't matter if it is intentional or not.

The director doesn't understand what a psychic control is, because that's not it.

[lalldonn]

 Fluffy, on 2012-July-07, 15:23, said:

well that's more or less what I though, but then director said something that there is a rule that you cannot control a psyche, so if you psyche partner with 15 cannot bid this way and that you should get 0%-60% for that, doesn't matter if it is intentional or not.

Oh no, partner has psyched an opening bid, I have to run from the danger of 1NT with my balanced 15 opposite his balanced 10 since we know that contract never makes. I'll try the safety of a bad 5-2 fit to control his psych!

I swore to myself I'd stop being so sarcastic, but that's what the director is implying west was thinking, right? Can't anyone just see they are bad at bridge and had a lucky result?

[lalldonn]

 barmar, on 2012-July-07, 15:27, said:

Something certainly seems fishy -- to know that game has no chance you pretty much need a wire on the whole hand.

Didn't the wire tell them that 120 is more than 110? It's MPs after all.

[mrdct]

Since when is opening a 10hcp hand a psyche?

[aguahombre]

 lalldonn, on 2012-July-07, 15:38, said:

Can't anyone just see they are bad at bridge and had a lucky result?

Well, I am part of "anyone" sometimes, and I can see that. But let's keep trying to find something to rule against them for. How about ---Opener somehow conveyed that he was weak, but responder interpreted it as psyche-weak, not just light Of course, we would still have to prove that is what happened, and I don't see anything in the OP to go there.

[barmar]

If West were a beginner, I could imagine this happening -- we've all seen beginners do all sorts of crazy things: overbidding in NT to get out of a misfit, and passing strong hands because they just don't know how to bid them properly. But we're told that East is a pro -- what kind of crazy pro would psych with a partner at that level?

[Fluffy]

west has played for many years, but using a bad treatment for a serious illness has caused damage, it is better to just think of him as having a slight mental discapacity. He often revokes, and doesn't understand that leading from AK against 6NT is a good idea.

But director didn't listen to me, he said we are not a weak pair,I guess he could not believe that after 50 boards we were ahead of several international french players when he plays like this lol.

[billw55]

 Fluffy, on 2012-July-10, 04:04, said:

west has played for many years, but using a bad treatment for a serious illness has caused damage, it is better to just think of him as having a slight mental discapacity. He often revokes, and doesn't understand that leading from AK against 6NT is a good idea.

But director didn't listen to me, he said we are not a weak pair,I guess he could not believe that after 50 boards we were ahead of several international french players when he plays like this lol.

My sympathy for west's troubles.

For practical purposes, the result is that he is now just a bad bridge player. The pro's opening is obviously not a psyche, and west is obviously incapable of fielding it even if it was. The director's suggestion that he has done so is somewhat degrading, in addition to being a wrong ruling.

[RMB1]

Why is 1♥ a psyche?

[barmar]

That hand meet almost no one's criteria for a 1st seat 1♥ opening, so I'm willing to assume that it's not in this pair's agreements. It's only 10 HCP, with no compensating distribution. It has 9 losers, where normal openings are about 7. It's 2 short of rules of 20 and 22. The honors are all in short suits -- the 1♥ bid isn't even a good lead director.

About the only good thing you can say about it is that it has a few nice spot cards. If I were playing 10-12 NT, I'd be happy to open it 1NT, but does anyone really think it looks like a 1♥ opener?

[RMB1]

 barmar, on 2012-July-10, 10:12, said:

About the only good thing you can say about it is that it has a few nice spot cards. If I were playing 10-12 NT, I'd be happy to open it 1NT, but does anyone really think it looks like a 1♥ opener?

It is "rule of" 18 so it is permitted to agree to open this hand with 1♥ in EBU; and it is certainly not HUM, so it is permitted to agree to open this hand in EBL and WBF events.

Even if it is a point or two shy of the announced partnership agreement for 1♥, it is "a gross misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length"?

[lalldonn]

One other thing, as with most lines of work "professional" does not automatically mean "good".

[barmar]

 RMB1, on 2012-July-10, 10:22, said:

It is "rule of" 18 so it is permitted to agree to open this hand with 1♥ in EBU; and it is certainly not HUM, so it is permitted to agree to open this hand in EBL and WBF events.

Being "permitted" doesn't mean that it's this pair's agreement. And do those criteria distinguish between 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th seat openers, or is the rule of 18 likely there so that light 3rd seat openers are permitted?

Quote

Even if it is a point or two shy of the announced partnership agreement for 1♥, it is "a gross misstatement of honour strength and/or suit length"?

That's why I pointed out several different criteria. It may not be a gross misstatement of any one, but in aggregate I think it's a significant distortion.

Unfortunately, there's no objective definition of "gross misstatement", so in the end it's a judgement call.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2012-July-10, 10:49, said:

Unfortunately, there's no objective definition of "gross misstatement", so in the end it's a judgement call.

Yes, but this one is not even close to the judgement line. It is just a crummy bid.

[joostb1]

 Fluffy, on 2012-July-10, 04:04, said:

west has played for many years, but using a bad treatment for a serious illness has caused damage, it is better to just think of him as having a slight mental discapacity. He often revokes, and doesn't understand that leading from AK against 6NT is a good idea.

I'm afraid that someone has to tell West that it might be wiser to stop playing bridge at this level. Hopefully he won't shoot the messenger. But the good result on this board, which the director should have let stand, doesn't prove that he still can play well. Continuing can only lead to more disappointments and unpleasant decisions by directors. West is probably no fool and knows that he is making mistakes. Furthermore, we all know that a time will come when our abilities will let us down. Emotionally tough, but you have to accept the inevitable.
Why some of the respondents think fit to comment on East's bidding, is totally incomprehensible to me. Your opinion as a director is called for, not a lesson in bridge. It's a mistake more directors make ("I won't bid that way, so yo shouldn't either and I shall therefore rule against you").

[barmar]

 joostb1, on 2012-July-10, 11:59, said:

I'm afraid that someone has to tell West that it might be wiser to stop playing bridge at this level.

What level is this? Have we been told that this was something other than a club game? Or do you mean he should play in novice-only games until he learns basic bidding? What if there are no novice games around?

Quote

Why some of the respondents think fit to comment on East's bidding, is totally incomprehensible to me. Your opinion as a director is called for, not a lesson in bridge. It's a mistake more directors make ("I won't bid that way, so yo shouldn't either and I shall therefore rule against you").

I'd like to hear East's explanation for his bid. Even if it's not a psych, it's very aggressive.

I think what may bug people about this hand is the old "rule of coincidence" thing: East bid aggressively at the same time that West bid poorly, and they happened to land in the best spot as a result. It seems too perfect to have been an accident, so it's natural to look for a nefarious explanation. The rule of coincidence is not a valid legal principle, but it's an intuitive one, like circumstantial evidence in real life.