jkdood

Even so much as reserving your rights for a BIT or whatever comes across as an accusation of (potential) cheating. Experienced players get used to it and the lawmakers and enforcers are at great pains to point out that it isn't - but that doesn't alter that the implication is exactly that - and inexperienced people react as such. Matmat's comments upthread about teaching newcomers fully and correctly regarding such things, sure comes back to mind!

Someone just asked me how requesting an adjustment for an action "suggestive of UI" is not tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Well, maye an example: You are declaring 6S holding xxxx of trump versus AQJT in dummy, with plenty of safe entries to both hands. RHO has a coughing fit, and in their discomfort, pretty much exposes their entire hand just to you, and the K of spades flashes by before you can avert your eyes... You are playing with a client, and decide to (rightly or wrongly ethically) take advantage, and play low to the ace, landing your slam. An opp asks for an RofC adjustment (should rules policy allow that) for an action "suggestive of UI"; (perhaps you accidentally overhead a discussion and improperly didn't report it, or? ) You respond (to a director) that you couldn't help but note the exposed card and felt obliged by dedication to your client (and/or simple greed) to act on it. The TD rules there is no UI and no C&E (but perhaps a recorder form) and life goes on, (tarnished or not.)

Seems like some folks forgot (or missed) the early details. At 5:49PM Justin started this thread with: "Director ruling is that the table result stands. Something is wrong with bridge that this..." So the director call and adjudication were done, and within CofC timelines. Asking for a director after your teammates relate what happened at their table is not at all uncommon, and certainly still timely. Yes, earlier would have been better. It is not hard to engage a bunch of experts in a few minutes time with a "what would you bid (or not bid) with the following hand? Clearly the amazingly successful 6D call, even with personality and state of match considered, is a call from beyond left field, and at the very least suggestive of UI. Posing the thought (by posting) that bridge rules policy should maybe allow for an adjustment if and when something of this nature occurs, is not a cheating accusation or IMHO untoward behavior. Things did get out of hand when a lynch mob mentality formed, but thankfully (again IMHO) folks on the other side came forth with reasonable defensive comments. I do think consideration of some sort of RofC revival is timely and worthy of vibrant discussion. I do think Mr. P unfairly got the raw deal of a lynch mob attack that included inaccurate reports and biased opinions. But equally offensive is some suggestion now that Justin's start to this thread was out of line or something that would require public apologies.

Well thank goodness for that! We can cancel the lie detector test planned for you and the 9:30 AM breakfast meeting with G!!!! :)

I suppose JD could also move the K of D around and find a layout where 7NT makes. Reminds me of an amusing Justin tale. (Hope he finds it amusing as well.) When he was still wet behind the ears (but loaded with talent) he played with his mom at a nationals and during the session some wheels came off the cart and he felt a need to "show his mom" by up and bidding 7NT on one hand for no apparent logical bridge reason. If I remember correctly, the bid was not at all a success and he was in the hotel lobby at 3AM locked out of the hotel room in retribution. (I was returning from creights with Treadwell.) Now think, if that had just been a 1 in 1000 (1000000?) layout like JD's? :lol:

Nice example, JD. I would vote yes on that example. But call it RoC or Law of Coincidence or whatever, if there is going to be any redress for a bid 0 in 1000 whatevers would find, that is spectacularly successful, as a matter of law, with no evidence of UI otherwise available, let's fully document, publish, define, and agree on the parameters and remedy first.

I personally feel M-M-'s post is so-so true. As a younger/serious aspiring player frequenting club games to gain experience, I was offended by the abundant coffee-housing and mannerisms so many times that I found myself calling for the club TD at least once a session... ...needless to say, the TDs were not amused, the perpetrators took more offense at the calls than I did at the presumed UI, and I gained a reputation not to be envied. I eventually just gave up (club games as well) and wish I had given up sooner. As long as the new players think bridge can be played like poker because no one insisted otherwise in a calm convincing way, or remain oblivious to the UI from pauses and mannerisms, there is no good answer. OTOH, having taught bridge beginners, I can't imagine an easy route to such education, as the struggle to learn bridge tactics and strategy is just all-consuming for most. I for one think getting the club TDs to be more engaged(perhaps a 1 minute educational comment about avoiding UI at the start of each club game) might help a lot, but I understand that with dwindling attendance they have other priorities.

Like the (convoluted?) American legal system, the laws and ordinances and such are basically shaped and shooken up by the courts and judges and precedents. In ACBLworld, we have had the texts of bridge law interpreted by the columns and articles and committee and director guidelines and handbooks and rulings that bring us to the present day... ...while the "Law of Coincidence" was apparently just a name for a state of interpretation of the laws, it was definitely once in play. You can find it referenced per se by National Appeals committees in casebooks (Weinstein, 1989) or simply applied when North opened 1S with 9HCP, South bid 2H with AQxxxx and out, and it went pass-pass-pass and later the opps called the TD for redress, which they sometimes got. Yes, Kaplan and other "authorities on the laws" bemoaned this and over time, it seemed to fully retreat into the shadows (of which for my taste there were far too many of.) Whatever comes about from the vibrant discussion of you-know-who's 6D call, I hope it leads to some clearly defined precedent or regulation that applies, and is made public for all to rely UPON.

