Being deceptive

[mr1303]

Last night I agreed to play with a partner whom I haven't played with for quite a while. The reason I no longer play with him is because he has this tendency to try to be deceptive on almost every board.

 

Some examples: [hv=pc=n&s=s653h43dt732ct765&w=sa9872hqjt75dk9c9&n=sqhk96daq654cak82&e=skjt4ha82dj8cqj43&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1sdp2c2h3c3dppp]399|300[/hv]

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s94hqt6543dcak853&w=skq53hk72dq862cj2&n=st86haj8dakjt75cq&e=saj72h9d943ct9764&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d1sd2d3dpp3sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

 

Apart from getting up and leaving, what should I do in a situation like that? I've posted this in the laws forum because I'm particularly interested in the legal aspects of the situation.

[chrism]

Scrupulously believe all his calls, alert the opponents of partner's tendencies, call the director if his bidding rises (sinks?) to the level of frivolous psyching, and renew your vow not to play with him again unless you want a session on the wild side.

[gwnn]

Who was he on board 2? There were plenty of strange calls on that hand.

 

3D on the first hand is probably the worst call I have ever seen on these forums.

[billw55]

I think you had the right solution the first time ;)

 

During this session, I think pre-alert each pair that your partner often psyches. Maybe he will get the message.

[Bbradley62]

I agree with billw... also, explain to partner why you will no longer play with him after last night's session.

[ArtK78]

Who was he on board 2? There were plenty of strange calls on that hand.

 

3D on the first hand is probably the worst call I have ever seen on these forums.

I don't think there were "plenty" of strange calls on the second board. Two, certainly. Three if you really don't like South's negative double. And I am not counting North's penalty double as strange as it was the winning action.

 

Obviously the 1♠ overcall is a psyche.

 

The negative double on 6-5 may not be everyone's cup of tea, but at least the meaning of the bid is consistent with the hand - I have the unbid suits.

 

2♦ by West is certainly the right call - limit raise or better.

 

3♦ by North can't really be questioned.

 

Pass by East is certainly appropriate.

 

South's pass of 3♦ is strange. If you are going to make a negative double on 6-5, it must be with the intention of bidding the 6 card suit later. And, in fact, NS are cold for 4♥.

 

West's 3♠ bid is certainly normal opposite a human being. Perhaps he should be wary about bidding 3♠ opposite this partner. But the opps did pass the hand out in 3♦, so 3♠ doesn't seem unreasonable. [Did East's 1♠ overcall win the board until West bid 3♠? Who knows.]

 

North's double of 3♠ was certainly the winning action, although it doesn't seem obvious to me.

 

So, there were a couple of strange calls, but at least West and North were solid citizens. South made a judgment to treat his hand like 4-5 in the rounded suits instead of 6-5, which is strange. And East is beyond the pale.

[gwnn]

We are getting off-topic here, but I certainly like 1S much more than the double. The point of my post was just the question. I don't consider 1S super-strange (definitely not a psyche), although I wouldn't do it on this particular hand. AQJx of spades, yes. I don't think we need to analyse all of the calls in turn, but if you insist: I was referring to 1S, X, S's pass of 3D and X from N. These are 4 calls, that constitutes 'plenty' in my eyes. I hope this justification is enough for the purposes of this thread and I do not need to explain myself further.

[Zelandakh]

The first board is really a crime. If you can stand playing with this partner again then tell him that if he must mess about, only do it when he knows the hand belongs to the opponents and when there is not another call that perfectly describes the hand. Here partner opened and he held a good raise after a takeout double. Not really much point in having 2NT in the bidding box if you do not bring it out now is there?

 

I have much more sympathy with the second action. Here he knows the opps are likely to have game and possibly even slam. So throwing in a nuisance bid is ok. Not well thought through, since it does not take up any space, but at least this one has some potential upside.

 

If you really cannot cope with the shenanigens any more then another option beyong simply saying no would be appealing to his ego. You might tell him that it is unfair of him to use these tactics on such weak opponents and he should save this for when he plays against better quality opposition. Hopefully you can then extricate yourself before he suggests going to a major event together...

[wank]

 

 

Obviously the 1♠ overcall is a psyche.

 

 

 

eh?

[barmar]

Typical agreements for a 1-level overcall are 8+ HCP and a 5-card suit, occasionally a good 4-card suit. He only has 5 HCP, and hardly anyone would consider the suit quality good enough for a 4-card overcall (although it's not nonsensical for lead direction purposes) Maybe if it only had one of these flaws it would just be a "baby" psyche, but in combination I think it's a real psyche, and I'll bet he intended it as such.

