[lamford]

---

IMPs. Table Result: NS 3Dxx=, NS+840

On this hand from a North London club this week, North, who looks and behaves like the Secretary Bird, was accused of coffee-housing, something he vehemently denied. East opted to play for penalties, and South, one of the club's weakest members, decided to get out into a major. He had recently learned about the SOS redouble and was trying out his new gadget. SB, North, was reluctant to Pass, as his opponents would surely bid and make game or even slam now, and toyed with bidding 4D, but was afraid that RR would take that as no preference in the majors, which South was quite capable of doing even in a less befuddled state. After a full six minutes and 20 seconds, checked on the CCTV near the door where they were playing, North passed, and East decided to also stand it. East led a major ruffed by SB who led a top trump. The defence failed to find their club ruff, needing to duck a club in both hands, and thus the contract made when the 98 of clubs came down in three rounds.

"Why did you think for so long?", asked East to North when looking at the traveller which showed that 6NT had made on most boards, usually with an overtrick. "Well", replied SB, "I was considering bidding 4D, as I was worried that you might be able to take two club ruffs for +1000. However, I was afraid that the moron opposite would think it showed equal length in the majors." "Furthermore, there was a danger that the imbecile would redouble again if you doubled, thinking I had not got the message". He paused for breath. "Anyway you are cold for Seven No-trumps aren't you, with twelve top tricks and a simple squeeze for the 13th? You stop off to double 3D, misdefend it, and want redress. Just typical."

Do you think SB could have known that his long BIT would deceive, and did he have a demonstrable bridge reason for it?

[1eyedjack]

Well he did have equal length in the majors.

[lamford]

1eyedjack, on 2015-October-15, 10:44, said:

Well he did have equal length in the majors.

That is what he was hoping to show with his Pass.

[WesleyC]

Pass.

[weejonnie]

1) Yes
2) No - what do you call a 9-card suit? Trumps!
3) DP for calling a player a 'moron'
4) DP for calling a player an 'imbecile'

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2015-October-15, 15:40, said:

1) Yes
2) No - what do you call a 9-card suit? Trumps!
3) DP for calling a player a 'moron'
4) DP for calling a player an 'imbecile'

SB claimed that he was using the term 'moron' as someone having an IQ of 51-70, while the expression 'imbecile' referred to someone having an IQ of 26-50. He disputed that they were derogatory as far as RR was concerned, and pointed out that idiot (an IQ of 0-25) would have been much worse. The TD had himself referred to his partner as an idiot only the previous week when the said person made the wrong response to RKCB.

And if you decide that North had no bridge reason and "could have known", how do you rule?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-October-15, 16:01, said:

SB claimed that he was using the term 'moron' as someone having an IQ of 51-70, while the expression 'imbecile' referred to someone having an IQ of 26-50. He disputed that they were derogatory as far as RR was concerned, and pointed out that idiot (an IQ of 0-25) would have been much worse. The TD had himself referred to his partner as an idiot only the previous week when the said person made the wrong response to RKCB.

All this is irrelevant; he still gets the DPs.

[helene_t]

Yes he could have known but I doubt that it would have influenced E's decision. I am inclined to giving a split score.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2015-October-15, 16:01, said:

SB claimed that he was using the term 'moron' as someone having an IQ of 51-70, while the expression 'imbecile' referred to someone having an IQ of 26-50. He disputed that they were derogatory as far as RR was concerned, and pointed out that idiot (an IQ of 0-25) would have been much worse. The TD had himself referred to his partner as an idiot only the previous week when the said person made the wrong response to RKCB.

And if you decide that North had no bridge reason and "could have known", how do you rule?

OK I rule he had no bridge reason - and a 6 minute tank +- 30 seconds would give me ample grounds to award a PP - if only for inconveniencing other players + another for unduly slow play - and probably a note to the LEC about the incident expressing my disapproval.

