Impossible ruling?

[hrothgar]

for chrissake if someone younger than you has a different opinion is it always because of the gap in age? Perhaps when you cannot logically reply to arguments, you resort to "well you're entitled to your opinion, but mine is better, and you can't see that because you're 19."

I'd NEVER cite age as the reason for this difference of opinion...

 

If provoked, I might cite the traditional attitude of many North American pros that everyone else in the world is a cheat.

 

Alternatively, I might suggest that many people outside North America have different ideas regarding what is standard for a direct seat double. In turn, this might impact South's decision to pass or pull.

 

However, I agree that Justin's age probably didn't impact the decision.

[Posleda]

Who are you, player, to state which bid is good and which bad ?

 

NS bidding was good - no cheating, no bad bid, no misclick.

 

Dusan

Well....you do....so why can't we?

Apologies, that's my poor English :( . Maybe "correct" instead of "good" will be better ? "good" was meant as "according to Laws and produced good result" or so.

 

I am quite experienced on and off TD. I am not entitled to adjudicate whether a bid is good or bad. I may not. Sufficient, alerted, explained, made in tempo are my categories. No law has been broken in this case.

 

Dusan

[Guest Jlall]

Just for clarity, for the last 2 posts above, I understand people make Xs on 18+ (or 16+ whatever).

 

The fact that north HAPPENED to have 5 good spades and south HAPPENED to pass white/red with 3 small is the strange action. An action that combined with the fact that north also had a penalty X if they played that leads one to believe that there was an implicit agreement in place.

 

Richard: different standards may impact souths decision to pass I agree. If south expects good spades, he will pass.

 

Did I ever even suggest NS cheated? I'm glad you like to generalize for north american pros, it's awesome. Are you a north american pro? Do you know all north american pros? How can you say they think everyone in the world cheats, and do you actually BELIEVE that? Sometimes I wonder if you believe the things you say they are so absurd.

 

I'm glad you agree that age is not part of the argument.

[LH2650]

for chrissake if someone younger than you has a different opinion is it always because of the gap in age?

Your particular experience does matter. If you had played in a lunchtime game at work for a few years, you might have a better understanding of how poorly bridge can be played outside the duplicate arena. South's pass looks like a typical mistake (and I have seen it several times) that people make in the process of learning the game.

[Brandal]

Who are you, player, to state which bid is good and which bad ?

 

NS bidding was good - no cheating, no bad bid, no misclick.

 

Dusan

Well....you do....so why can't we?

Apologies, that's my poor English :( . Maybe "correct" instead of "good" will be better ? "good" was meant as "according to Laws and produced good result" or so.

 

I am quite experienced on and off TD. I am not entitled to adjudicate whether a bid is good or bad. I may not. Sufficient, alerted, explained, made in tempo are my categories. No law has been broken in this case.

 

Dusan

No problem Dusan :o

 

I happen to think insufficient explanations are a bigger/

more frequent problem than cheating......

 

And I also agree EW could have rescued themselves,

but I have problems with south's pass being "correct"

over a "normal" T/O double of 1S.

 

Maybe North didn't fully explain?

 

Because the pass makes more sense in that scenario....

 

:) oh well

[hrothgar]

Richard: I'm glad you like to generalize for north american pros, it's awesome. Are you a north american pro? Do you know all north american pros? How can you say they think everyone in the world cheats, and do you actually BELIEVE that? Sometimes I wonder if you believe the things you say they are so absurd.

My statement that North American pros have a reputation for leveling cheating accusations against foreigner is fairly uncontroversial. The fact that you find this in any way surprising suggests a somewhat sheltered upbringing. At the very least, you seems to have missed quite a few significant “incidents” over the past few decades ranging from Tobias Stone's suspensions for cheating accusations, Scheinwold's writings, Bob Hamman's “At the Table” and John Swanson's “Inside the Bermuda Bowl”. (Indeed, there has been fair amount of criticism of both these works regarding preoccupation with cheating). If we want to include British ex-pat Alan Truscott we open reams of additional “work”.

 

Wander over to rec.games.bridge and google Hamman + Cheating or Swanson + cheating in the rec.games.bridge archive. If easily find some VERY spirited discussions. If you prefer a more formal book, I strongly recommend that you get a copy of “Fair Play or Foul: Cheating Scandals at Bridge” by Cathy Chua. Outstanding book on many levels. If you have access to a good Bridge library, you might want to look at some old issues of the Bridge World.

 

Please note: I'm not trying to open an argument regarding who is or is not cheating, but merely trying establish the factual basis for my earlier comments.

[Guest Jlall]

ROFL.

 

I have read everything that you mentioned except for the last book. I am also aware of Tobias Stone incidents.

