[pescetom]

hrothgar, on 2025-April-03, 15:23, said:

Not in my world it isn't. But, I'll tell you what, I'll give this tournament director just the same degree of respect that I would the President of these here United States...

BBO blacked out while I qualified my statement further, not that it matters.
I did not expect you to say otherwise, I can only hope I would have already gained your respect

[sanst]

In what way EW claim to be damaged? What would have happened if N had put 3◇ on the table, which is a 'normal' opening bid in this situation? E would have doubled, W probably bid 3♤ and after that? 3NT, 4 ♧? How could they have reached 4♡?

[jillybean]

I was not there and I am getting this second hand, making it difficult to fill in the details.

1nt was a psych , psychs are a legal part of the game.
However, there could be more to this, as sanst’s comment suggests.

sanst, on 2025-April-03, 02:39, said:

AFAIK is a 1NT opening bid in the third seat, nv vs. v, with a hand like this not unusual for a (semi)pro. It's something else if S knows this and bids accordingly. Implicit agreements are still agreements and I wouldn't buy 'psych' as an explanation. If S is totally unware of a 1NT call on a hand like this and bids like it was a 15...17 pts, then it's okay. Otherwise, I throw the book at them.

[barmar]

shyams, on 2025-April-03, 07:45, said:

B. I'm no TD but I think it is a legal psyche even if North has made the same type of bid previously.
Here, it then becomes incumbent on South to alert all 1NT bids in the situation where North could potentially have psyched. e.g. alert all 3rd seat 1NT openings when NS is non-vul and explain (e.g.) normally 15-17 bal but North has psyched on 2 previous occasions in 3rd seat when NV.

If they do it enough that South needs to alert and explain it, it becomes an agreement. But this agreement isn't allowed in ACBL.

[smerriman]

jillybean, on 2025-April-04, 04:31, said:

However, there could be more to this, as sanst’s comment suggests.

I don't see any issues there. South certainly bid as if it were 15-17. Still not seeing how E/W were worse off, even if there was something wrong.

[mycroft]

I don't really care (as the TD at the table) whether you hold me in respect. "Who's the bastard in the black" and all that.

But 74B5 says "you will *address* me with respect, or you will be paying in 1/4 boards." CDR 303B1, if the derision is "excessive", can lead to suspension. Sure, all of that is "sledgehammer for fly", but a pro player in the Blue Ribbon Pairs is expected to show an elevated ethical stance.

The correct answer is "can we discuss this with the DIC?" or "did you discuss this with the DIC?"

My issue with "get an experienced director" is that we are all taught to consult, and (in Toronto) were reminded day of to consult, on judgement rulings. Even the least experienced of us. It should be expected that "an experienced director" was already gotten. (now it might not have happened. Sure. But I'm sure the DIC would put it right if so)

Which pushes the comment extremely close to "I want a real director".

Of course, this story is *at least* third hand; shortcuts are taken in the telling that "we all" understand, but we all also know the "reporting to managers" story; it works the same way the other way, too. So I do not know what was said by the pro, which is why "I hope".

And I would expect that my (non-verbal) reaction to the phrasing, were it of that ilk, would be an obvious warning. I would not push for a PP; I've dealt with worse from better. And I would take it to the DIC, had I not before; and if the ruling was changed with that discussion, so be it. I've been wrong before, and I'll be wrong again. That's what DICs (and other consulting directors) are *for*.

But I also know that something else DICs, especially NABC+ event DICs, are for is "you have the right to disagree with rulings. You have the right to appeal the ruling. You don't have the right to insult the person delivering our ruling."

[johnu]

sanst, on 2025-April-04, 03:22, said:

In what way EW claim to be damaged?

Well, if it was an illegal bid, then E/W faced a problem that they wouldn't have faced if their opponents were following the rules.

In this case, it wasn't an illegal bid but falls into the definition of a psych so E/W have to live with the results. Unless N/S had a concealed agreement to open these types of hands but that's another discussion.

[jillybean]

johnu, on 2025-April-04, 18:11, said:

Well, if it was an illegal bid, then E/W faced a problem that they wouldn't have faced if their opponents were following the rules.

In this case, it wasn't an illegal bid but falls into the definition of a psych so E/W have to live with the results. Unless N/S had a concealed agreement to open these types of hands but that's another discussion.

