[kenrexford]

At the local club, I opened 1NT with 3532 pattern. LHO overcalled 2♦, no alert. Partner passed, and RHO bid 3♦. At this point, I jokingly asked RHO, "2♦ is actually natural?!?!?" RHO said, "Yep." So, I stretched a tad and bid 3♥. We ended up in 3NT, down one. The field was down something our way.

During the play, LHO shows up with a void in diamonds and six hearts. So, I asked whether 2♦ was actually a transfer. RHO said, "Yep, but I had six diamonds."

As we completely hammer 3♦, and any plus our way is a top, I called for the playing director.

Her initial ruling was that, although they do play transfers, RHO decided to bid diamonds naturally, thus "cancelling out" the transfer.

Huh?

After further discussion, she finally agreed that perhaps there might have been misinformation. Her next ruling was to average the hand out.

Of course, this was really a bad idea, as we actually had a fairly good score for only going set one trick. So, I inquired further as to why we would be punished with an average instead of above average because of their misinformation. (Of course, I was not even going to touch the obvious procedural penalty.)

The director then ruled that the result stands, because we had accepted the bid. Although those words do relate to a situation that occurs in bridge, I'm not sure that this was the situation.

So, in the end, the result stood.

To add to the humor, remember that this director was a playing director. My partner and I ended up tied for second, one-half matchpoint out of first to the playing director and her partner.

Of course, we might have secured the win had partner not faced this troubling decision. With ♠Q ♥AJ10xx ♦Jxx ♣QJxx, you pass in first seat. Partner, in third seat, opens 1♣ (2/1 GF). Opponent overcalls 1♦. What now?

A negative double came to mind. After a 2♦ call, partner bids 2♠. So, after this reverse, you decide to bid 4♥. When the opponents sacrifice at 5♦, partner made a grand slam try by bidding 5♠. You like your hand for the grand, but you are just shy of accepting. So, you show your club suit in case maybe 7♣ makes.

Unfortunately, the opponents double, and your idiot partner goes down two!!!

OK, what's the third board of that round?

I'll spare you that one. It might be unsafe reading.

[glen]

You really have to learn Swahili if you want to play at these clubs

[kenrexford]

glen, on Dec 11 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

You really have to learn Swahili if you want to play at these clubs

When I play the Xango system, then Swahili does help. I agree.

[JoAnneM]

According to ACBL rules you do not have to ask the "right" question, you just have to indicate that you are inquiring about the bid. So, RHO opponent certainly committed a gross infraction when he agreed with you that it was natural, knowing full well that it was not.

Not only does that infraction carry an adjustment, if needed, but it should carry a procedural penalty. Your director is incompetent. Also, you do not give avg/avg- for score adjustments, those adjustments are for fouled or non/played boards. The director should know that. Averaging a board is just a lazy way of handling a problem at a table.

[JoAnneM]

"Of course, we might have secured the win had partner not faced this troubling decision. With ♠Q ♥AJ10xx ♦Jxx ♣QJxx, you pass in first seat. Partner, in third seat, opens 1♣ (2/1 GF). Opponent overcalls 1♦. What now?

A negative double came to mind. After a 2♦ call, partner bids 2♠. So, after this reverse, you decide to bid 4♥. When the opponents sacrifice at 5♦, partner made a grand slam try by bidding 5♠. You like your hand for the grand, but you are just shy of accepting. So, you show your club suit in case maybe 7♣ makes. "

This is an aside from the director question. When you have made a negative double why is your partner's 2S bid then a reverse? Aren't you asking for that information?

[kfay]

kenrexford, on Dec 11 2008, 11:22 PM, said:

Of course, we might have secured the win had partner not faced this troubling decision. With ♠Q ♥AJ10xx ♦Jxx ♣QJxx, you pass in first seat. Partner, in third seat, opens 1♣ (2/1 GF). Opponent overcalls 1♦. What now?

A negative double came to mind. After a 2♦ call, partner bids 2♠. So, after this reverse, you decide to bid 4♥. When the opponents sacrifice at 5♦, partner made a grand slam try by bidding 5♠. You like your hand for the grand, but you are just shy of accepting. So, you show your club suit in case maybe 7♣ makes.

