[kenrexford]

My partners sometimes get caught unawares.

So, we decided to play HIS structure over a strong 2♣. X for majors, transfers, 2NT-->♣, 3♣-->♦, and 2♠ for the minors. We just did not discuss a strong 1♣.

The weird wanna-B's have the home-spun nonsense. 1♣! ("15-19").

Partner overcalled 1♠. He had five spades to the AQJ, a bonus 5-card club suit to the Ace, and no real reasons to suspect what was about to happen to him.

I alerted. The opponents asked, as partner grew horrified. I explained, "Minors."

My RHO doubled, explained as "I think it's 6+, no idea about shape." So, I leapt to 3♦.

Opener bid 3♠. RHO bid 3NT.

We defended 3NT. A bizarre end position caught Declarer down one because he could not read the thing. So, the TD was called.

My partner explained that he thought 1♠ was natural and that we had no discussed this. This would, of course, mean that my alert was incorrect, and an adjustment might occur. However, despite our protestations, the opponents insisted, quite heatedly, that we had, in fact, discussed this at the table, in their presence. After a while, we gave in. The TD, of course, then was forced to rule that the error was my partner's, who forgot what we were playing.

IS that the end? Heck no! The guy to my left then called my partner a cheater (after the TD left). My partner asked him to please apologize or he'd call the director again, explaining that he had not intended anything and just made an apparent mistake. The man then, and get this, accused my partner of psyching 1♠ to show the minors, when he really had spades, as a method to keep them out of their heart fit.

My partner's response was perfect. "I'm just not good enough for that psychic."

The man insisted, claiming that he "knew" that my partner really did have spades and that my partner clearly bid spades as a psychic to keep them out of hearts and was a cheater.

So, we called the TD. My partner said that he wanted the man to stop calling him a cheater and that we wanted to adjustments or committes or anything if he would just apologize and then shut up about it.

So, the man looked at the TD and said, quite loudly, "You are right, I am quite sorry..."

and then he turned toward my partner, and ever so quietly finished, "...that you cheated."

The point was not that the man went nuts. The part that got me laughing so hard was that my partner, with AQJxx of spades and great shape, made a simple natural 1♠ call (what it should have meant), and that simple call resulted in a osychotic alert from his otherwise occasionally sane partner (me), a leap from partner into his stiff, jamming the opponents out of hearts for some reason that we still don't get, mis-declaring by the opponents to go down on a pseudo-squeeze in 3NT, a director call, insistance from the opponents (to their detriment) that he had agreed to this unusual treatment, accusation that he had made the most unusual psychic mis-direction I've ever seen (psyching 1♠ to show the minors as a way to keep them out of hearts), and then accusations of cheating.

EHAA.

[glen]

So how did that "zero-tolerance" thing work out?

Btw, if I were you, I don't think I could stop laughing if the opps had to go to a committee and started to explain their reasonings

[matmat]

zero tolerance... did it ever actually mean anything? or is it just a puff of smoke?

[blackshoe]

Zero Tolerance is a crock. All the ZT mavens had to do was enforce the damn laws in the first place.

This pair was either mistaken in their insistence that the OP's side had discussed this sequence, or they were the ones who were cheating.

These are the kind of players that make me want to keep coming back to the bridge table - I really love dealing with these idiots.


NOT!

[helene_t]

It may sound strange that a minor-suit oriented psyche could keep opps out of a hearts fit. Since I happen to be familiar with the 15-19 club system, I will explain this.

The system does not have a natural 4♥ bid exept in a few specific cases such as when p has made a psyche-unmasking double of a 1♥ opening. Therefore, the way to reach 4♥ is first to use modified spiral scan to zoom in on a honour rank in which you know p has an even number, then set clubs as trump, and then kick-back for the zoomed-in-on honour rank with 4♦, to which p will respond 4♥.

Part of the ACBL-approved defence against this system is never to psyche a 1♥ opening. The reason why ACBL turned down Richard's suggested defense against Moscito was that in Richard's proposal it was unclear if a 1♥ overcall of a Moscito 1♦ opener by a 15-19 pair would be generally natural or specifically psyche-unmasking. I think if Richard just specifies that Moscito interprets the suggested defense against 15-19 such that a Moscito 1♦ will never be psyched either, the issue will be resolved.