As for the ruling - I think I would have to rule it 3NT+4, depending on what East said they would have done over a prompt pass since an in-tempo pass of the XX would suggest SB was happy to play in 3♦XX. (The legal auction suggests bad splits and in fact it is only because partner's hand fits like a glove that 6NT makes. (remove those intermediates to South and 6N is going off). Maybe a bit of a weighted 6NT as EW are NOS, but not much (25%?). Remember that EW have had the slightly unusual (legal) auction that may not have been repeated elsewhere.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2015-October-16, 02:26, said:

OK I rule he had no bridge reason - and a 6 minute tank +- 30 seconds would give me ample grounds to award a PP

So, you would have awarded a PP to Klukowski for his 6 minute and 20 second tank in the BB semi-final? That would have put England in the final, so David Gold would agree with you.

On this occasion, SB, if he is telling the truth and he always does despite his other failings, was considering bidding 4D. So he had a bridge reason, of that there is no doubt.

[helene_t]

lamford, on 2015-October-16, 04:07, said:

So, you would have awarded a PP to Klukowski for his 6 minute and 20 second tank in the BB semi-final?

Huh? I don't see any relation between the two.

The OP problem is about a frequently occuring situation where you ought to have established a style already so that you can make fast decisions.

Klukowski's problem was in a convoluted auction. Besides, there was little reason for him to think that his tank may mislead opps.

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2015-October-16, 04:23, said:

Huh? I don't see any relation between the two.

The OP problem is about a frequently occuring situation where you ought to have established a style already so that you can make fast decisions.

Klukowski's problem was in a convoluted auction. Besides, there was little reason for him to think that his tank may mislead opps.

I am pleased to note that you have discussed the auction in this post, and established a "style" with your regular partner and you should be complimented on the thoroughness of your preparation. I will make a note to discuss 4D in this precise sequence with my regular partner. I agree that the PP for K would not have been for misleading opponents, but it would have been for unduly slow play which inconveniences other contestants. The use of UI was another potential PP, but that would have been for G. A PP for N on another hand would have been for potentially deceiving opponents.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-15, 17:23, said:

All this is irrelevant; he still gets the DPs.

Under what Law are you issuing the DP? When RR was asked by the TD whether his partner had made a remark that spoilt his enjoyment of the game or embarrassed him, he stated that this was not the case. He felt flattered when called a moron or an imbecile, as his normal partners called him an idiot.

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2015-October-16, 04:23, said:

The OP problem is about a frequently occuring situation

LOL. You and barmar are obviously not signing from the same hymn sheet, as he thinks that I need to construct such threads, and I must confess that this thread is constructed, because in real life ...

[helene_t]

lol @me, I was reading the 3♥ opening problem from bridgewinners at the same time and mixed up the two.

I still think this is different. Here I think he could have known that his tank might mislead opps. Kuklowski couldn't.

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2015-October-16, 05:02, said:

lol @me, I was reading the 3♥ opening problem from bridgewinners at the same time and mixed up the two.

I still think this is different. Here I think he could have known that his tank might mislead opps. Kuklowski couldn't.

I agreed that Klukowski couldn't. Novosadzki could in another thread (A Bit Much). The PP for K was on the same basis as weejonnie, for unduly slow play.

[helene_t]

But actually I had this exact auction a few years ago. Shogi redoubled with 5503. I was 1273 and decided to pass. After a lot less than 6 minutes. So yes, next time it happens I will be able to pass or bid in tempo.

[StevenG]

I'm obviously being rather naive, as I don't understand how the hesitation deceived East. What bids were available that SB might have been thinking about?

Also, since SB seems, according to the narrative, to have been thinking about the bridge for 6 minutes plus, he must have had a bridge reason for thinking that long.

Lamford seems to be drawing a parallel between an irregular club partnership involving a very weak player, and an international partnership under no time constraints. There is, of course, no comparison.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-October-16, 04:40, said:

Under what Law are you issuing the DP? When RR was asked by the TD whether his partner had made a remark that spoilt his enjoyment of the game or embarrassed him, he stated that this was not the case. He felt flattered when called a moron or an imbecile, as his normal partners called him an idiot.

Law 91A. And quit trying to move the goal posts.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2015-October-16, 09:31, said:

Law 91A. And quit trying to move the goal posts.

Law 91A allows a DP to maintain order and discipline, neither of which were under threat here.