Say something or smile and move on

[dwar0123]

So, seriously, why wouldn't you do it vs lols in club games? It's not hard to see the parallels between your statement above, and the fighting game perception of scrubs. You even use a pejorative!

Why wouldn't I call the director because an old lady paused for 10 seconds before following with the 2♥? Because it is far to likely that I am misreading a legit discouragement of ♥ as some type of suit preference signal that I think was informed by the hesitation. A hesitation that I would wager occurs on half the plays she makes at defense and is completely unreadable to her partner. This is literally the 3rd time I've stated this point, a point which you have yet to respond too.

 

Because it isn't my job to make sure she follows every rule of bridge to the letter.

 

And because a lot of the reason I play at local clubs is for the social atmosphere which I have no inclination to mar because I think I might have been damaged by a little old lady who paused for 10 seconds.

 

And finally, I don't think shortening little old ladies to lol's is an insult, it is a common acronym that I was oblivious to until I started reading this forum. If everyone perceives it as an insult then I should probably stop using it.

[Cthulhu D]

Why wouldn't I call the director because an old lady paused for 10 seconds before following with the 2♥? Because it is far to likely that I am misreading a legit discouragement of ♥ as some type of suit preference signal that I think was informed by the hesitation. A hesitation that I would wager occurs on half the plays she makes at defense and is completely unreadable to her partner. This is literally the 3rd time I've stated this point, a point which you have yet to respond too.

 

Because it isn't my job to make sure she follows every rule of bridge to the letter.

 

Yeah, you're excusing bad play because you perceive the player as weak. That was my point the entire time, I'm not sure what you thought I was talking about. Honestly that's fine, I see no reason to rock the boat either.

 

But the other view is okay too - if you're going to play, you're going to play your best to win within the rules, no matter how weak the opposition or how unimportant the event. That's the fighting game mentality.

 

Edit: I made the joke about scrubby in general, because the seminal rant on this topic was written by someone who would not agree with system regulation ACBL style.

 

And finally, I don't think shortening little old ladies to lol's is an insult, it is a common acronym that I was oblivious to until I started reading this forum. If everyone perceives it as an insult then I should probably stop using it.

 

I'd make the observation that no-one who wins the d'Orsi gets called a LOL.

[dwar0123]

Yeah, you're excusing bad play because you perceive the player as weak. That was my point the entire time, I'm not sure what you thought I was talking about. Honestly that's fine, I see no reason to rock the boat either.

No, that is not my point. For the sake of argument I am going to assume 'bad play' means giving or using UI, as doing such is bad rather then meaning they play badly. The point I am trying to make is that 'weak' players are so inconsistent that neither you nor their partners can reliable read their tempo breaks. You are just projecting your own concerns about the hand over random noise and getting irritated at coincidental bad results. You are then rationalizing your justification for believing this was UI through your interpretation of the 'thanks for reading my signal' meaning I wanted a club rather then the perfectly legit I didn't want a heart.

But the other view is okay too - if you're going to play, you're going to play your best to win within the rules, no matter how weak the opposition or how unimportant the event. That's the fighting game mentality.

That's really not what you are talking about, I try to play my best to win within the rules, most people do. What you are talking about is holding others to the letter of the law, which is within the rules but has nothing to do with how well you play. Still was never my point though.

I'd make the observation that no-one who wins the d'Orsi gets called a LOL.

I have heard others mention that they have played against some very good LOL's.

[barmar]

I don't know about your club, but at mine the weak players (not always LOLs) hesitate all the time (one of them also often sighs). Sometimes they have a good reason for it, sometimes they don't (they're just nervous players who seem to be frequently unsure of what to do). I've given up trying to read anything into it, and I'm sure their partners can't, either. It would never even occur to me to call the TD about it, since they're so unreadable.

[Cyberyeti]

This was at a county congress with EBU TDs from out of the county and opponents from out of the county, who I've never seen before and may never see again. This was early in a 7 board match that I didn't know we were going to win 35 IMPs to 0 (20-0).

 

As an aside, this match featured a hand with 1561 12 opposite 4234 11:

 

your table 2N+1 by opps -150 after the 12 count opened 1♦ and rebid 2♦

 

other table 6D+1 +940 after the 11 count opened an 11-14 1N

 

The only bidding misunderstanding was at the other table.

[RMB1]

You don't say the person cheated. You say that you think there might have been some unauthorised information and you are not sure of the action.

 

Indeed, it is possible that the position is sufficiently clear that there is no logical altnernative to the ♦ switch.

