General Ethical Question

[awm]

I've seen the following in a lot of pro-client pairs (typically pairs where the pro is MUCH better than the client). I'm curious as to the ethics of it.

 

Frequently the pro will make a lot of bids which could be classed as psychs, violating stated partnership agreement. These are often attempts to either "right-side" a contract, or to get partner off to a good lead. Some examples:

 

(1) The pro often opens 1NT (15-17) with an extremely wide range of hands, including good 13s, bad 18s, and various off-shape distributions -- this is because the 1NT call virtually guarantees he will declare the contract. The client, on the other hand, opens in the stated range and may even occasionally "forget" to open 1NT on 15.

 

(2) The pro often responds to minor suit openings with notrump (at an appropriate level) even when holding a four-card major.

 

(3) The pro often opens a good four card major in preference to a minor (even though 5-card majors is the stated style) in order to "right-side" a major suit contract, or get partner off to a good lead. The client tends to pass when the pro bids 3NT even if (to most players) it might seem that 3NT is a choice of games and 4M would likely play better.

 

(4) The pro often makes super-light (or four-card) lead-directional overcalls. The client never seems to raise these very aggressively.

 

(5) On those (rare) occasions when the client will declare the contract, the pro tends to bid/raise extremely conservatively. When the pro is due to declare, both partners bid/raise very aggressively.

 

So the question is, do these sorts of actions require some sort of notification to the opponents? Or is it "just bridge" and something people coming to the table should deal with? What about folks who aren't local and don't necessarily know this is a pro/client pair?

 

Does it matter if the client doesn't really know this is going on (i.e. is REALLY clueless)?

[pigpenz]

its just the nature of the beast...andit also depends on what the client is after.

In the old days,people wanted gold points to become a life master but since the proliferation of stratified knock outs and pairs events its alot easier to obtain that goal. And there are some clients that are interested in actually learning the game. Now this where BBO shines cause you can do it alot cheaper here.

 

But yes, the pro always tried to steer the hand and the defense. It was just taken for granted that when you played against a pro-client the pro would do that...so you hoped to make the client have to make the critical deciscion.

[pclayton]

Adam:

 

Add to your list:

 

1) Avoiding takeout doubles like the plague, to avoid pard declaring.

 

2) Balancing on air, since there is a huge difference between the pro declaring and the client defending.

 

3) The pro taking control in every slam auction. The pro rates to make better decisions with less info than the client with more.

 

I know of a few in Southern Cal who are notorious for these antics.

 

If its evident that the client is reading these situations (if the pro is pulling these stunts because the client is that clueless, I doubt thats the case), then a director call would be warranted. However, regardless on whether or not the client is 'clueless', its still a matter of disclosure.

[kenberg]

My favorite pro-am story (names deleted to protect the guilty):

 

Setting: Club game with pro, on my left, opening 1H. Our bids in parentheses.

 

1H-(1S)-2H-(2S)

2H!

 

 

This led to the following:

Me: That's not enough.

Pro: Call the director.

Me: It's a club game, just bid as you were going to.

Pro: Ok I Pass. Now you need to call the director. You can get my partner barred from the bidding.

Me: It's Ok, let's just go on.

Pro: No, you need to call the director.

Me: I really don't care. Your partner can bid as he thinks right.

 

The full auction:

1H-(1S)-2H-(2S)

2H/Pass-Pass-3H-(Dble)

All Pass

 

Down 2.

 

I may be slightly off on the details but I trust the essence is clear. To this day I am not sure if the client was simply too dense to get the message or, as I like to think, understood but was having none of it.

 

Ken

[candybar]

I have a similar story from a club I played in many years ago, done by a later-very-famous pro, now deceased.

 

The pro picked up a yarborough as the 4th seat. He looked left, saw the little old lady counting her points, looked right, saw that little ole lady counting her points, so he immediately bid 1N.

 

The director was called, who cancelled the bid, barred the pro's partner from bidding, told the pro he was free to bid whatever he wanted, and walked away.

 

The pro then said, ok if my partner is barred, I bid 3N.

 

The director was called back, who explained the pro could bid whatever he wanted, but he still had to wait his turn, and cancelled the 3N bid.

 

Now the dealer, not wanting to walk into a disaster, passed with her 16 HCP. Client passed as required, and 3rd seat little ole lady, not wanting to walk into a disaster, passed with her 16 HCP.

 

The pro passed out the hand.

 

Credit to the director of that club, he tossed the pro out the door and barred him for a year, but the story is still pretty funny to tell.