I think this is part of the discussion.
It's a psyche, apparently not uncommon in 3rd seat V vs. NV by (semi)pro's. In this instance, against non Pro pair.
Until the game becomes electronic bridge we can't monitor and track these psyches but it will be interesting to run it through EDGAR when we can.

This thread has been somewhat derailed by "North told them to go and refer to an experienced Director"
Let's hope North's request was "I wish to raise this with the DIC" not, "for *&^% sake, get a real Director". I don't know.

[smerriman]

johnu, on 2025-April-04, 18:11, said:

Well, if it was an illegal bid, then E/W faced a problem that they wouldn't have faced if their opponents were following the rules.

But the "problem" seems to actually make it much easier for them.. you don't automatically get the optimal double dummy score if the opponents break a rule.

[blackshoe]

Some fifteen or twenty years ago, maybe longer, one of the better players around here was playing in a club Swiss Teams event. So was I -- and so was the director. "Better player" called for a director. Insistently. Since the director was playing on the team this guy's team was playing against, he asked another player to handle the call. I didn't know the other player, so I can only hope he had some kind of directing experience. Nonetheless, it couldn't have been more than about five seconds after he got to the table that the cry rang out: "I want a REAL director!". I don't know how the ruling went. I do know that this guy's ranting broke my concentration, and I blew the 3NT contract I was in. I'm sure he's forgotten this happened -- he's 94, for Pete's sake. But I haven't forgotten it, and I never will.

This is the same guy who once told me "I have 2500 Master Points, and I can tell you without a doubt that raising one of a major to two with six HCP is WRONG." He probably wonders why I don't listen to his advice.

“It was rumored she held grudges till they died of old age, then had them stuffed and mounted.”
― David Weber on Queen Elizabeth III of Manticore, in Field of Dishonor

[jillybean]

blackshoe, on 2025-April-04, 19:35, said:

Some fifteen or twenty years ago, maybe longer, one of the better players around here was playing in a club Swiss Teams event. So was I -- and so was the director. "Better player" called for a director. Insistently. Since the director was playing on the team this guy's team was playing against, he asked another player to handle the call. I didn't know the other player, so I can only hope he had some kind of directing experience. Nonetheless, it couldn't have been more than about five seconds after he got to the table that the cry rang out: "I want a REAL director!". I don't know how the ruling went. I do know that this guy's ranting broke my concentration, and I blew the 3NT contract I was in. I'm sure he's forgotten this happened -- he's 94, for Pete's sake. But I haven't forgotten it, and I never will.

This is the same guy who once told me "I have 2500 Master Points, and I can tell you without a doubt that raising one of a major to two with six HCP is WRONG." He probably wonders why I don't listen to his advice.

“It was rumored she held grudges till they died of old age, then had them stuffed and mounted.”
― David Weber on Queen Elizabeth III of Manticore, in Field of Dishonor

It’s too bad you couldn’t slap him with a few ZT penalties.

[mycroft]

I have issues with psychs. And I'm more likely to make one than almost any player.

But if you've entered the (full) BRP, not only have you won or come second in a high-level event (open or nearly open), you've decided to play against the best of the best and fodder like me. In the last 10 years or so, you've also decided to do that instead of entering the 0-6000 or 0-2500 BRP.

You knew what you signed up for. 40C exists; go ahead and have the director over to do the checking (because 40C doesn't just say "psychs are legal"), but I'm not going to accept "it's not fair" (even "it's not fair for pros to do this to us") or "they can't do that" from players who volunteered for the deep end of the pool.

[johnu]

smerriman, on 2025-April-04, 18:51, said:

But the "problem" seems to actually make it much easier for them.. you don't automatically get the optimal double dummy score if the opponents break a rule.

I was making a statement of fact.

Quote

E/W faced a problem that they wouldn't have faced if their opponents were following the rules.

On this hand, North's psych kept themselves out of a good diamond partial, and E/W might get to a heart partial.

[smerriman]

johnu, on 2025-April-05, 02:22, said:

I was making a statement of fact.

You were replying to a question about if/why E/W claimed to be damaged. You did state a fact about the fact they faced a different situation, but that has no relationship to whether they were damaged or not.

johnu, on 2025-April-05, 02:22, said:

On this hand, North's psych kept themselves out of a good diamond partial..

.. which is no damage, since E/W outscored this.

johnu, on 2025-April-05, 02:22, said:

and E/W might get to a heart partial.