[Free]

I had people calling me a cheater once. LHO opened a strong ♣, p overcalled 1♠ showing 0-3♠s, alerted by me (not spontaneous explained of course since that's illegal). They didn't ask an explanation, they missed their own ♠ fit, finessed ♠s twice through my partner who had a small doubleton,... 3NT down while it makes (and 4♠ also made). That was funny as well!

[kenrexford]

This situation followed a TD calling by us.

The accuser held ♠xx ♥A65432 ♦KQxx ♣x.

My partner, to the accuser's left, opened 2♠, placing the stop card on the table. 1.8 seconds after his call, with the stop card just settling out air underneath it from landing on the table, the accuser's partner passed. I bid 2NT.

The accuser overcalled 3♥.

My partner again placed the stop card on the table and bid 4♠. The accuser's partner waited ten seconds for my partner to pick up the stop card. He then waited an additional ten seconds. He then squirmed in his seat, scratched his chin, sighed, and then passed. I passed.

The accuser, in 1.8 seconds, bid 5♥. Doubled, a good save.

After calling the TD, the accuser had spent several minutes explaining how his call was absolutely obvious and that his partner's hesitation did not induce this at all. My response at the table was that he should not admit that if he really thinks that 5♥ is an obvious call, uninfluenced by the tempo break.

[Rossoneri]

And I thought I had it bad enough.

[matmat]

1) are you a regular at this event?
2) are your opponents?

[kenrexford]

matmat, on Oct 21 2007, 04:27 PM, said:

1) are you a regular at this event?
2) are your opponents?

1. Yes
2. I have no idea who these guys are

[manudude03]

Sometimes you just have to laugh when TD is called against you. I remember playing Precision with my partner when I was in Slovakia (World Schools Pairs). We ended up getting TD called on us twice, for rather silly reasons.

On the first of them, I opened 1♦ as a general 11-15 which doesn't match fit with any other bid (could be singleton). The bidding carries on and they eventually ended in 4♠ with my partner leading. I had passed after my initial bid which suggested that my suit was real (I may have found another bid somewhere). My partner leads the ♦A followed by a small ♦ when i encouraged. I took it with my K and followed a third ♦ which my partner ruffed. He still had the ♠A to put it off one. However, we then found ourselves having TD called on us for an "unusual lead" despite our CC saying that our norm is "top of partner's suit".

On the second of them, my LHO gets caught with 7♥ and 5♦ while the RHO was 2245. LHO opened 1♥, partner passes, RHO bids 2♣. I now bid 4♠ preemptive (8 card suit headed by AK, otherwise bust). LHO now bids 5♦ and gets passed out. It only makes = as they misplay it and attack ♥ before drawing trumps giving me a ruff and the ♠A. After the hand, TD gets called because I pre-empted knocking them out of a cold 6♥ (losing only a ♠).

Luckily neither score was adjusted, but still frustrating

[blackshoe]

manudude03, on Oct 28 2007, 11:03 AM, said:

Sometimes you just have to laugh when TD is called against you.

Heh. I once called the TD because I thought I might have taken advantage of partner's hesitation. She got upset because "you called the TD on me!"

In general, though, I think we should try not to view TD calls as "against" anybody. The TD is there to help resolve questions and to ensure equity is served. He is not a weapon to be used against opponents.

[kenrexford]

blackshoe, on Oct 28 2007, 01:16 PM, said:

In general, though, I think we should try not to view TD calls as "against" anybody. The TD is there to help resolve questions and to ensure equity is served. He is not a weapon to be used against opponents.

ROTFLOL!!!

[mycroft]

My partners know that if something goes wrong - or even if there is the appearance that something went wrong, I will call the TD. They also know that that is because I hold the opponents to the same standard.

One of my partners said "I'm tired of you calling the TD on me, that's why I worked on (tempo, inflection, ...)" Of course, like Ed above, I was most often calling on my call that could have looked like I was taking advantage of the UI (I thought I had a 100% call, but everybody does...)

Michael.