You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ruling seems absurd to me on it's face, and I explained why elsethread.

But there is one thing I don't understand about the facts presented.

“..My RHO (opener)”

“I had led a against 6…”

One of these has to be wrong.

I'd also like to know opener's shape. If it was 5-1-5-2, as I suspect, I'll have another comment.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Henrik: “where in the commantaries do you find that he must realize within 1 second and it's to late to change after 15?”

Nowhere - it's just common sense. It's likey trhat your ace response was a ‘surprise’ - hence the BIT. You don't get to change your bid after partner's ‘surprise’ induces you (or even MIGHT have induced you) to re-add your aces (or, even worse, wake up to the idea that partner's 4 bid was ace-asking.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with Dave and Steve. 3 is the bid with 2-4-2-5 that, for whatever reason, does not want to bid 3N (or 2-4-1-6). 5-6 has to either bid 4, or 3 then 4. 3 is 3-card 3 and 3 should be short spades. Since our NT ‘problem’ can be either in or this is the sensible structure.

If 3 showed 3 and 3 showed 5, that would mean you needed to bid 3! on 2-4-1-6, 2-4-2-5, 0-4-4-5, 1-4-3-5 (unsuitable for 3N) and 1-4-2-6 (unsuitable for 3N). Too much of a burden to sort out all that.

This theme - opener rebidding his second suit with 5-4-2-2 - has several applications.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A few years ago I asked a Director about this. Is 2 really NEVER an alert? His reply was, “It's not an alert even if it shows 9 puppy dogs and 4 lamb's tails”. Maybe they should put that on the front of the ACBL Bulletin in capital letters.
Dec. 10, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“my teammates who were verbally attacked by an angry declarer who repeatedly said that ”they should be ashame of winning a board in such a way“…(He was also very aggressive towards the Director).”

I did not know this when I posted the article, but it does not surprise me. Instead of getting angry with his opponents (or the Director!), the player should be apologizing for causing the problem.
However, I'd such behaviour from a ‘bad claimer’ is not at all unusual. With certain people, this behavior is typical. All that matters to them is winning. Not their failure to complain properly; not their totally inappropriate reaction.

I see no place for such behavior in our game. I think such behaviour (anger, insults, banging stuff) from a player, especially when the player was the source of the problem, should produce an official C and E hearing. And a warning that a repetition will lead to suspension; repeated repetitions should lead to expulsion.
Dec. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tomasz. You asked a question “What do you want from Fantoni?”. I answered it and said what I wanted.
I think one should be able to give you a simple and honest answer to a question you ask - without getting criticized.
Dec. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When you play on hearts you set up 0ne trick 100% of the time, two fast tricks 50% of the time and 3 tricks 18% of the time. (Also two ‘slow’ tricks 18 percent of the time.

When you play spades, you set up one trick about 80% of the time and two tricks very rarely (about 2% of the time.)

I disagree with Marty Harris who thinks it's so unlikely West has KQ. Yes, if he's led a LOW club there would be some valid inference. But the lead was from a sequence, and the auction was ‘slow’ AND South (obviously) can have 4- card spades. Everything suggests leading clubs from the sequence.
In fact, the same exact principle that makes a heart the correct play (at matchpoints, anyway) makes a club from (say) KQx(x) and J109x(x).

In addition, if you play on hearts, there is an excellent chance that, looking at that dummy, they might shift to spades and ‘help’ me there.

The general point is that you want to attack suits where you can set up tricks, while giving the opponents nothing they don't have on top already.
Where you have an apparent choice, you generally want to attack the suit where they have the ace, ot the AK (or the AKQ!). I can even construct a hand where it's correct to attack the suit where you're missing the AKQJ.
Dec. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tomasz: I'd settle for all of the following:

1) Confessing to collusive cheating, naming any partner he did it with
2) Giving all details about how he did it
3) Giving away all the money he ‘stole’ due to cheating
4) Relinquishing all titles won
5) Promising never to compete again in a bridge tournament
Dec. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Graham C: I might play to Q with Qxx or to K with Kxx - either is possible. But I also might be trying a sneaky to Q with Qx (especially where I'd actually like a shift); probably never with Kx.

A strong West will probably duck with AJ10x (perhaps losingly) whichever honor I play.
But if they something like A10x, it's a lot more comfortable for them to duck if I play the K.

But since this is matchpoints, “risk” does not concern me much. Maximizing when the cards are friendly is a more important consideration.
Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Stefan: “Why attack hearts first?”. Hopefully, many of the juniors in my Training Program can provide the four-word answer.