Unfortunately, the opponents double, and your idiot partner goes down two!!!

OK, what's the third board of that round?

I'll spare you that one. It might be unsafe reading.

Sometimes I really wonder if you're just trying to make some bizarre joke with these bids, Ken. But this one, I must say, is tops. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[H_KARLUK]

Ken,

You said that called a "playing" director.

Help me to understand pls.

Was TD there a (mascot), official mascot of the Miami Dolphins or Technical director, a senior technical person in an organisation ?

Anyway I got her rulin'. She might have influenced by Three Delivery, an American anime series on Nicktoons Network so used Temporal bone -- okay cancel 1st, see this : temporal difference learning, a prediction method.

I admire her amazing final: "Tie before you cut" Noone can blame when she committed to a chance to cut is a chance to cure. Btw is she a surgeon ? If she's not then how come you expected from her to "treat the chief complaint" ?

Ain`t gonna surprised if she believes "Nobody ever got a facial fracture who didn't deserve it ".

Time to check tetanus and diphtheria vaccines.

Did you care? Most of em starts with T and D

[kenrexford]

kfay, on Dec 12 2008, 01:30 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 11 2008, 11:22 PM, said:

Of course, we might have secured the win had partner not faced this troubling decision.  With ♠Q ♥AJ10xx ♦Jxx ♣QJxx, you pass in first seat.  Partner, in third seat, opens 1♣ (2/1 GF).  Opponent overcalls 1♦.  What now?

A negative double came to mind.  After a 2♦ call, partner bids 2♠.  So, after this reverse, you decide to bid 4♥.  When the opponents sacrifice at 5♦, partner made a grand slam try by bidding 5♠.  You like your hand for the grand, but you are just shy of accepting.  So, you show your club suit in case maybe 7♣ makes. 

Unfortunately, the opponents double, and your idiot partner goes down two!!!

OK, what's the third board of that round? 

I'll spare you that one.  It might be unsafe reading.

Sometimes I really wonder if you're just trying to make some bizarre joke with these bids, Ken. But this one, I must say, is tops. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I was the person who opened 1♣, "reversed into spades" when I thought I was just raising spades, and then bid 5♠ just to compete. This was my way of (humorously?) showing the insane decision making of my partner (a competent person who apparently lost his friggin' mind on this one), the second cause for my head nearly exploding.

I did not think anyone would believe that this was me making these calls.

[Sadie3]

This director and ruling remind me of something my father used to say, when we would be following a vehicle that appeared to have an incompetent driver. "Must have gotten their license at Montgomery Ward." Just a few thoughts... were your opponents friends of the director? Is it possible, your opponents were so novice that they 'forgot' their agreement? Were your opponents so 'mature' they temporarily forgot their agreement? Now, do any of there ideas also apply to the 'director'. If this is true, maybe someone ought to take her out to lunch and gently explain to her that she is losing it and that she ought to start looking for a replacement or assistant. If she is new and your club is big enough that she has a manager then maybe you should report that to them and see that she gets some help. New directors make errors. We could probably start many threads just about bad rulings.

The indication is that your 2nd hand was also played against this pair, and if that is the case, I would chaulk any bidding problems your partnership may have had on the hand up to the fact that one or both of you were stewing over the first hand and not focusing on the current one. 'Tis the season... a club game is not a world championship and you can choose to treat this as an opportunity rather than a problem.

[kfay]

kenrexford, on Dec 12 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

kfay, on Dec 12 2008, 01:30 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 11 2008, 11:22 PM, said:

Of course, we might have secured the win had partner not faced this troubling decision.  With ♠Q ♥AJ10xx ♦Jxx ♣QJxx, you pass in first seat.  Partner, in third seat, opens 1♣ (2/1 GF).  Opponent overcalls 1♦.  What now?

A negative double came to mind.  After a 2♦ call, partner bids 2♠.  So, after this reverse, you decide to bid 4♥.  When the opponents sacrifice at 5♦, partner made a grand slam try by bidding 5♠.  You like your hand for the grand, but you are just shy of accepting.  So, you show your club suit in case maybe 7♣ makes. 

