[mikeh]

Playing the Championship Flt of the DINO GNTs, you pick up KJ10x Kxxx QJ109x A

Partner opens 2♥, a club preempt (I know, 2-under preempts are horrible, but partner loves them). You alert, questions are asked and answered.

You bid 3♣ and all pass.

RHO immediately leads the diamond Ace... no screens

The director is called and I prohibit the lead. The director tells LHO, an experienced player and a bridge author (altho not a book I had even heard of) that he can't lead a diamond until he has lost the lead. And he adds that LHO is not permitted to make use of the information that his partner holds the diamond Ace.

LHO leads a club and the Director leaves, saying, as he goes, 'No further penalties'

Dummy is x xxx xxx KQJxxx

I win perforce and need to get to dummy. I should have led the spade King to maximize the chance that LHO will have to win, but I led the 10. LHO wins, and immediately, at the speed of light, leads a diamond to his partner, who wins, returns a diamond to LHO who gives him a ruff.

I looked at him a little sideways and he said 'The Director said no further penalties'

I called the Director. LHO had Qxxx AJx Kxx xxx

The director originally ruled that there was no logical alternative to the diamond switch. I protested that this simply wasn't true.. that if he were concerned with protecting his holdings (I probably had a stiff trump on this line so could well hold AQ of diamonds), a continued trump play might work well.

The director conferred with a few other players (we were not playing duplicated boards) and decided to prohibit the switch, so 3♣ made rather than down 1.

But LHO claimed that he had been MISLED by the Director's statement that there were no further penalties, and that he took that as allowing him to take advantage of knowing who had the diamond Ace!

The director ruled that we got the adjusted score and they got the at the table score so we got the vps for a 12-0 win (in 6 boards) and they for a 0-7 loss.

The best news of the weekend was that this team failed to make the playoffs, and indeed, finished the day playing with different partnerships.

I noticed that LHO seemed to have a habit of varying whether he pulled out all the cards from the bidding box or single cards. I didnt pick up on it right away and a 6 board match isn't long enough to draw firm conclusions anyway, but he seemed to use all the cards when he had a good hand and a single card for weakness. Hence he used all the cards to respond 2♣ to his partner's opening bid and then left the 2♦ through 2N cards in the box when he bid 3♣, alerted as signoff. Then he used a single card the next hand and had a poor hand and all the cards the next one, and had extras! I am sure his partner wasn't in on this, if there was anything to be in on.

I was told by someone who read his book (confirmed by a second professed reader) that this guy recommended lead-inhibiting questions: eg, if LHO opened 1 or 2N and rho staymaned and they ended up in a contract played by opener, and you want a non-club lead, ask, at your last turn before the auction ends, what the stayman bid meant.. thus ethically prohibiting partner from leading the suit 'suggested' by your improper questioning.

Anyway, a long rant about someone who made me feel like I needed a shower after playing against him

[CSGibson]

Geez, glad you beat them, I hate people who are proponents of lousy ethics.

Did you report your observations about the use of the bidding cards to anyone?

[matmat]

i guess for some cheating is just part of the gamesmanship.

[the hog]

Hmm! I would really be interested in knowing the title of this book.

[kenrexford]

Wow. If I were ever to stoop so low as to cheat at bridge, I would hope to have the intelligence to not publish how I do it in a book. I hope there is a wildly interesting explanation for how your suspicions are misplaced!

[xcurt]

mikeh, on Apr 8 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

The director ruled that we got the adjusted score and they got the at the table score so we got the vps for a 12-0 win (in 6 boards) and they for a 0-7 loss.

Which means that more than 20 VPs were awarded in your match.

Given that the threshold for awarding non-offending side an adjusted score (presumably better than their table result) is higher than the threshold for assigning offending side an adjusted score (presumably worse than their table result), this should never happen.

curt

[Elianna]

xcurt, on Apr 8 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 8 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

The director ruled that we got the adjusted score and they got the at the table score so we got the vps for a 12-0 win (in 6 boards) and they for a 0-7 loss.

Which means that more than 20 VPs were awarded in your match.