[pigpenz]

i think its called table presence ;)

[mikestar]

Some of these antics violate the regulations in the ACBL and several other organizations which require both partners to play the same system. East's 1NT being 13-18 while West's is 16-17 is a different system by itself--clearly distiguishable from East and West having a different opinion about wheher a particular good 14 is worth upgrading.

 

The more blantant examples when the system is extremely different are pretty much extinct, but I've seen the client playing transfers while the pro doesn't!

[Elianna]

The more blantant examples when the system is extremely different are pretty much extinct, but I've seen the client playing transfers while the pro doesn't!

And I was told that this was perfectly legal. Do other people think so?

 

I've also been told that one person playing short club and the other not is legal, and one person playing four-card majors and the other five-card majors.

 

I actually haven't seen a director rule on these issues, but when I was co-directing, I got called to a table where NS were upset that E opened 1C with 4=4=3=2 distribution, and it was unalerted. W claimed that she doesn't play short club, E claimed she did, and would never open that 1D. NS weren't affected by it (my bet is they made a comment and the argument escalated because that's how the are in this one club) so I was able to sort it out easily and told EW that they had to know what they were playing.

 

My co-director informed me that I didn't need to require them to play the same thing (which is what I tried to get them to do), and gave me those other examples of things that people don't have to have the same.

 

I thought that since pairs were required to have two identically filled out convention cards, and no hidden agreements, that means that they're required to play the same system, but I was told that historically, they're not. Any comments? (Maybe this belongs in another thread, but it started out on topic! :))

[the hog]

Playing against a pro-client is a lot of fun. You need get the client to make the difficult decisions, eg pre empt the auction, throw in a couple of psyches and then watch the client hesitate. If the pro takes advantage of the hesitation call the director. Its fun watching the pro get steamed up.

[LH2650]

The more blantant examples when the system is extremely different are pretty much extinct, but I've seen the client playing transfers while the pro doesn't!

And I was told that this was perfectly legal. Do other people think so?

 

See Law 40E1. The ACBL has elected to require both members of a pair to play the same system.

[Elianna]

The more blantant examples when the system is extremely different are pretty much extinct, but I've seen the client playing transfers while the pro doesn't!

And I was told that this was perfectly legal. Do other people think so?

 

See Law 40E1. The ACBL has elected to require both members of a pair to play the same system.

When I pointed that out to my fellow director, he argued that playing a different style of what you're opening on 4=4=3=2 hands is not a different SYSTEM, just a different STYLE.

 

This is consistant with ACBL ideas that pairs playing relays in many different situations (all usually game forcing) is not a relay SYSTEM, just a relay SITUATION.

 

He seemed to think that even playing different conventions was ok.

[coyot]

Playing against a pro-client is a lot of fun. You need get the client to make the difficult decisions, eg pre empt the auction, throw in a couple of psyches and then watch the client hesitate. If the pro takes advantage of the hesitation call the director. Its fun watching the pro get steamed up.

The best part about calling the director is that you are fully entitled to do it EVERY time the opps had a significant hesitation in bidding :-) and you can do it while smiling politely. And, since the client hesitates invariably, you'll get the adjusted score most of the time.

 

BTW, could some f2f TD clarify on the same system? I've heard the requirement so often that I consider it true that both partners must play the some system...

[Elianna]

BTW, could some f2f TD clarify on the same system? I've heard the requirement so often that I consider it true that both partners must play the some system...

What I described WAS talking with a f2f director. It was at a club, but he is a regional level director in ACBL (though I think that it's been a very long time since he's directed at regionals, I get the idea that he didn't like it)

[chicken]

I have a similar story from a club I played in many years ago, done by a later-very-famous pro, now deceased.

 

the same story is in the book "have i got a story" a collection of always reappearing bridge stories and tales by patty eber and mike freemann. great stuff and really a good laugh.

[Gerben42]

@kenberg: If I have the feeling he bid insufficiently on purpose I would call the director and nail the "pro" for it. That's what Law 23 is for:

 

When the penalty for an irregularity under any Law would compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn, if the Director deems that the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue and consider awarding an adjusted score (see Law 72B1).

 

Also make sure that if someone bids an off-shape 1NT or something similar, that the director gets to know. This is improper disclosure at its peek!

[mgoetze]

When I pointed that out to my fellow director, he argued that playing a different style of what you're opening on 4=4=3=2 hands is not a different SYSTEM, just a different STYLE.