[wank]

Typical agreements for a 1-level overcall are 8+ HCP and a 5-card suit

 

that's where you've gone wrong. you've projected your standards onto someone else. A 4 card suit and 5 points are both perfectly in range for me. i can assure you that if you're watching the bermuda bowl you'll see people overcall on much worse than this.

[Trinidad]

that's where you've gone wrong. you've projected your standards onto someone else. A 4 card suit and 5 points are both perfectly in range for me. i can assure you that if you're watching the bermuda bowl you'll see people overcall on much worse than this.

I wouldn't consider 3 card suits with 3 points much worse.

 

Rik

[mr1303]

Partner was East on both. NS were not very good opponents.

[ArtK78]

that's where you've gone wrong. you've projected your standards onto someone else. A 4 card suit and 5 points are both perfectly in range for me. i can assure you that if you're watching the bermuda bowl you'll see people overcall on much worse than this.

Not from a respected player.

[helene_t]

The first one I have seen a couple of time, intended as fourth suit forcing (!) by some gozilla. It makes no sense to make that call with the intention to deceive although it might be made with the intention to punish partner or to dump.

 

The second one is just a matter of style. A somewhat extreme style but probably more intended to direct a spade lead than to mislead opps (or partner).

[billw55]

Not from a respected player.

Hm, there are non-respected players in the Bermuda Bowl?

[ArtK78]

Hm, there are non-respected players in the Bermuda Bowl?

Everything is relative.

[barmar]

that's where you've gone wrong. you've projected your standards onto someone else. A 4 card suit and 5 points are both perfectly in range for me. i can assure you that if you're watching the bermuda bowl you'll see people overcall on much worse than this.

This is your partnership agreement? Does any jurisdiction allow such flimsy overcalls without alerting?

 

FYI, ACBL requires pre-alerts of very aggressive methods, which includes "overcalls with fewer than 6 HCP at the one level".

[paulg]

This is your partnership agreement? Does any jurisdiction allow such flimsy overcalls without alerting?

 

FYI, ACBL requires pre-alerts of very aggressive methods, which includes "overcalls with fewer than 6 HCP at the one level".

No pre-alerts in the EBU, just needs to be on the system card. But most of us know what's coming, it's 'just bridge'.

[gnasher]

getting up and leaving

That's definitely not an option.

[blackshoe]

getting up and leaving

 

That's definitely not an option.

Well, ordinarily, I would agree. Particularly in the ACBL, where the general CoC specifically prohibit the option. But I can see things getting bad enough that I would get up and leave. If I did so at a club game, I would never return to that club. If I did so at a tournament, I would resign from the ACBL and give up bridge. In fact, I would probably do that if the incident occurred at a club. But things would have to get very, very bad before I took the option.

[iviehoff]

There was a player in my club who was so terrible no one wanted to play with her. She was impervious to reason and persisted with her own curious and ineffective methods of bidding. She also claimed to play a complicated method of signalling that even she didn't understand and was unfair to impose on random partners. It was an act of charity to play with her, and I was willing to take my turn to play with her once in a while. Once I had worked them out, I scrupulously advised the opponents of any curiousity in her methods that merited alerting, etc. I suggest you treat playing with this player an act of charity along similar lines.

 

I strongly believe in never blaming partner for anything, so long as they keep the agreement (which I make clear to them in words spoken out loud) never to blame me for anything. This is much better for partnership morale than recriminations. Of course, once someone says "what went wrong on that hand" or starts blaming me, then I will politely draw attention to what I consider to be unsuccessful actions by partner.

 

In this case, if the player in question cannot see for himself that his actions were to blame for the bad scores received, then pointing it out to him isn't going to help. Either he realises, or he will never realise.

[Vampyr]

Well, ordinarily, I would agree. Particularly in the ACBL, where the general CoC specifically prohibit the option. But I can see things getting bad enough that I would get up and leave. If I did so at a club game, I would never return to that club. If I did so at a tournament, I would resign from the ACBL and give up bridge. In fact, I would probably do that if the incident occurred at a club. But things would have to get very, very bad before I took the option.

 

Why would you allow this person to control your life to such a degree?

[blackshoe]

It would take more than a single person.

[helene_t]

But I can see things getting bad enough that I would get up and leave.

Really? I have considered getting up an leaving when the atmosphere has got extremely bad due to players accusing each other of cheating or such. But I wouldn't remotely consider it just because someone is playing badly. Maybe if partner started purposely revoking 6 or 7 times per board. But the OP issue doesn't come close to that.