If this would be your claim, please provide a viable sequence to do so that isn't based on double dummy bidding.

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2025-April-04, 22:15, said:

I have issues with psychs. And I'm more likely to make one than almost any player.

But if you've entered the (full) BRP, not only have you won or come second in a high-level event (open or nearly open), you've decided to play against the best of the best and fodder like me. In the last 10 years or so, you've also decided to do that instead of entering the 0-6000 or 0-2500 BRP.

You knew what you signed up for. 40C exists; go ahead and have the director over to do the checking (because 40C doesn't just say "psychs are legal"), but I'm not going to accept "it's not fair" (even "it's not fair for pros to do this to us") or "they can't do that" from players who volunteered for the deep end of the pool.

I don't think it's relevant, but this was the 0-6000 BuRP.

Note that the auction has been updated

---

I'm beginning to wonder

[hrothgar]

jillybean, on 2025-April-05, 07:59, said:

Note that the auction has been updated

I'm beginning to wonder

Let's presume that partner is holding a 5332 with long Diamonds and doubleton club

Does this seem likely given that

1. The opponents are suggesting a club fit
2. You're holding 4 clubs

So, one of three things is happening

1. The opponents are in 7 card fit
2. Partner opened 1N with a stiff club
3. Partner psyched

If option 1 is true, then a 3!D bid could work out quite badly
If option 3 is true, then 3!D actually looks pretty reasonable. We have a 9 card fit and we want a Diamond lead
If partner opened 1N with a stiff club, I think that defending seems right

I'm not sure that you can take much inference from South's actions (or lack there of)

[mycroft]

• There are no "pros" in the 0-6000. There are some good players, sure; and some probably are being paid to play; but not the same thing.
  
• But conversely, some of my "you volunteered for the Shark Tank, you don't get to complain about the sharks" similarly goes away.
  
• 2♦ is absolute "Futile Willie" territory. "My psych didn't stop them from bidding, so I'll do what everybody else already did with these cards, because clearly the opponents can't use the extra information" (because North can't when it's done against him). Again, in a very strange way, "once you decide your hand is an X, don't change your mind" - North decided his best chance at a good board was psyching a 1NT opener. He might still be right!
  
• I'd love to have information about the E/W auction. "two-suiter or clubs" isn't an agreement I've heard of ("one minor or both majors"?) and I have no idea what 2♣ means (is it "automatic", or is it "I'd prefer the two-suiter, but"?). I also don't know if 3♣ confirms clubs, or if East's actual hand would be considered a "two-suiter"? Right now, they're playing in my long suit on an effectively 20-20 hand. Do I want to compete in a (likely - again, as a director, I'd want to know whether this person is known for opening 1NT with a good-5m 332 and rebidding the minor (frankly, another "Futile Willie" trait I tend to only see in 1500-3000 MP "not really flight A" players), or if partner would expect 6 for this.
  
• But also, what hrothgar said. "Looks like they're playing in an 8-card fit missing at least QT (or a 7-card fit) and bad breaks. And we have a tap defence lined up. And I'm sure if we gain control of the trump suit with it, partner will have an entry for the 4th or 5th diamond. Do I want to trade that for our 8 (possibly 9) card fit and bad breaks?"

I think in all cases, though, "Welcome to the Real World, ladies and gentlemen".

[jillybean]

Pro = someone being paid to partner a client in a game of bridge? Players profile lists their employment as Professional Bridge Player. Not originally from the USA so perhaps the MP haven't caught up with them yet.

I'm not going to argue with the rest of your comments. I am beginning to think this kerfuffle arose from the incorrect belief that the psychic 1nt was an illegal bid.

[mycroft]

Hence my first question :-).

[sanst]

 mycroft, on 2025-April-05, 11:46, said:

I'd love to have information about the E/W auction. "two-suiter or clubs" isn't an agreement I've heard of ("one minor or both majors"?) and I have no idea what 2♣ means (is it "automatic"?

A bit OT: I know it under the name 'multi defense'. It means either clubs or diamonds and hearts, and the 2♧ is obligatory unless you gave a good suit yourself. In the same way (1NT) - 2♧ is either diamonds or hearts and spades, 2◇ hearts or spades and clubs etcetera. I've no idea whether it's legal in ACBL-land, in The Netherlands it is allowed at all levels.