Unfortunately, the opponents double, and your idiot partner goes down two!!!

OK, what's the third board of that round? 

I'll spare you that one.  It might be unsafe reading.

Sometimes I really wonder if you're just trying to make some bizarre joke with these bids, Ken. But this one, I must say, is tops. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I was the person who opened 1♣, "reversed into spades" when I thought I was just raising spades, and then bid 5♠ just to compete. This was my way of (humorously?) showing the insane decision making of my partner (a competent person who apparently lost his friggin' mind on this one), the second cause for my head nearly exploding.

I did not think anyone would believe that this was me making these calls.

aha.

I feel much better now, and sorry for you

Thank you for reassuring me. Sorry for the accusation, lol. What can I say, it was late.

[Vilgan]

You are upset about a ruling at a CLUB game?!

There are obviously correct calls to make here, but the situation as described is hardly unique. I only know of one procedural penalty in the last 3 years in our unit, and it was based more on the director hating the person involved than any actual reason.

[matmat]

Vilgan, on Dec 12 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

You are upset about a ruling at a CLUB game?!

There are obviously correct calls to make here, but the situation as described is hardly unique. I only know of one procedural penalty in the last 3 years in our unit, and it was based more on the director hating the person involved than any actual reason.

doesn't it almost seem like the directors are poorly chosen, poorly educated on the matters and their "directing" is hardly ever scrutinized?

[cherdano]

matmat, on Dec 12 2008, 11:11 AM, said:

Vilgan, on Dec 12 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

You are upset about a ruling at a CLUB game?!

There are obviously correct calls to make here, but the situation as described is hardly unique. I only know of one procedural penalty in the last 3 years in our unit, and it was based more on the director hating the person involved than any actual reason.

doesn't it almost seem like the directors are poorly chosen, poorly educated on the matters and their "directing" is hardly ever scrutinized?

Poorly chosen? You think these clubs get hundreds of applicants among which to choose their directors?

[matmat]

cherdano, on Dec 12 2008, 12:31 PM, said:

Poorly chosen? You think these clubs get hundreds of applicants among which to choose their directors?

no, but maybe RTFM and taking a short open book quiz shouldn't qualify someone to be a director.

[helene_t]

matmat, on Dec 12 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

doesn't it almost seem like the directors are poorly chosen, poorly educated on the matters and their "directing" is hardly ever scrutinized?

No. All the club TDs I have seen in action did a fine job.

[neilkaz]

helene_t, on Dec 12 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

matmat, on Dec 12 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

doesn't it almost seem like the directors are poorly chosen, poorly educated on the matters and their "directing" is hardly ever scrutinized?

No. All the club TDs I have seen in action did a fine job.

Wow it seems we've played at different clubs. While, I've seen some very good and fair directors, I've also seen biased rulings for regulars etc etc ...ie why upset a regular player who plays all three weekly sessions and helps pay the director's salary ?

[han]

kenrexford, on Dec 12 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

I did not think anyone would believe that this was me making these calls.

I didn't think it was you.

Now I wonder, was it you making that ridiculous 3H bid on the first hand?

[keylime]

I'm very lucky that my club I play in on Thursdays, is staffed by only tourney-rated directors, two of them national directors. Rulings are fair and unbiased.

[kenrexford]

han, on Dec 12 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Dec 12 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

I did not think anyone would believe that this was me making these calls. 

I didn't think it was you.

Now I wonder, was it you making that ridiculous 3H bid on the first hand?

Tee hee! Ooops!

[JoAnneM]

I have to agree that the competency of directing at the club level can range from National Directors to near novices who barely know how to run ACBLscore and maybe keep the boards moving correctly.

I think ACBL fails in director education when it should be a key ingredient to running a successful club. I have been lucky to co-direct with a Tournament Director but I have been the "victim" at other clubs of bad rulings. And knowing the correct ruling just makes it harder to accept.

However, I have never experienced a director making a biased call.