I am too fond of Justin to extensively comment on what might be justifiable but perhaps a wee bit "too harsh and public" reaction. And by reaction I refer not only to the incident, but to some defenders' remarks, the inane rationalizers, and to early morning phone calls while trying to get rest before the next session (boy do I really hate that!) Now, to knowing that "he" shuffled just board 8 of 8. Ha ha. I confess to being an ardent N-S-sitter who likes to "manage the boards". I confess to saying to an E-W opp that grabs the next one off the side-chair: "you wanna handle the boards? sit N/S". And if that's not enough "mea culpa", I confess to shuffling and dealing the highest number board first so that it can be placed face up on the bottom of the stack of boards on the table, assuring at least one is in proper order to start the stack. (So I would know this also.) Now about that bid. Well, yes, it seems rather hard to imagine it was made without UI, despite absence of any real evidence of UI. But if you took some 100 Flight A players, told them they were down a bunch in the match so feel free to make an imaginative bid to create a swing, and gave them that hand, well, I would bet money more than 1 and maybe 5 or 10 might select 6D. Really. I already got one to pick it as their "third choice", using this schemed approach. If a precedent needs to be established (or re-established) that a "0 in 100 experts would not make that call" bid that strikes gold is in itself cause for adjustment or punishment, well, let's discuss it and agree or not and then issue the proper regulation. I for one was very fond of the old "Law of Coincidence", an application of Rule 40 that would allow adjustment of a "lucky result" if both players took clearly unusual actions and the result was paydirt. My understanding is that in the shadowy poorly-documented world of "interpretting the regulations", this "Law of Coincidence" has gone from practical acceptance to impractical disappearance over the past 2 decades. Maybe it should be reborn, with full published details that are easy to interpret and apply? I vote YEA.

On a 25 top, 22.5

It is not unheard of for a partnership to have an experiential or mutually stylistic approach to these situations where 2C is an informed choice and 2S will be an informed correction, made on auto-pilot with any 3-3 fit for those suits. There is certainly merit to these "approaches" - especially in a day and age where a 1NT rebid can have a singleton much more often than 2 decades ago, and an auto-correct to 2 of a 5-card major, especially if spot-poor, is no longer the regimen of the day (as it once was.) I guess changes made and approaches adopted by experts over the past couple of decades inarguably represent progress and improvements, so there's no need to re-visit this aspect (but you can guess my opinion!) However, a 2C call made by a 1980's South playing with a 2000-North, or in a partnership that hasn't gotten the "fingertips" feel down pat or even discussed for these situations, is surely ill-advised in 2008.

Time for the reality answer?

Really afraid that dummy has KJxx of spades and declarer none with A?? of diamonds, and a spade lead sets up a diamond pitch. Now do we lead a diamond to break up a squeeze (and another when in with club trick?)

Certainly a nice idea.

SKIP

Very welldone. (I am assuming with all those controls A spds, Kx H, diamond void, and AQJ8th of c, that when partner cooperated for slam with 4D you knew "at least 6C" was right :lol: (Hope you didn't bid 7 over 6 or sumfin)

"Is any of that really so hard?" I actually thought things were going along EASIER when other (serious players) suggested 3D was a stopper-ask (at least "for now") - then 3N was pretty clear-cut with AKxx. But if partner can have KJx Kx x AQJxxxx for this self splinter, maybe 3n by me with a heart lead ain't so good, with 5C probably cold. Hmmn.

OK from now on I "xx". I always liked Christmas anyway, although I tired of the coal though. (LOL I wrote this after reading your simple neat answer, then came back and checked MY post and saw you had just added "Sorry, 4d...." etc etc... ...so Now I edit MY post and add, I dunno, maybe I'll think of something :)

IF we all(?) take this 3D call by Pard to be a self-splinter with long clubs, do we infer it is exactly a singleton, since 4D was available? What is 4D (by Pard) anyway, same hand with a void, and exclusion RKC then (if you play exclusion)? (Oh and there WAS a time where "xx" almost always implied NO FIT! Then Jordan and his buddy Flip and Rev came along and it's another fine mess, Ollie :)

Ditto! The enemy list to get annoying or offensive chat from another member ONCE and then NEVER again is one of BBO's finest options :)

If anyone's convinced NOT to start with "xx", probably 1D is superior to 1S. Anytime pard has 4 spades and 5 clubs along with Kxx of H and a stiff d, no matter what the level, playing spades from his side seems far better.

Over 3H (my choice) no reason 3N is lost forever. On the illustrated example hand (xxx xx AKxxxx Kx) Pard has a relatively easy "ambiguous 3-level" 3s call to keep 3n in the picture.

And a 100% accurate when they said: "I think I had a nightmare like this once or twice. " Seriously, when you hide a biddable 4-card major (not to mention a biddable diamond suit and a fit for partner that may develop further in an orderly fashion) for a speculative low-level bounty of penalty reward, you are inviting trouble, (an eager party-crasher.) (By the way, MatMat is a close friend and a fine and thoughtful player I have a lot of respect for. The xx was (IMHO) just a reasonable but low-percentage gamble that "surprise-surprise" didn't work out and made for an interesting thread.)

If Roland has more volunteers like you and the luxury of picking from several options and players, it's always nice to have someone so adept and able :lol:

Doesn't seem weird to me when JTFANCLUB is being engaged, helpful, and reasonable :lol: