I was damaged !

[Chris3875]

We were playing a red point teams championship event yesterday and one of the teams had a player not long out of lessons.

 

He opened 2C which was alerted by partner and subsequently explained as 22+ unbalanced - partner bid 2H which was passed out. When dummy appeared on the table it contained 6 clubs and about 7 points. Their system (they actually had a card on the table!) was as partner described and he had misbid.

 

I read Law 75C - (mistaken call) "regardless of damage, the director shall allow the result to stand" but they were mighty unhappy as they had game in spades.

 

I had to agree (to myself) that it did seem a bit tough on the opposition but my sympathy faded when one of the opposition came up to me later saying that "people like him shouldn't be allowed to play in red point events blah blah blah"

 

I had a few similar incidents with the same player later in the day and I was wondering (only half in jest I might add) whether I should follow him around and whenever his partner was asked to explain a call, get her to leave the table and have HIM explain what he was bidding. At least the opponents would get a decent chance at bidding and playing the hand properly.

 

(I can hear David falling to the floor in a dead faint - THUMP!!)

[bluejak]

<SHRIEK>

[campboy]

What are red points?

 

But yes, score stands, and your suggested "solution" would be entirely unfair. Opponents need to learn to be happy with the frequent tops he will be giving out, and accept the occasional bottom with good grace.

[aguahombre]

i know we are supposed to take OP statements (misbid, in this case) at face value.

 

Even "not long out of lessons" we must believe the combination that opener thought they were playing weak two's in clubs AND that the 2H response to it was not forcing. Barf.

 

Of course, there is no chance of ruling that opener listened to the explanation and bailed out, or that Opener psyched a strong-forcing, artificial bid because somewhere there is someone who plays 2C as a weak-two.

[Chris3875]

:) I wonder if David has recovered yet

 

Yeah, I didn't really mean it - and I actually did explain to the "damaged" ops that they were aware of how "new" he was and probably should have realised it wasn't a 22+ unbalanced hand simply by looking at their own hands and that they needed to just get on with it.

 

There is, I believe, the legitimate opportunity of asking his partner to leave the table while he explains a bid IF she indicates that she doesn't know, or has forgotten what the bid means. In fact, that did happen later in the day when he opened the bidding 2NT and she didn't know if it was 20-22 pts balanced or undetermined strength and showing both minors.

 

For campboy - In Australia we play for masterpoints - normal club games are green, a club championship event is red and National events are gold. In order to attain certain rankings - State Master, National Master, Life Master, etc. players need to have a certain total number of masterpoints and for some categories it includes a minimum number of red and/or gold points, so they are keenly sought after. Most smaller clubs would have the opportunity of running about 10 red point events per year.

[Mbodell]

I've had that same auction against me at the club in ACBL land. I wasn't that happy to defend 2♥-1 when we had 4♠ making our way. You aren't allowed to psych a strong 2♣ in the ACBL, but the director investigated and ruled that the player who bid 2♣ really did think it was a weak bid and as a result misbid and didn't psych so it was allowed to stand. It actually wasn't a bottom for us as some folks went too high in spades.

[bluejak]

Famously [over here, anyway], a member of a certain important Committee held a 12 count, 4=1=4=4, and failed to protect after 2♦ on his right, artificial, game force, equivalent to a Standard 2♣, may not be psyched by the regulations of that time, pass, 2♥ negative, pass, pass to him. The TD ruled against him [misbid: opener had a weak two in hears and thought they were playing the Multi], and the AC agreed. However, most annoyingly, the stupid AC gave him his money back, otherwise he would have been the first member of that Committee to lose his deposit three appeals in a row!

[aguahombre]

What fun. 4-1-4-4 failed to protect. What if, perchance, opener decided that after a 2H negative, his 3-6-2-2 biggie was not odds on for game, after all?

 

And the partner of the 2D bidder, with 4-1-4-4 and his three jacks might know what to do if our hapless committee member reopened. Of course, since there was no misbid and no misinformation, there would be no ruling and no adjustment, and no money back.

 

Or would you rule that he must assume his partner misbid, and cannot redouble the takeout? ;)

[bluejak]

I would rule that if people cannot be bothered to play bridge they should not rely on TDs and ACs to play bridge for them.

[aguahombre]

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=stxhtxxxxdtxxctxx&w=sjxxxhxdjxxxcjxxx&e=saxxhakqjxxdaxcax&s=skqxxhxdkqxxckqxx]399|300|[/hv]

 

South bothers to play bridge. Director decides he didn't. 2HX=, or worse.

 

Or, in the actual situation where 2D was a misbid --South bothers to play bridge by passing it out. Director decides he didn't, and it annoys the director that South got his money back.

[jdonn]

"Playing bridge" doesn't mean making the decision that would have worked. South is entitled to know the auction and the relevent agreements, that's it. He is not entitled to know at his turn to bid whether east forgot, or east psyched, or east had his 2♣ bid and decided to pass 2♥. So he must "play bridge" and live with the result whether his decision works or not.

 

And you need a better example. I think east was the one not playing bridge when he passed 2♥ with an apparent 9 top tricks in notrump, or needing nothing more than a doubleton spade in his partner's hand to make 4♥.

[barmar]

It's called "getting fixed". Beginners get occasional tops this way, and when they do it to you you shrug and get on with it.

 

I'm glad the OP had the right attitude towards the "people like him shouldn't be allowed to play in red point events" comment. One of the great features of bridge is that anyone has a chance to play against the best, and sometimes actually best them (good luck if an amateur tries this in a more traditional sport -- in tennis he'd probably not return a single serve). There are events that require invitation or prequalification, I guess he should confine himself to these if he wants to avoid the riff-raff.

[Vampyr]

Even "not long out of lessons" we must believe the combination that opener thought they were playing weak two's in clubs AND that the 2H response to it was not forcing.  Barf.

I agree that this is a problem here. It would be nice to know when the explanation was given, and also whether weak, natural 2♣ is alertable. Also whether beginners usually learn 4 weak twos in the region where this occurred, and whether beginners there are taught anything other than that a change of suit after a preempt is forcing.

[bluejak]

Or, in the actual situation where 2D was a misbid --South bothers to play bridge by passing it out.  Director decides he didn't, and it annoys the director that South got his money back.

Kindly explain the basis of South's appeal.

[lmilne]

What fun. 4-1-4-4 failed to protect. What if, perchance, opener decided that after a 2H negative, his 3-6-2-2 biggie was not odds on for game, after all?

Haha, or if the 2D opener psyched a pass of 2H with a balanced 24-count? Would work well against this player nowadays, I bet!

[Chris3875]

I agree that this is a problem here. It would be nice to know when the explanation was given, and also whether weak, natural 2♣ is alertable. Also whether beginners usually learn 4 weak twos in the region where this occurred, and whether beginners there are taught anything other than that a change of suit after a preempt is forcing.

 

The 2♣ bid was alerted immediately by partner (circled), and when asked by opponents was explained as strong, etc. Beginners here are initially taught that hearts, spades and diamonds are weak (6+ of suit, 8-10 points) and they usually do not rebid after making a weak 2 opening, even if partner changes suit.

[Vampyr]

Beginners here are initially taught that hearts, spades and diamonds are weak (6+ of suit, 8-10 points) and they usually do not rebid after making a weak 2 opening, even if partner changes suit.

Seems unplayable unless they have another, much more complicated, way to force, but given this, as long as the local regulations permit the psyching of a strong/artificial/forcing bid, the opponents get no redress.

[Chris3875]

It wasn't a psyche bid - it was a totally innocent misbid by a very new, inexperienced player who knew that 6 hearts or 6 spades and about 6-10 pts was a weak 2 opening, and looked at his weak hand with 6 clubs and opened 2C.

[Vampyr]

It wasn't a psyche bid - it was a totally innocent misbid by a very new, inexperienced player who knew that 6 hearts or 6 spades and about 6-10 pts was a weak 2 opening, and looked at his weak hand with 6 clubs and opened 2C.