Incidentally, while I think a is clear at trick 2, I also think South should play the QUEEN.
Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I, on the other hand, dislike the idea. Directing is alreasdy almost a thankless job. If you have a Director doing a bad job, you warn them and, if things don't improve, let him go. Fines seem wrong to me.
Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Phillip: Depending on the particular players and their particular agreements, I think it's possible for BOTH rulings to make sense.
Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Much-Festering-under-Lyme Bridge Club”.
Is that near Much-Binding on the Marsh?
Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“hey could politely make it clear, by announcement at the start of a session, that they expect players to make identical Convention Cards readily available to their opponents, and that players that do not do this are at risk of being penalized.”

The start of the session is already too late. If you haven't filled it out in advance, it's not likely to be filed out properly.

What is needed is something in LARGE CAPITAL LETERS when the original announcement of the tournament goes out. Folled by the words WE REALLY, REALLY MEAN IT.
Dec. 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Start with some enforced penalties with teeth and I bet the behavior will change.”

Just as it did with cell phones.
Dec. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In a tempo-sensitive situation, even unintentional shotgun is not a manifestation of a mental error. It's a manifestation of ‘I know what I want, and I want it to be clear to you that I know what I want’. It's self-serving, disrespectful to the spirit of the game, and improper.
Dec. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mike N: The increased frequency of revokes in your game might not be due to more relaxed laws. Maybe revokes are now more common in your games because, mostly, the players are the same - except older.
Dec. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ilya: “- When I wrote ”quick“ I meant that exactly - quick 5NT. Shotgun-like. The actual reason for the shotgun DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ”we're off two aces“ (for example partner had anticipated my 5 response and already knew that he would rebid 5NT over it). Whether this action is improper or not is its own topic, but I've seen players of very high caliber ”shotgunning“, usually unintentionally.”

It doesn't deserve it's own topic. Shotgun actions are ALWAYS wrong in principle. In an auction such as the OP, I consider it to be at an awful level of badness. Not as bad as collusive cheating, but bad enough that I can put them into the same sentence. I consider shotgun sign-off in a tempo-sensitive auction to be worse than a slow ‘interest-showing’ sign-off.

- “Playing at a club level with a non-regular partner 5NT would be taken by me as a suggestion to play in 5NT (quick, normal, or delayed). My preference would be to play 5NT as ”pick a slam“ as well…”

“…but I am pretty confident that 5NT was meant as a suggestion to play by the bidder and understood as a suggestion to play by South.”

Me too.

“I am not sure how accurately the facts were presented by the TS, but my guess (and it's only a guess) that North belongs to the category of the players (”very old expert“) to whom 5 response simply does not exist (pass and 6NT being the only options for a response) and that's why it caused the hesitation.”

Exactly! That is my point. Had North folowed with an in-tempo 5N, perhaps South would have robotically followed his ace showing bid with a king showing bid. The hesitation before 5N allowed South to re-evaluate, using a ‘logic’ that he might not have.
If we could perform a ‘sliding doors’ experiment, that would be nice - but we can't. As I already said, I think this is a difficult ruling. And it might matter how long the BIT was (which I don't think was mentioned in the OP).

If N-S were ruled against, North should not feel aggrieved (though he would be). Instead he (and South and East and West and everybody else who hears or reads about the ruling) should take it as a lesson learned. To try to avoid BIT's in tempo-sensitive auctions.
Dec. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard F: I have no evidence that 5N could be pick-a-slam. But I know it is for many pairs, so I'd say a proper ruling cannot be made without investigating the possibility. The fact that it was not mentioned suggests there was no such investigation.

“even if 5NT can be pick a slam for this pair, it would not apply in this situation.”

Despite your definitive statement, I think I know partnerships and players who would play it as pick-a-slam.

Paul: “Apparently North intended 5NT to be a further invitation, to be accepted with AQx Kxx KQ109x Jx, but refused with the actual South hand.”

I guess you intended some other hand.
Dec. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ilya: If N-S had a clear agreement to show aces over a quantitative 4N, then why would North have broken tempo over 5.
It's obvious that, whatever each player thought, the agreement itself is fuzzy.

“To me quick 5NT would be ”we're off two aces“, and a pause ”I am sorry, I am just a chicken“.”

This argument is false on two counts. First, you might be right about a “quick” 5N - but a “quick 5N” would be improper. The question is what would South do over a ‘normal tempo’ 5N - not a “quck” one or a ‘slow’ one.
Second, there are many, many players who play that 5N is ‘pick a slam’ in a slam auction. Why couldn't North, hearing partner accept, but not accepting by bidding 6N (whatever 5 might mean), be bidding 5N to get South to big a slam.

It's a really good idea to plan your auction so you can make any ‘questionable’ bids in even tempo. North could have prepared what he would do over any 5-level bid - and thus avoided whether there was any question of UI.

Having said all that, I'm not saying I'd rule against N-S. I think it's a difficult case, and I disagree with a strong opinion in either direction.
Dec. 6, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top