unpleasant situation

[gwnn]

We finished a disappointing 7th in Bucharest at the trials for China. I won't go into details. Here's a situation that happened to me.

[hv=d=w&n=sq8632h32djcq9832&w=sat9hj54d65432caj&e=sk74ht96dqt87ct54&s=sj5hakq87dak9ck76]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

it went

 

p-p-p-2NT

p-3♥-p-3♠

p-3NT-end

 

♦3 lead. I ask RHO what their leads are, she answers "2/4", I ask for the jack quickly, she covers and then I think for about 10 or 15 seconds before playing the ace (mental blockage). King of clubs, taken, diamond return to the ten and ace, club to jack and small, LHO leads another diamond, taken by my nine, and after seeing that hearts break, I claim +2.

 

RHO asks for the ref, and explains to him "I think declarer just did something very unfair", that my hesitation suggested diamond weakness and that her pd would have shifted to a spade to keep me to 9 tricks. The kib, who's RHO's mentor, nods and tells the ref "of course, she's obviously right." I turn to him and politely ask him not to interfere.

 

He then starts to yell at me, something along the lines of "just who do you think you are? you're but a simple player here, you brat. I am the secretary of the federation, I can talk to any ref whenever I please. You can cheat as much as you like but I can't talk? What exactly do you think you're doing here? I can disqualify you if you don't shut up." I tell the ref that I really didn't know what to do, but I of course admitted that it wasn't normal to ask for a card instantly. When the TD later told RHO that her pd should have known I had the 9 of diamonds from her ten, she said "as I recall, the rules forbid declarer to intentionally mislead his opponents with his tempo".

 

I realize it was not nice what I did. I would like to ask you if a player has or has not the right to ask a kibitzer not to talk to the TD. And your opinion about this thing in general.

[han]

Terrible, this guy is obviously a corrupt crook. As for your play, you clearly did not do something unethical. However, you should think about what you are going to do when the jack is covered before you play the jack.

 

The opponents were not damaged because indeed the play of the 10 denied the 9. The opponents have no case.

[Guest Jlall]

The kibitzer should be punished (via a conduct committee or whatever). He obviously has no right to speak to you like that, or to say that you cheated. Obviously he was ridiculously out of line to the point that I would not have thought you out of line to punch him. Like...wow.

 

You are indeed not allowed to try to mislead the opps with your tempo, and I think you were pretty close but it's not like you tanked with AK tight or anything. I don't know about Romania but in the ACBL you can file a recorder form on someone for this and if enough cases of this happening happen then a pattern has been established. But a one off incident of something like this doesn't prove anything, and I totally believe you that you just had a brain fart of course. It can happen. But if you tanked with a stiff or AK tight or something then I think that you could be ruled against.

[Finch]

Obviously it doesn't matter who the kib is, there's never any reason to be rude to anyone.

 

As for what the Laws say - which seems to be one of your questions - Law 76B says that

 

A spectator may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake,

          nor speak on any question of fact or law except by request of the Director.

 

So if the TD asks him, he can answer - and you can't stop him.

 

So he shouldn't have said anything unless asked, but also you don't have the right to stop him, it should be for the TD to stop him.

 

There are also other bits of the laws saying what else a Spectator can and can't do.

[matmat]

glad to see that the secretary of the federation is not playing favorites and is doing all he can to promote bridge among young people.

[gwnn]

Actually the kib has no formal role in the federation. I thought he had one, but the opposite was later told to me.

[cherdano]

Better luck for the last round next time, Csaba!

[pclayton]

:( Just get them next time. Sorry this mentor was a jerk to you.

[Hefaistos]

Hi all,

From someone who was part of the same trial, a few comments:

 

1. The kib does NOT have any role in our Federation, he is a player that was kibitzing. Nothing more. The kib was NOT the secretary of our federation, who was probably kibitzing at our table (he did so through most of the tourney :( ).

2. It is silly to request something on the board based on the lack of the ability/mood to count :)

3. Accidents happen, so there was no need to register this as an improper attitude. Anyway, we do not have a proper mechanism similar to the ACBL's for noting such incidents. Romanians mostly rely on memories when it comes to throwing eggs at someone! :)

4. I have no knowledge of what was said over there. If such things were said, I would instruct the kib to leave. For good.

 

Regards,

Bogdan

 

If it crashes once, it's a bug. Twice, it's a known bug. Three times, it's a redundant feature. Four times, an exciting new feature!

[blackshoe]

Actually the kib has no formal role in the federation. I thought he had one, but the opposite was later told to me.