Given that the threshold for awarding non-offending side an adjusted score (presumably better than their table result) is higher than the threshold for assigning offending side an adjusted score (presumably worse than their table result), this should never happen.

curt

I think that there's some provision for adjusting due to director's error, which seems to be what was applied here (without being said). I would say this is wrong (the guy claims to have been "confused" but that claim sounds highly suspect to me) but what is the director to do, call him a liar?

[cherdano]

Elianna, on Apr 8 2008, 09:40 PM, said:

xcurt, on Apr 8 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 8 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

The director ruled that we got the adjusted score and they got the at the table score so we got the vps for a 12-0 win (in 6 boards) and they for a 0-7 loss.

Which means that more than 20 VPs were awarded in your match.

Given that the threshold for awarding non-offending side an adjusted score (presumably better than their table result) is higher than the threshold for assigning offending side an adjusted score (presumably worse than their table result), this should never happen.

curt

I think that there's some provision for adjusting due to director's error, which seems to be what was applied here (without being said). I would say this is wrong (the guy claims to have been "confused" but that claim sounds highly suspect to me) but what is the director to do, call him a liar?

Tell him he is sorry about the misunderstanding but that his explanations had been quite clear?

[geller]

mikeh, on Apr 9 2008, 08:32 AM, said:

Playing the Championship Flt of the DINO GNTs, you pick up KJ10x Kxxx QJ109x A

Not that it really matters all that much in the context of your discussion, but isn't this a 14 card hand?

Incidentally, I think (even though you've omitted names someone from your area could probably figure out who your opponent was), it's better to refer matters like pulling out one bidding card vs. pulling out the whole pile depending on strength to the district recorder rather than bring it up in a public forum like this forum.

-Bob

[mike777]

STop...Stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11



Anyone who is top class GNT who thinks it is ok to do anything(unethical) after dir. says...no further penalty?


Stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




So now i can cheat..lie...unethical..etc...no problem.....and this is top class....gnt?

I reread OP but really this must be a joke.....a big joke...to teach non experts a lesson......

IN my nonexpert dream....I stop play..!!!!!!!!!!



I call Dir.
I explain whole hand and ask...can i play d now...........ethically? I am nonexpert....can I do this??????????

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Apr 8 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

But LHO claimed that he had been MISLED by the Director's statement that there were no further penalties, and that he took that as allowing him to take advantage of knowing who had the diamond Ace!

That's ridiculous.

Anyway, I'd give a hand to some players and have them decide whether there are logical alternative to a diamond.

[inquiry]

mikeh, on Apr 8 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

I was told by someone who read his book (confirmed by a second professed reader) that this guy recommended lead-inhibiting questions: eg, if LHO opened 1 or 2N and rho staymaned and they ended up in a contract played by opener, and you want a non-club lead, ask, at your last turn before the auction ends, what the stayman bid meant.. thus ethically prohibiting partner from leading the suit 'suggested' by your improper questioning.

Hmmmmm......

This is very horrible concept. It is hard to believe someone would write such a strategy in a book, and harder to believe that we have never heard of such a thing being proposed by some SOB....

Perhaps it was said in such a tone as...

"there are a lot of unethical things floating around. For instance I heard a story once that some one... (stuff about stayman enquiry to forbid a club lead).... NEVER DO THINGS like that."

If it was not in the context of a warning against such things, the author should be drummed out of organized bridge...

[vuroth]

I'm just glad it was you facing him, and not me in a club match. These sorts of people may get busted by the mikeh's of the world, but they've got to be making money off of someone....

[jillybean]

mikeh, on Apr 8 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

Anyway, a long rant about someone who made me feel like I needed a shower after playing against him

I love the analogy

How did your weekend end Mike?

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Apr 8 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

The director is called and I prohibit the lead. The director tells LHO, an experienced player and a bridge author (altho not a book I had even heard of) that he can't lead a diamond until he has lost the lead. And he adds that LHO is not permitted to make use of the information that his partner holds the diamond Ace.

I'm sorry, I just don't find it sleazy.

He simply didn't understand the director's instructions. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that he would have returned a diamond without knowing that his partner had the ace, which is re-enforced by the director originally thinking that there were no logical alternatives.

