Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Patterson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38 39 40 41
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am going to play East for one spade honor mixed in with his clubs to explain his double. But I'm not sure that helps me much.
I'd have stayed in dummy and led the spade at trick 2 hoping to lose to West because East still may not realize he has a spade honor. But if East covers I duck and now I'm guessing which squeeze to play.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to be clear, I said very, very slow for a reason. I too don't mind a reasoned pause by the defender at trick one, but that is not what I was describing.
July 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring your own stated priorities. Where the first priority is attitude. The second is length and suit preference only comes third.
No one could fault you for treating the 10 as encouragement to continue - you make the decision, after the hesitation, to treat it as suit preference.
Partner's only lack of confidence here was that you might not treat his discard as suit preference. His hesitation was to show that he was ignoring your first two priorities.
If your stated priority was suit preference at trick one, you have no problem, but it isn't and in my estimation that leaves you with a big ethical problem.
July 9
David Patterson edited this comment July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
His highest card was a ten, he had no high card points
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your carding is standard, high asks for a continuation and it doesn't come much higher than a ten in this case.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is hard to see how a second spade is taking advantage of UI when your number one priority is supposed to be attitude. In this case you are the one deciding to follow your number 3 priority after a healthy hesitation from your partner suggests that his signal is neither attitude nor length.
If you woodenly follow your own stated priorities it is hard to see how you are taking advantage of UI.
In the higher priority cases of attitude or length partner could be telling you that a second spade is safe and you won't be giving a ruff sluff. I think there is a huge ethical problem on over ruling that after partner's hesitation and especially in the absence of a Lightner double.
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Re points 2 & 3, partner is 5206, 10 high. You might want to talk about bidding in general and not just Lightner doubles.
What I'm driving at is your first point and whether it now makes you uncomfortable about the whole hand?
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
i understand that reasoning, and perhaps I should have had a second question.
If you do lead a diamond - what do you do when partner ruffs it?
July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I wish I could like this 100 times, but on asking around informally - the majority of people disagree. And I fear that is going to be the case with this poll.
July 9
David Patterson edited this comment July 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Bemoaning the fact that many players don't want to play up is futile.
We have allowed a situation to develop in which this is normality.
I think the reasons for this are many and complex, but one of them is certainly the culture that has developed around MasterPoints.
As a body we seem to be quite happy to give away gold points by encouraging weaker players to beat up on those who are weaker still in Gold Rushes etc.
So why don't we instead try to encourage players to play up, by simply giving them Master Points. If you are willing to play in the top flight you are awarded X points for valor - a number commensurate with what an average team could expect to gain in the lower competition.
If this was tried as an experiment, it would at least clarify how much MasterPoints had to do with an unwillingness to play up.
And any thoughts about the devaluing of Masterpoints, should really start with Gold Rushes, which encourage people to play down, rather than something that at least attempts to get players to experience a different level of bridge.
I know the ACBL would never go for it - but I'm not sure that counts as an argument against either.
July 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve - even if they have 100% safety they could only shoot for the stars if they positively knew they had been given misinformation.
And even if they do feel forced to punt after the misinformation, they should still be protected if your misinformation renders constructive bidding in their system useless. Most systems don't cater for finding a 5-4 fit after you have been told that an opponent holds 5+ in the suit.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I just want to double check that I haven't lost my mind here.
Two questions:
Did a TD really allow a team a gain of 11 IMPS on a board were they gave misinformation to their opponents?
How many of that team are related to him/her?
A hand which is almost cold for 7, misinformation not only denies any legitimate chance to bid it , but there is a TD who basically says “Even though you are in a close match and extremely competitive with this team, I just don't think you are as good at bidding club slams as they are, so you lose.”
I really hope I have somehow got this wrong and the OP's team didn't get a match winning gain on this board. We have argued some crazy TD decisions on Bridgewinners, but this really takes the prize.
My condolences and admiration to Mr Woulds, you were robbed and still manage to make a very civil, non complaining post.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Steven Allen. It should have absolutely no bearing on the ruling. How South values this hand having been told there are long clubs in front of him, gives you absolutely no clue as to how he would value the hand if he knew there was still a live possibility that he had a club fit.
Once the misinformation had been imparted, there is no way to judge from subsequent bidding what the auction would have been if he had been given the correct information.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I understand that legally, what happens at other tables is irrelevant.But If you take that to its logical conclusion.You award 6+1, or some sort of weighted score that is still worse than 7. So you are already saying that even without the MI “You just aren't good enough to bid this”.
Now let us suppose that you go across to the other table and find that opps did bid it. Basically the ruling now says - “Your opponents are just better bidders than you are - live with it” . This ruling being made despite the fact that one half of this team has been shown to less than perfect in their bidding.
So you now would have the travesty that a team profits on a board where their misinformation denied you any real chance of matching their result.
7 is far from impossible to bid, misinformation pretty much denied any real possibility of bidding it, I find it very difficult to understand why it isn't simply awarded.
I think that 5 + 2 is not only a very bad judgement indeed, but also absolutely insulting to the injured pair.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I should add, that the cards were shuffled and dealt normally - no goulash
June 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Amir. I know it is impossible to give all the facts initially without writing a novel, But your addenda about Declarer's apology at the table, makes a huge difference to my view of the case.
The fact that he admitted fault and apologized goes a long way to explaining the TD's feeling no need to address it further. And to be honest makes it even more perplexing that East didn't concede the contract after having his “joke”
Certainly it changes things enough for me to consider that justice has probably been served.
June 9
David Patterson edited this comment June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just addressing the “equivalency between the two acts” which you find incomprehensible. I have seen as many people truly coffee housing by doing what your partner did, as I have by doing what your opponent did.
Slow playing to deceive is common and reprehensible, slow playing a card in a deliberate attempt to make your opponent not notice you had played it, is not something I have ever come across, but would be reprehensible if that was your motive. Making a comment about the nature of a hand in order to get a “read” on your opponent's holdings, reprehensible and common.
I sincerely doubt that either your partner or your opponent were truly coffee housing, but both their actions can be open to such an interpretation. And certainly your opponents transgression had a far greater effect on the result.
If both were experienced players, I would penalize both, but as your partner is just returning to duplicate, I would simply caution him that his comment was inappropriate.
You were at the table and I wasn't. You know the players concerned and I don't. So you certainly have greater insight into the various motives at play than I do.
My position simply is, that if a director is going to address one transgression on a hand, he should address all of them.
June 9
David Patterson edited this comment June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't imply that a valid solution to your partner's comment was to do anything inappropriate. As I stated elsewhere, I think the director should have been summoned as soon as your partner made his comment. Had this happened I doubt that the later incident would have occurred.
I have no problem with the PP being issued. I do have a problem if the other transgression on the same hand was totally ignored. And I don't even think a PP is necessary for your partner (though I'd like to know the hand and exactly what was said), but I do think he should be cautioned by the director for his behavior - hence my question to you.
Had the director cautioned him and issued a PP to your opponents, I would have seen it as an equitable solution - as it is,I am left wondering why the director chose to address one transgression but not the other.
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did your partner get any sort of warning for his initial comment - which, to my mind, sparked the whole incident?
June 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This occurred to me. I would like to know what was said, when it was said and when the director was summoned. I can think of several plausible explanations for some of the behavior during this hand, but I would rather be in possession of all the facts (including the hand itself), before coming to any judgement.
June 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38 39 40 41
.

Bottom Home Top