Psyche, misbid... what's the difference? The important thing is that if this bid is not allowed to be psyched (this was the case in the EBU until a couple of years ago), then the same penalties should be applied to misbidding it.

[RMB1]

Psyche, misbid... what's the difference?

Intent

The important thing is that if this bid is not allowed to be psyched (this was the case in the EBU until a couple of years ago), then the same penalties should be applied to misbidding it.

That's not the way the EBU regulation operated. Intent was important and it was not against the regulation to misbid strong artificial openings. There was a famous case (in the EBU Appeals booklets) where someone misbid a multi 2♦ and there was no adjustment although it was illegal to psyche a multi 2♦ (and still is at some levels).

[peachy]

Psyche, misbid... what's the difference?

Intent

The important thing is that if this bid is not allowed to be psyched (this was the case in the EBU until a couple of years ago), then the same penalties should be applied to misbidding it.

That's not the way the EBU regulation operated. Intent was important and it was not against the regulation to misbid strong artificial openings. There was a famous case (in the EBU Appeals booklets) where someone misbid a multi 2♦ and there was no adjustment although it was illegal to psyche a multi 2♦ (and still is at some levels).

I think that is an unfortunate regulation if despite a bid being illegal, there are no consequences for making that illegal bid.

[blackshoe]

The bid is not illegal in the case Stephanie cited. In fact, that's the whole point. It's illegal to psyche the bid, not to make it.

[Vampyr]

The bid is not illegal in the case Stephanie cited. In fact, that's the whole point. It's illegal to osyche the bid, not to make it.

I am surprised that the EBU regulation is as it was; a misbid is treated the same as a psyche when in comes to fielding, so one would think that it would be the same in the situation under discussion.

 

Obviously a regulation that prohibits a certain bid to be psyched but allows it to be misbid is of course legal, but falls foul of both natural justice and the way players perceive that a game should be played.

 

In addition, many people, including me, feel that Laws that require mindreading on the director's part are misguided.

[bluejak]

Psyche, misbid... what's the difference?

Intent

The important thing is that if this bid is not allowed to be psyched (this was the case in the EBU until a couple of years ago), then the same penalties should be applied to misbidding it.

That's not the way the EBU regulation operated. Intent was important and it was not against the regulation to misbid strong artificial openings. There was a famous case (in the EBU Appeals booklets) where someone misbid a multi 2♦ and there was no adjustment although it was illegal to psyche a multi 2♦ (and still is at some levels).

I think that is an unfortunate regulation if despite a bid being illegal, there are no consequences for making that illegal bid.

You seem to have misunderstood.

 

It is illegal to psyche a Multi. That is subject to penalty.

 

It is not illegal to misbid a Multi. That is not subject to penalty.

 

The person who posted that psyches and misbids are no difference has misunderstood this vital difference.

[bluejak]

The bid is not illegal in the case Stephanie cited. In fact, that's the whole point. It's illegal to osyche the bid, not to make it.

I am surprised that the EBU regulation is as it was; a misbid is treated the same as a psyche when in comes to fielding, so one would think that it would be the same in the situation under discussion.

 

Obviously a regulation that prohibits a certain bid to be psyched but allows it to be misbid is of course legal, but falls foul of both natural justice and the way players perceive that a game should be played.

 

In addition, many people, including me, feel that Laws that require mindreading on the director's part are misguided.

A fielded misbid and a fielded psyche are not subject the same penalty in the EBU. However, both being breaches of Law 40, they are both illegal and subject to penalty.

 

When a call may not be psyched by regulation, it is a completely different situation, covered by different Laws, and it makes no sense whatever to assume that a regulation that does not refer to misbids applies to misbids just because a totally unrelated situation which is a matter of Law not regulation makes certain calls illegal after a misbid.

 

I think the buzz word "mind-reading" is overused to try to prove something that does not exist. Of course the game would be easier to rule without judgement rulings but that does not make them wrong. In all judgement rulings, TDs and ACs need to judge various evidence.