 

you said, and I quote "If provoked, I might cite the traditional attitude of many North American pros that everyone else in the world is a cheat. "

 

This is a generalization. An untrue one. The fact that you cite a FEW players, one of whom (Hamman) is not even a pro, and generalize this onto "many" north american pros is a joke. The fact that the players mentioned thought that the blue team cheated (when they had NUMEROUS scandals btw) does not mean they think everyone in the world cheats. Do you know Hamman? Have you asked him whether he thought, say, Garozzo or Belladonna cheated? He doesn't. Does he think the poles, brazillians, scandanavians cheat? No. Does he think versace, lauria etc cheat? No. Please, at least know something about what you are tlaking about.

 

The fact that you cite it in reference to ME personally and my view on this hand is also a joke as well as irrelevant. I never accused anyone of cheating, and I certainly do not think everyone cheats.

 

You consider yourself a logical person. I ask you if it's logical that in the past 50 years because of Tobias Stone's incident, John Swanson's book, and Bob Hamman's book that it is fair to say many north american pros think that everyone else in the world cheats. If you cannot see that you are both biased and absurd, then you are truly blinded.

 

This thread is no longer productive nor relevant so I will not post in it anymore.

[Al_U_Card]

From my perspective, I think that any discussion of this hand needs to start by analyzing South's pass. The pass is probably not the most critical element required to reach a decision, however, the only time that you can discuss the pass sans-bias is before people see the hand.

In isolation, with just the East hand shown, after p-p-1S-dbl with no spades , 9 hcp and 544 is not a rdbl a likely suggestion opposite the 3rd seat opener that rates to play better in 2 of anything else?

[pigpenz]

My statement that North American pros have a reputation for leveling cheating accusations against foreigner is fairly uncontroversial.

Heck there have been numerous Americans accussed of cheating...the pencil situation in

Houston with Katz/Cohen, Moses Ma, and the guy who had is thumb bit off by a pig who was accussed of dealing from the bottom of the deck, no joke

[McBruce]

If you show the entire bridge hand, you are going to bias the answers that you get. Your correspondent is going to subconciously shape their answers based on extraneous information. If you want to ask people how they would bid in the absence of a hesitation, don't tell them that there was a hesitation. If you want know how people would bid without U/I, don't tell them about the UI.

I think that presenting the hand without UI (unauthorized information) is a fine procedure in many situations where one needs to determine whether there is a logical alternative, but not this one. Where is the UI? There was no hesitation, no comment, no peeking, no evidence to suggest either player had a prior view of the deal.

 

Of course when you give the hand to others they will do different things--we have already established that the auction is unusual! But that is no lawful reason for adjusting the score when there is no UI. Deciding whether there is a LA only happens when there is UI. A TD cannot assume the presence of UI because there is a single unusual result.

 

What we do have is the information that N-S won the tournament and refused to justify their actions with the TD when asked. Because it is generally agreed that online bridge is easier to cheat in and because this result--in conjuction with the ignoring of the TD--is suspicious, the only thing a TD can do is to check the other results of this pair and DQ them if there are other equally suspicious auctions. I think BBO gives you about a half hour to do this before the scores are finalized and no further corrections can be made, which means you can look at maybe 6-8 boards closely: so get online and pick the best 8 scores of this pair--that is where you will find unusual actions from both players that work.

 

But, remember, the standard is high here. To adjust scores you need to be very sure that actions from both players in the same auction or defence are quite unusual. By deciding to perform this check you set up a natural bias which urges you to overstate these types of coincidences. If you are unfamiliar with their bidding system, you could assume cheating where none exists.

 

If you do find obvious evidence of repeated suspicious coincidences, change those boards to A+A-, report the pair and the deals to abuse, and keep them out of your games in future. I check the winners scores in every Alphabet Point tournament I run. Not once in 62 tournaments have I even come close to wanting to DQ the leader, but these are indys so there is less likelyhood of doublesided partnership action. What I quite often see is that a player wins a 24 table indy by being an innocent bystander while the opponents go whacko on about a third of the boards, and playing sound bridge on the others.

[Chamaco]

you said, and I quote "If provoked, I might cite the traditional attitude of many North American pros that everyone else in the world is a cheat. "

 

This is a generalization. An untrue one.

Well I am happy to know that most american players do not think that the rest of the world (and in particular the Blue Team) cheated.

 

Reading some paragraphs of the books mentioned was sometimes quite irritating for the tone and the contents, and I was worried that - if not most american pros - at least quite a bunch of US players could at least share some of the views advertised by a few US top players.

 

Perhaps I was misguided by some old threads I had read on rec.games.bridge.

 

I am glad Justin is not among them. ;)

[hotShot]

[Al_U_Card]

In another thread, people were chastised for deciding ethical considerations without being present during the (offending?) practice in question. Here, we have a leading statement that asks for a conclusion.