 

As a player (who is recognised as a TD) I would talk to the TD after the round and ask "do you want me to call when these sort of players do this sort of thing?"

[Finch]

Either call the TD or say nothing. Starting a discussion at the table is the sure way of generating a blazing row.

 

In a KO match I once got accused of doing something similar (in a slightly different position); I was extremely cross because partner's signal was systemically count rather than suit preference, it was slow because it was trick 1 and he plays slowly at trick 1, and the correct switch was blatantly obvious given the information from the count signal.

 

Also as has already been said, people often play cards extremely deliberately and it looks to us as if they are ostentatiously given a suit pref signal, but their partner is, and remains, totally oblivious, sometimes they do the right thing and sometimes not but it's totally random.

[gnasher]

Either call the TD or say nothing.

Yes. I'm surprised that anyone would consider any other alternative.

[gnasher]

As a player (who is recognised as a TD) I would talk to the TD after the round and ask "do you want me to call when these sort of players do this sort of thing?"

Hmm. I'm not very keen on this, unless you can find a way to do it without identifying the pair.

 

Anyway, I hope that the TD would explain that you may call the director whenever you like, that you must do so if attention has been drawn to an infraction, and that if you feel that you've been damaged by an opponent's infraction you are welcome to do so. Even if he is actually thinking "No I don't want you to call me about anything, because I haven't finished putting the player names in, and the coffee machine needs refilling, and the pair at table 7 are holding everyone up again, and you're just some bloke from out of town who I'll never see again whereas the rest of them have been coming here every week for years."

Edited April 3, 2012 by gnasher

[Cyberyeti]

Either call the TD or say nothing. Starting a discussion at the table is the sure way of generating a blazing row.

 

In a KO match I once got accused of doing something similar (in a slightly different position); I was extremely cross because partner's signal was systemically count rather than suit preference, it was slow because it was trick 1 and he plays slowly at trick 1, and the correct switch was blatantly obvious given the information from the count signal.

 

Also as has already been said, people often play cards extremely deliberately and it looks to us as if they are ostentatiously given a suit pref signal, but their partner is, and remains, totally oblivious, sometimes they do the right thing and sometimes not but it's totally random.

The previous round, I'm declaring 3♦. LHO gets the lead at trick 3, cashes the ace of trumps, his partner thinks for a while, is obviously wondering which of 2 small cards to play to indicate she has the K, but I decided there was no alternative to a second trump in that case, which somewhat heightened my sensitivity to this.

 

On this occasion I really had to bite my lip, not when it happened, but afterwards when she said "I'm so glad you got my signal", I said nothing but is saying "she could hardly miss it" really so bad ? There was certainly an alternative to the play of the diamond, as if partner isn't ruffing this, you've just farcically let a no play doubled game through, you could just lead your side's suit to allow partner to cash the known setting trick.

[kenberg]

On this occasion I really had to bite my lip, not when it happened, but afterwards when she said "I'm so glad you got my signal", I said nothing but is saying "she could hardly miss it" really so bad ?

 

I'm with you here. If people are going to rip you off at least they should have the grace not to gloat about it.

[gnasher]

On this occasion I really had to bite my lip, not when it happened, but afterwards when she said "I'm so glad you got my signal", I said nothing but is saying "she could hardly miss it" really so bad ?

Yes, it's bad. If you think they've broken the rules, you should follow the proper procedure for dealing with rule-breaking. If you don't, you have no reason to say anything.

[blackshoe]

On this occasion I really had to bite my lip, not when it happened, but afterwards when she said "I'm so glad you got my signal", I said nothing but is saying "she could hardly miss it" really so bad ?

I'm with you here. If people are going to rip you off at least they should have the grace not to gloat about it.

Yes, it's bad. If you think they've broken the rules, you should follow the proper procedure for dealing with rule-breaking. If you don't, you have no reason to say anything.

 

I agree with the last two posters. My preference would be to call and let the TD decide what to do. OTOH, I'm pretty much convinced, these days, that such a call would be futile, at least at club level.

[ahydra]

Reminds me of an ex-partner I had. You could always tell if he was "just following suit" or signalling by the way he played the card :/ Of course, I ignored any UI and thankfully nobody picked him up on it. (Of course, with the club being full of snooty old people, whenever I slammed a card down on the table in disappointment I was given a lecture)

 

At club level I would either leave it, or maybe speak to the TD after the session and tell them what happened, and see if anyone else has reported similar things. But in a county congress (or indeed anything except a regular club night) I think you've got to call the TD immediately to prevent opps getting away with any further dodgy behaviour. Beyond club level the bridge is not purely for fun, there are masterpoints and money at stake.