 

If the system allows for 4=4=3=2 hands to be opened 1♣, then the 1♣ bid must always be alerted. If the partnership has an understanding that one partner will always "judge" to open them 1♦ instead, then that must be fully disclosed when explaining the bid.

 

Some systems are rather ambiguous about which shapes go where, others are very explicit. For instance, if you play Moscito 2005, you must open AKQJ 5432 xxx xx as 1♦, showing 4+ hearts (and no spades yet), because if you open 1♥ (showing 4+ spades and no hearts yet), you will be in a mess later on when responder starts a GF relay asking for your exact shape. You could pretend it's a 5=3=3=2, but then what if responder has ♥Ax and ♣AKQJ, and bids a grand based on your being able to discard two hearts and then ruff his small heart... So with one player opening based on this system, if his partner opens differently, it's not a matter of style.

 

This is consistant with ACBL ideas that pairs playing relays in many different situations (all usually game forcing) is not a relay SYSTEM, just a relay SITUATION.

 

Of course you can't ban all relays, some people are quite attached to Stayman...

 

He seemed to think that even playing different conventions was ok.

 

I don't think so but then I am happily far away from ACBL-land...

[mikestar]

I am an ACBL certified director, though I no longer direct games (job, kids, etc.). At one time I made a living (not a good one) directing club games. I spent about an half hour a day studinying the laws and regulations (often during slack time while directing). If have tried to keep current since.

 

Short club vs cheaper minor is debatable--much depends on how often they play toghether and how firm their agreement is. Four card majors vs five card majors is a violation--but if North might call ♥AQT9 a five carder to avoid a difficult rebid while South would hold out for ♥AKJx then this is a difference in judgement.

 

The ACBL GCC rules regarding relays are not well understood and the attempt to define a relay "system" is a bad way of going about it. Under the GCC all relays by the opening side are legal if the opening bid is 1N or higher. Also all relays by the opening side are legal as long as the first relay bid is opener's rebid (or later).

 

Under the GCC, 1♥-1♠ as a relay is illegal. 1M-1NT forcing is not illegal:

1. It is specifically authorized.

2. It is not strictly speaking a relay, as by negative inference it limits the distribution of the NT bidder's hand.

 

Under the Mid Chart, 1♥-1♠ as a relay is legal if it is game forcing.

 

Under the Super Chart all relays are legal.

 

The ACBL hasn't really addressed the issue of relays by the defense, though hypothetically the same rules apply: OK if the opening is 1NT or higher, otherwise not allowed if the first relay comes before opener's rebid.

[Fluffy]

You cannot agree to play different systems I think, but I guess you can bypass that with a very complex method, playing different system on boards 11, 12 than 13, 14 when the dealer has rotated to partner's position :(.

 

 

About the question if it is ethic for the pro to try and right-side the contrtact all the time, sure it is, as it is to overbid when your partner is very conservative. You just apply your knowledge about partner.

[awm]

In my view, the problem here is not one of legality but one of disclosure. Suppose a pair from out of town comes to the table, and they are not familiar with the particular pro-client pair.

 

The pro frequently violates their stated agreements. The client frequently takes weird-seeming actions (like passing 3NT with an apparent 8-card major fit and a side singleton, or failing to raise partner's lead-direction overcall with four-card support) which essentially field the pro's violations.

 

This can make it extremely difficult to play against such a pair. Essentially, the pro almost never has what their agreements would describe in the bidding, yet they often seem to land on their feet because the pro knows the client's bidding style.

 

Honestly, I would find it much easier to play against a pair who simply had the agreement to play different systems by each partner (all bids by client are transfers or whatever) than to play against a pair who have the same "agreements" but where one partner violates them at every opportunity and the other fields it more often than not.

 

Of course, I agree that if you know about this particular pair it can be easy to take advantage of a weak client. But it's frequently the case that pairs who are not local may not know the pro (if he's not a top national player or something) and definitely will not know the client (after all, one would assume that pros don't bid this way with clients whose goal is to learn the game rather than to win masterpoints).

 

I really think this is an issue with "full disclosure of agreements." To take an extreme example, what if my partner and I announce a notrump range of 12-16, but whenever I open it's 14-16 and when partner opens it's 12-14. We both know this and use our invites/game forces accordingly. If queried on the issue, we just say "my partner plays an aggressive style, our agreements are identical." Doesn't this put opponents who don't know we do this at a big disadvantage?