 

We are already almost hopelessly biased by our own familiarity with our own methods (wherein the "strangeness" of others thoughts and actions which are not our own). In the absence of concrete information to substantiate allegations of wrong-doing, can't a "fix" just be a "fix" or are we all becoming litigators? :(

[olegru]

Is something strange with south bid?

S holds 4333 distribution with 3HCP and his 4card suit is lead by the 9. There is not even a 10 in this hand.

How strong can he expect N to be? 12+ HCP seems ok ...

S only 4 card suit is ♣ so his options are 2♣ and pass.

If N has a minimum opening, EW can still have a full game with 25 hcp on their side.

...

Maybe pass is not an expert bid, but it is not unusual in any way.

 

So if there is nothing strange with NS bidding there is no case. Result stands.

...

Lets count:

EW have 10 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +3 = 760 after pass from S > 620 in 4♠ after 2♣ from S. --> pass is bad.

EW have 9 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +2 = 560 > 140 in 3♠ --> pass is bad.

EW have 8 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +1 = 360 > 110 in 2♠ --> pass is bad.

 

Conclusion: Pass is ridiculous.

[hrothgar]

Is something strange with south bid?

S holds  4333 distribution with 3HCP and his 4card suit is lead by the 9. There is not even a 10 in this hand.

How strong can he expect N to be? 12+ HCP seems ok ...

S only 4 card suit is ♣ so his options are 2♣ and pass.

If N has a minimum opening, EW can still have a full game with 25 hcp on their side.

...

Maybe pass is not an expert bid, but it is not unusual in any way.

 

So if there is nothing strange with NS bidding there is no case. Result stands.

...

Lets count:

EW have 10 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +3 = 760 after pass from S > 620 in 4♠ after 2♣ from S. --> pass is bad.

EW have 9 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +2 = 560 > 140 in 3♠ --> pass is bad.

EW have 8 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +1 = 360 > 110 in 2♠ --> pass is bad.

 

Conclusion: Pass is ridiculous.

I guess that the offending side got the score they "deserved" then

[hotShot]

Is something strange with south bid?

S holds  4333 distribution with 3HCP and his 4card suit is lead by the 9. There is not even a 10 in this hand.

How strong can he expect N to be? 12+ HCP seems ok ...

S only 4 card suit is ♣ so his options are 2♣ and pass.

If N has a minimum opening, EW can still have a full game with 25 hcp on their side.

...

Maybe pass is not an expert bid, but it is not unusual in any way.

 

So if there is nothing strange with NS bidding there is no case. Result stands.

...

Lets count:

EW have 10 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +3 = 760 after pass from S > 620 in 4♠ after 2♣ from S. --> pass is bad.

EW have 9 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +2 = 560 > 140 in 3♠ --> pass is bad.

EW have 8 tricks in spades: 1 ♠* +1 = 360 > 110 in 2♠ --> pass is bad.

 

Conclusion: Pass is ridiculous.

North could very well hold this hand:

[hv=s=sj3haq86dq876ckt8]133|100|[/hv]

 

How many times is 2♣ down?

 

Let us count:

2♣X-4 n.vul. = 800, worse than 1♠X+3 which is only 760

[Brandal]

North could very well hold this hand:

[hv=s=sj3haq86dq876ckt8]133|100|[/hv]

 

How many times is 2♣ down?

 

Let us count:

2♣X-4 n.vul. = 800, worse than 1♠X+3 which is only 760

If this is how you reason when pd X 1S opener,

I have alot to learn :)

 

Isn't it just as likely this pair use X=pen

and bid=constructive?

[Chamaco]

North could very well hold this hand:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: Unknown

♠ J3 ♥ AQ86 ♦ Q876 ♣ KT8

 

How many times is 2♣ down?

 

Let us count:

2♣X-4 n.vul. = 800, worse than 1♠X+3 which is only 760

If that's the worry, then better bid 2H for a Moysian fit.

 

Some people play (not me) that 1NT can be a "desperation" bid, promising nothing at all. I do not like this, but anything is better than a penalty pass if holding 3 hcp ! :)

 

Whatever your approach, JUST BID SOMETHING, and not pass a takeout by pard just because the choices are unappealing.

 

Bidding whatever you like here is the least of evils if compared to an insane penalty pass :-)

[hotShot]

"No fit, no bid!"

 

So "pass" is not intended to be a "penalty pass", it is just an "desperation pass". Common among players who don't know better.

Good players and established partnerships should not need to use desparate means.

 

So from this one board you can't conclude about NS style of dbl.

As pointed out before, if this is the second incident of that type, this is a different story.

[Posleda]

North could very well hold this hand:

[hv=s=sj3haq86dq876ckt8]133|100|[/hv]

Could, at the time of his double. Could not, after E's pass, if they use usual methods.