[glen]

I found this ACBL BBO Sunday IMPs tourney hand interesting, for the decision made by the expert North:

-------- ♠ AJ6532
-------- ♥ ---
-------- ♦ AJT63
-------- ♣ A6

♠ 87 ---------- ♠ KQ4
♥ T32 -------- ♥ AK986
♦ Q98 -------- ♦ 2
♣ QT732 ---- ♣ J854

-------- ♠ T9
-------- ♥ QJ754
-------- ♦ K754
-------- ♣ K9

With everybody vulnerable (board 4), after Pass-1♠-2♥-Double(negative)-Pass-?,

North has a choice of bids, with a good 6-5 and a ♥ void. At the table the choice taken was to pass the negative double, since, as Nouth explained, “partner must have hearts”. If this was a problem in the Bridge World Master Solvers’ Club I wouldn’t think of passing, but I wonder if others have had success with these types of decisions?

Note that it was confirmed it was a negative double, not a penalty double.

[mikeh]

If north truly is an expert, then I'd advise BBO so that they could keep a watch on this player. I cannot believe that any expert panel would reflect a vote for pass on this hand: not one.

If north was merely a pseudo-expert, then maybe, just maybe, he is bad enough to think that way.

I read the recent postings on cheating, and maybe the subject is thus too close to the surface of my mind, and I am fully aware that what looks suspicious is often evidence of incompetence rather than conspiracy, so I would not convict anyone based on this one example: but I'd sure be watching.

The argument that partner must have ♥ is nonsense: he has SOME ♥, yes, but a holding of Jxxx or Qxxx is hardly justifying the pass, and he might have as little as xxx (fourth hand with a 3=4=3=3 bust is not likely to bid and/or overcaller may hold 7 cards in the suit and be too good to preempt).

Meanwhile, what if partner held some modest hand such as Kx xxx KQxx Jxxx?

This 'expert' is defending 2♥x'd while stiff for at least 6♦??

After my initial post, I realized that I might sound too tough on north: I remain of the view that this is weird, but I want to emphasize that a conclusion of wrong-doing cannot be sustained based merely on a decision like this, and especially without hearing from the player involved.

[glen]

North had a "Star" besides their name, so I believe their self-described expert status was quite true. I had never seen this before (passing a low level negative double with a void in the suit doubled) so was wondering if it was a style played elsewhere.

As I was writing this I was spec'ing the person - their partner had a choice on this hand:

♠ K3
♥ 963
♦ T94
♣ K8754

Bidding was 2♠-Pass(this hand)-Pass-Double-Pass-3♣-Pass-3♠-4♣-Pass-?

So partner balanced a weak two with a double, and then bid 4♣ after you bid 3♣ and responder bid 3♠. Your bid?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

On actual hand doubler had:

♠ 4
♥ AKQT2
♦ Q7
♣ AQJT6

The 3♣ bidder bid 4♥ over 4♣ and found the only successful game.

Edit: I don't want to put a new reply, so I just note this here for the file - this thread has nothing to do with other threads about pairs accusing other pairs etc. that I just read. This thread was just to post a strange thing I saw today, to see if it looked strange to others as well.

[Free]

Perhaps it's Buratti and/or Lanzarotti... Looks suspicious!

[joker_gib]

I agree that all this is very ..... strange !

Alain

[bearmum]

officeglen, on Nov 7 2005, 12:16 PM, said:

I found this ACBL BBO Sunday IMPs tourney hand interesting, for the decision made by the expert North:

--------  ♠ AJ6532
--------  ♥ ---
--------  ♦ AJT63
--------  ♣ A6

♠ 87 ---------- ♠ KQ4
♥ T32 -------- ♥ AK986
♦ Q98 -------- ♦ 2
♣ QT732 ---- ♣ J854

--------  ♠ T9
--------  ♥ QJ754
--------  ♦ K754
--------  ♣ K9

With everybody vulnerable (board 4), after Pass-1♠-2♥-Double(negative)-Pass-?,

North has a choice of bids, with a good 6-5 and a ♥ void.  At the table the choice taken was to pass the negative double, since, as Nouth explained, “partner must have hearts”.  If this was a problem in the Bridge World Master Solvers’ Club I wouldn’t think of passing, but I wonder if others have had success with these types of decisions?

Note that it was confirmed it was a negative double, not a penalty double.

WOW what a "unusual" decision from N who was an EXPERT ?

1. P has made a NEG double and you decide to PASS! even with a VOID in the opps suit? UNBELIEVABLE

2. If I was declared at 2♥X and went down I would have called director and fully expected him to adjust score (assuming that ACBL directors expect ALL players to play to ACBL regulations )

3. IF director didn NOT adjust score I would report him to BOTH abuse @ u know where AND to ACBL

FINALLY
This is why I really believe ANY online tourney should NEVER count towards ranking points in country competitions ( like ABCL) becaues it is SO EASY to "cheat" playing online and accumulate (eg) ABCL points -- especially if there a LOT of tables playing

[ochinko]

bearmum, on Nov 7 2005, 01:33 PM, said:

FINALLY
This is why I really believe ANY online tourney should NEVER count towards ranking points in country competitions ( like ABCL)  becaues it is SO EASY to "cheat" playing online  and accumulate (eg) ABCL points -- especially if there a LOT of tables playing

While I agree with what you say it's inaplicable to this case since a a star has nothing to gain from any points that are attributed in tourneys.

1. Most players don't cheat.

2. Obviously the participants in payed tourneys like the points they receive, and thankfully that brings some revenue into BBO.

However, we should not be concerned as long as there is no limit for free tourneys which don't add points to players. Really, the situation at the moment is the best I could think of. Everyone gets something of a value to him/her.

Petko