 

ahydra

[barmar]

On this occasion I really had to bite my lip, not when it happened, but afterwards when she said "I'm so glad you got my signal", I said nothing but is saying "she could hardly miss it" really so bad ? There was certainly an alternative to the play of the diamond, as if partner isn't ruffing this, you've just farcically let a no play doubled game through, you could just lead your side's suit to allow partner to cash the known setting trick.

It's possible you may be reading too much into that remark. She could simply be congratualating her partner for noticing the spot card she played, not the manner in which she played it.

 

When I want to make sure partner notices a signal, I don't play it conspicuously, I just make sure I don't quit it too quickly.

[Vampyr]

When I want to make sure partner notices a signal, I don't play it conspicuously, I just make sure I don't quit it too quickly.

 

Careful, newbies might take such a comment seriously!

[TimG]

So they perhaps lose Cyberyeti & me instead, and the players who do play by the rules but would like to play "unusual" systems as well.

 

Why would applying the laws mean loss business?

I stopped playing club bridge for the most part a number of years ago, When I do venture back into a local club (perhaps for a special game like an NAP qualifying game), I still recognize most of the faces. There really isn't that much turnover in club games. And, as someone has pointed out, the LOLs far outnumber you and Cyberyeti.

[lalldonn]

Anyone who claims they would call the director over this is either fibbing or not very observant, because with many/most worse than advanced players, it happens almost every hand they defend. It also happens with advanced and expert players, although less frequently as the level improves.

[jillybean]

I stopped playing club bridge for the most part a number of years ago, When I do venture back into a local club (perhaps for a special game like an NAP qualifying game), I still recognize most of the faces. There really isn't that much turnover in club games. And, as someone has pointed out, the LOLs far outnumber you and Cyberyeti.

Why did you stop playing club bridge?

[the hog]

Anyone who claims they would call the director over this is either fibbing or not very observant, because with many/most worse than advanced players, it happens almost every hand they defend. It also happens with advanced and expert players, although less frequently as the level improves.

 

It happens, but not the way it was described - a really long pause and an over emphasised placement of the card.

[lalldonn]

It happens alllll the time. I bet the original poster left out the part where the signaller looked directly at his or her partner as the card was played too. They also do it in the bidding. Any time they make a conventional bid that they are worried partner might forget, they do it slowly, place the bid deliberately, and glare at partner until the alert is made.

 

I'm not saying these are bad people. I'm sure for most it's some combination of being ignorant and not realizing they are doing it. But it's by far the most common ethical transgression perpetrated by players in general. Good players have generally learned to live with it. If you call the director then they will deny doing it, and it's not like the director can rule that a player be forced to ignore his partner's signal. Plus if you know what you are doing and you learn to watch for that stuff then you can generally gain more from it then their partner can.

[rduran1216]

lol. If it was possible to double like a post, it'd be the one above. It does suck when u get screwed by it, otherwise u just roll with it most of the time. Of course if you get a zero you tend to be more pissed.

[TimG]

Why did you stop playing club bridge?

Had little or nothing to do with this sort of thing going on.

 

• Family (kids)
• Long distance partnerships
• Online play more convenient -- can start/stop when I want to and get more boards in per hour (especially if you add in travel time)

If practicing in a regular partnership, the experience gained in club games (which are generally of poor quality around here) is not worth it.

 

For quite a while, I would fill in when asked as a very small local club, mostly to be social. I, of course, witnessed some things like those you described at the start of this thread, but I mostly roll my eyes and move on. I haven't played even there in quite a while, but again, primarily a function of family.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vampyr]

It happens, but not the way it was described - a really long pause and an over emphasised placement of the card.

 

Also sometimes they will pull out more than one card halfway, so it is clear that they had a choice.

 

The one mentioned earlier about being slow to quit the trick has an extension: wait until everyone else has quitted the trick, then ask to see it again.

 

Of course, if the card is not suitable for the signal they would have liked to give, the card is turned over before any of the other players can be certain what it was.

[kenberg]

Dot Lewis used to, perhaps still does but I have lost touch, run a book booth at sectionals and regionals. I was chatting with her when someone came up, identified himself as wanting to learn, and asked if she had a book on defensive signals. I remarked that the critical point to keep in mind is that if partner plays a card quickly it is attitude, if he pays it slowly it is suit preference. Dot properly took me to task for my foray into humor.