[mycroft]

In the ACBL, anything that has to be on the card is de facto system. If one person is playing Clubs 2+, Diamonds 4+, and the other is playing Clubs 3+, diamonds 3+, to achieve full disclosure, they would have to mark their cards differently (and Announce differently) and would fall afoul of the "Two, ... identical...CCs" rule.

 

Style is judging when to upgrade hands, when to open 1NT on 5332, when that "good 5-card" is good enough for a weak 2, and the like. And it's disclosable.

 

"My 2D bid shows hearts, his shows diamonds" isn't style.

"My 1D bid promises 4, his promises 3" isn't style.

 

A relay SYSTEM, as far as they are regulated by the ACBL, is defined in the GCC. I don't think it's a great definition, but it allows me to play most of what I want to, so I don't complain. I wish more people would look it up. For instance, I can play Full Symmetric Relay over a Precision 1C opener under the GCC.

 

Fluffy, it is legal in the ACBL (though not in many other places) to play "two-system methods". It's pre-Alertable, you must have all your documentation, but I used to play Precision when opponents were vul and 2/1 when opponents were NV - perfectly legal under the GCC.

 

So if you wanted to play "this system" when the client is 1st/2nd and "that system" when the client is 3rd/4th, as long as both players stick to "whichever system", that's ok. Of course, if the system you play is "2/1 without transfers 1st/2nd, wide-ranging NTs with transfers 3rd/4th" when N/E is dealer, and the opposite when S/W is dealer, the TDs are going to laugh you out of the room...

 

And as for the "pro shutting up client" story, that's why Law 72B2 and Law 23 are in the book.

 

Michael.

[awm]

Where does style give way to system? Honestly I'd rather get full disclosure of opponents "style" even if this is different from player to player, than require them to play the same "system" and then let them off the hook with regard to disclosing style. Some examples of what I mean:

 

(1) Suppose you agree to open "good four card majors." In other words, holding many distributions there's a choice of opening 1M or 1m, and this choice is supposed to be made based on suit quality. A number of ACOL players play like this and it's quite reasonable -- open chunky four card majors where you'd be happy playing 2M in a 4-3, or where you have an easy rebid (i.e. 18-19 balanced), but bid a convenient minor instead of a lousy major. But what if one partner essentially NEVER opens a four-card major unless it's AKQJ, and the other opens four-card majors pretty freely as long as he has one of the top three honors. Style or system? What do opponents get to know?

 

(2) Suppose you agree to play 15-17 notrumps. But one player frequently upgrades "good 14s" (i.e. with a five card suit or several tens) and "good 17s". The other player frequently downgrades "bad 15s" (no five card suit, or no aces, etc) and "bad 18s". So really one player is opening 14-16 and the other is opening 16-18 most of the time. Style or system? The card just says 15-17....

 

As long as this kind of thing is regarded as an "illegal agreement" it's basically impossible for opponents to disclose it even if they wanted to because they could be accused of having an illegal agreement. So they have to treat it as "just style" and not put it on their convention card, and probably not tell anyone unless specifically asked about style (and how would anyone know to ask?).

 

Personally I'd rather know what people normally do and what partner is expecting, rather than some set of "general agreements" that are violated more often than not.

[kenberg]

And as for the "pro shutting up client" story, that's why Law 72B2 and Law 23 are in the book.

And Law 23, quoted earlier by Mycroft, also refers to Law 72B1 which I suppose is closely linked to Law 72B2 which you cite. Some comments.

 

When the insufficient bid was first made, I took the event at face value. Since it seemed obvious the intended bid was 3H, it seemed like a waste of time to summon the director who would explain that if the call was changed to 3H there would be no penalty. I know, we are supposed to always summon the director but we are also supposed to finish hands on time and these two items are not always compatible.

 

If I summoned the director he would indeed have barred the client from bidding. Then I would need to summon the director back at the end of the hand and try to convince him that we were entitled to a score of 3HX down 2. This is very iffy, requires time, requires a director familiar with the above rules (which I am only vaguely aware of and would not be able to quote or refer to), and a director willing to take on a shouting pro. If anyone thinks it is clear that I would win my case, I can only say that their experiences with directors, and I am not restricting this to club directors at all, is different than mine. It presumably would have led to much shouting and arguing and probably a committee hearing, thereby angering my wife when I arrived home late for dinner.

 

And finally, and perhaps most important, the route I took gave the client the opportunity to voluntarily take the ethical action. There comes a time when a guy must decide if he wants to pay someone to make him look like a slimeball.