I don't think "you can't take advantage of the ace of diamonds" is clear, and can easily be interpreted as "you should play as if you didn't know your partner had the ace of diamonds". This is why legalese exists, after all.

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Apr 9 2008, 11:54 AM, said:

mikeh, on Apr 8 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

The director is called and I prohibit the lead. The director tells LHO, an experienced player and a bridge author (altho not a book I had even heard of) that he can't lead a diamond until he has lost the lead. And he adds that LHO is not permitted to make use of the information that his partner holds the diamond Ace.

I'm sorry, I just don't find it sleazy.

He simply didn't understand the director's instructions. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that he would have returned a diamond without knowing that his partner had the ace, which is re-enforced by the director originally thinking that there were no logical alternatives.

I don't think "you can't take advantage of the ace of diamonds" is clear, and can easily be interpreted as "you should play as if you didn't know your partner had the ace of diamonds". This is why legalese exists, after all.

Of course, that is what he said (I didn't understand). But I have played a lot of bridge (less in recent years, admittedly) and so has this guy. He isn't, in my view, a strong player, but he was in the Championship Flight of the District GNT Finals and has certainly won a number of Regionals (as I understand matters) and been around for many years.

I simply do not believe that he didn't fully understand the concept of being required to ignore, throughout the hand, the knowledge that his partner held the diamond Ace. The director made it clear that there was a lead 'penalty'.. that I could (amongst other options) request or forbid a diamond lead... and that that 'penalty' persisted until he lost the lead. I won the opening lead, thus negating the 'penalty' prohibiting a diamond lead unless he had nothing left but diamonds... it was plain and obvious that it was that 'penalty' that the director was saying no longer applied.. it was after I won trick 1 that the Director made his statement and left the table.

Looked at more legalistically, the direction that he ignore his knowledge that partner played the diamond Ace is NOT a penalty.... it is no penalty to say don't make use of UA. It is a penalty to say that declarer can direct or forbid a specific lead.

Finally, surely an ethical player would at least entertain some doubt as to whether the Director really meant... go ahead at trick 3 and use the UA without penalty........ if he had ANY doubt, surely he calls the Director back and asks for clarification and we ALL know what the Director would have said.

The Director felt unable to penalize him because he had a bullshit case that the problem was caused by Director Error. The Director told me that he didn't believe him, personally, and had some unfavourable things to say about him, but also said that he couldn't prove the man was a liar... nor can I..... if the standard of proof were on a criminal standard.

BTW, I don't mind, in the least, if people in this area work out who this guy is... I do some defamation litigation, and I am comfortable that I have been entirely factual in terms of allegations of fact, and that my opinions are reasonably and sincerely held... but, out of an abundance of caution, I stress that my statements about his motivation or understanding are opinions I have reached upon the facts presented, and I am not so egotistical as to 'know' or state that my opinions truly reflect his inner thinking...

[cherdano]

It might still be a good idea (a hassle for you, but maybe helpful for bridge) to fill out a recorder form, though?

[Impact]

Since the Proprieties were made part of the Laws of Bridge (as opposed to merely an adjunct), I believe that any hairsplitting defence of the sort of conduct which Mikeh relates as occurring, becomes all but defunct.

As for the conduct/advice allegedly espoused in the book, that does not merely offend my sensibilities but offends against the proprieties and hence the Laws of the game as well.

I do not know whether the protagonist in Mikeh's account is a professional, but for anyone else the inherent joy and charm of the game should be sufficient that "use any means to win" is simply neither an option nor considered.

Pity there is not the equivalent regard to the proprieties as there is to the Rules of Golf in that game where the concept of calling penalties on yourself is ensconced (and golf professionals play for far greater stakes than any bridge professionals)!

regards

[mycroft]

In those rulings, I state as part of the ruling on "pick it up", that real leader "can't use any information from the fact that his partner wanted to lead the card he did." Usually to blank stares, but I do say it, and the one or two times it's been important, I've ruled.

The OP said in his statement that the TD said that, before the "no further penalties". If the player thought that that cancelled "you can't use", well, that's his lookout. If the TD didn't actually say "you can't use", then TD error, and more than 20 VPs in the match. Oh well, you try to avoid it, but it happens.