You said that he said "I am the secretary of the federation".

 

If he's not the secretary of the federation, either he lied, or you, um, misremembered what he said. :P

 

IAC, I agree with others - there's no excuse for him going off on you like that. In the ACBL, I would have barred him from the playing area for cause, under the ACBL's General Conditions of Contest. Of course, I don't know if Romania has a similar regulation.

 

I also would have said something to your RHO about the wording of her statement to the director. She has come very close, IMO, to accusing you of cheating, and that's just not done.

[karlson]

But if you tanked with a stiff or AK tight or something then I think that you could be ruled against.

I always wondered about situations like this. Can't you claim that it's a valid bridge reason to think about which one would be a better falsecard?

[awm]

But if you tanked with a stiff or AK tight or something then I think that you could be ruled against.

I always wondered about situations like this. Can't you claim that it's a valid bridge reason to think about which one would be a better falsecard?

The reasoning goes something like:

 

(1) You're not allowed to hesitate for the purposes of deceiving the opponents.

 

(2) Hesitating for the purpose of determining which is the better falsecard is hesitating in order to determine how best to deceive the opponents (i.e. by falsecarding) and thus a violation of (1).

 

So a "valid bridge reason" needs to be along the lines of something that could matter on a double dummy basis. Of course, on this hand holding up a round could be the right play although certainly odds-against. And the kibitzer's rant is way out of line, as are accusations of cheating.

[karlson]

Maybe the term "falsecard" is bad. Is it really deceiving the opponents to not play a particular card from your hand?

 

PS. Oh, and of course I agree with everyone else about the kibitzer. He should be barred from the rest of the event at the very least.

[helene_t]

The reasoning goes something like:

 

(1) You're not allowed to hesitate for the purposes of deceiving the opponents.

 

(2) Hesitating for the purpose of determining which is the better falsecard is hesitating in order to determine how best to deceive the opponents (i.e. by falsecarding) and thus a violation of (1).

This makes zero sense.

 

But falsecarding generally have to be fast in order to work. Besides, I suppose good players will usually know by heart which of AK give less information to opps.

[mikeh]

The reasoning goes something like:

 

(1) You're not allowed to hesitate for the purposes of deceiving the opponents.

 

(2) Hesitating for the purpose of determining which is the better falsecard is hesitating in order to determine how best to deceive the opponents (i.e. by falsecarding) and thus a violation of (1).

 

So a "valid bridge reason" needs to be along the lines of something that could matter on a double dummy basis. Of course, on this hand holding up a round could be the right play although certainly odds-against.

As Helene wrote, this (in particular, point (2)) makes no sense.

 

This is because the prohibition against hesitating only operates when the purpose of the hesitation itself is to mislead. A hestitation arising from trying to figure out how to mislead by choice of card, not tempo, is incidental and not covered by the rule.

 

Of course, determining the purpose of the hesitation is more complex than merely asking the hesitator. Indeed, a committee should try to determine the intent by consideration of the bridge situation and the skill level of the hesitator, rather than by simply accepting the explanation.

 

Having said that, I can well understand and accept the brain fart explanation, and at most would stress to the OP the need to be more careful (asa he has recognized already).

 

BTW, I had an analogous situation arise in the CNTC last week, in the 1/4 final.

 

I held Jxx 9x xxx AK10xxx in 4th seat, all white.

 

LHO passed and partner opened 2♦, 3-7 hcp with a 6 card major, occasionally 5 or 7. RHO, my screenmate, passed with only a minor break in tempo.

 

I deduced that they had the values for game and that it was rho who had most of the values (I'm not claiming this required any degree of skill or table presence :P ). So I thought about passing... since the odds seemed pretty good that LHO had a modest hand with some diamond length, making balancing tough, and a pass by both of us would end the auction.

 

So I was mulling over the value of -250 or 300, when I decided that this was silly... we may have a 9 card spade fit, and my clubs might defeat any game and so on. So I came to my senses and bid 2♥, P/C. This was passed around to RHO, a fine player.

 

I could almost see the wheels turning. The auction and, in particular my hesitation, suggested I had short hearts but a good hand, such that I had wanted to make a forward going move. Any action by him might lead to -500 against air. So he passed, missing both 4♠ and 3N.

 

I apologized to him, and (since we have fought many a hard battle over the years and I like to think that our respect is mutual) he accepted my apology. But I still feel badly about the hand.. altho I also think that he had too good a hand to pass 2♦ anyway.