Bridge Hand - an abomination:

[BC]

South deals, Both Vul. I'm sitting East, looking at:

S 3
H A3
D JT63
C KT9842

The auction goes:

S W N E
1H x xx 3C (WTF? Are we playing with a Pinochle deck or something?)
3H P ?

North asks my partner what 3C means. Partner replies that we don't have any agreement, that he hasn't played duplicate in 25 years, and that this is our first time playing together (we'd actually played 8 hands more than a year ago, but that's nitpicking...) so we don't have an agreement and he doesn't know what my bid means. RHO pushes the point. Partner repeats.

"DIRECTOR!"

Director arrives, proceeds to chew out my partner for not having an agreement, tells North to proceed normally, and leaves. North bids 4H, passed out.

We set it 1 trick.

Director comes back and adjusts the score to +140 (N/S).

My partner, at this point, is justifiably agitated. I've already decided I'm going to write a letter, although I haven't the faintest idea to whom. We finish the game and the club President fixes things - he overheard us talking, and chats with us to find out why we're upset; he talks to the director; he talks to the opponents; he talks to a few other directors on hand; and eventually our score is adjusted back to -100 (N/S). I thought the club president did a good job of handling things gently for all concerned, and he apologized that the director was one of the less-experienced directors working at the club. I was NOT particularly impressed with the director, but wasn't going to challenge him there since I thought it wasn't appropriate (and how many clubs can get an appeals board together anyway?) But I was also kind of ticked off at RHO for giving partner a hard time.

The kicker: we can do better by making 3C, if we have the chance. Rate the following actions listed below the hand diagram...

The hands:


S AJT85
H 7
D K954
C J73

S KQ74 S 3
H Q54 H A3
D Q82 D JT63
C A65 C KT9842

S 962
H KJT9862
D A7
C Q


Choices:

1. S Opening 1H
2. W Doubling
3. N Redoubling
4. E bidding 3C
5. S bidding 3H
6. W passing
7. N bidding 4H
8. N asking partner what 3C meant
9. N pushing partner for more information
10. Partner not knowing what 3C might mean
11. Partner repeating not knowing what 3C might mean
12. N calling Director
13. Director chewing partner out
14. Director adusting score
15. Club President adjustinc score back

This is usually a pretty good club, too...

[John F. Kennedy]

[QUOTE=BC]

The hands:


S AJT85
H 7
D K954
C J73

S KQ74 S 3
H Q54 H A3
D Q82 D JT63
C A65 C KT9842

S 962
H KJT9862
D A7
C Q

1: Marginal.
2: Marginal
3: You're kidding me.
4: That's my kind of bid.
5: Might depend on agreement on what redouble means.
6: High time somebody passed
7: Insane
8: Was it before or after he bid. If before, acceptable, otherwise illegal. BTW, Nobody that I've ever heard of plays it as forward-going. And I wouldn't expect it to be on the top 100 things a casual partnership will need to discuss. Certainly not top 50.
9: Unacceptable
10: Marginal / acceptable
11: At this point, call the director. North is being an ass.
12: Always permitted
13: Unacceptable
14: Utterly unacceptable, unless there is some justification. In this case there is none. It is not required that a partnership have an understanding of any particular sequence.
15: Legally, I wouldn't think this would be permitted, unless the club president functions as an appeals committee. In equity, it's the correct move, of course. In any event, Someone should explain to the director why his ruling was off base.
16: Kicker is irrelevant.

If the director is vastly inexperienced, then he just has to learn. While a lot of events can be handled by referring to the appropriate flowchart, there is a lot of stuff -- this for exampe -- that is non-obvious without a good understanding of how the game is played.

[Steve White]

1. S Opening 1H – Aggressive, probably pass is sounder but I would be tempted. Better choice than 2H or 3H
2. W Doubling – Poor choice with 4-3-3-3 shape, especially with heart Q, but not horrendous
3. N Redoubling – Close to horrendous. 1S is much better. Redouble could net +200 at matchpoints, but otherwise it’s likely to lead to a bad result
4. E bidding 3C – Hard to say. It should be preemptive on this auction, but maybe this partner won’t take it as preemptive, and you don’t necessarily care if he does
5. S bidding 3H – I think this is right. Weak hand, no interest in defending, no interest in other strains
6. W passing – Anything besides pass would be awful.
7. N bidding 4H. See #6. Anything besides pass is awful
8. N asking partner what 3C meant – sure, why not?
9. N pushing partner for more information – pushing? Rude and obnoxious. A further probe, e.g. asking about general agreements or agreements on related auctions, could be OK, but drop it quickly
10. Partner not knowing what 3C might mean – “might”? If partner cannot come up with at least one of “invitational” and/or “preemptive” as a possibility, partner isn’t very good. But “might” isn’t the issue: agreement is. Your side is allowed not to have discussed the auction.
11. Partner repeating not knowing what 3C might mean. Did you kick him under the table, roll your eyes, etc? If not, it seems he is unlikely to have learned what it means.
12. N calling Director – I was going to say rude and obnoxious, but calling the director is a good way to sort out players’ rights and responsibilities
13. Director chewing partner out – Now I will say rude, obnoxious, incompetent
14. Director adusting score – Incompetent, contrary to the rules
15. Club President adjusting score back – Assuming all agree, fine. If director agrees but opponents don’t, it’s still the best available solution. If opponents agree and director does not, adjust the score and fire the director. If the opponents and director both disagree, fire the director but don’t adjust the score.

[Been There Done That]

1) 1H is okay, so is PASS, depends on partnership style (I balance often)
2) no, double is misdescriptive, PASS
3) he probably meant redouble to mean you were in trouble, but I bet his agreement is 10+HCP (you could have asked ...)
4) you appear to have 8 of the 4 unbid points in the deck, since you can't have this hand, 3C is okay (I would expect more club focus)
5) Having started with 1H I guess you have to bid 3 here
6) not having your original double, you really can't recover. PASS is the least bad.
7) 4H? Maybe if you figure that you'll get a favorable ruling if it goes down --- people that play this way should be shot.
8) You can always ask.
9) Perhaps he's deaf.
10) You had no agreement.
11) When asked again after saying that you have no agreement, I guess you need to fess up and explain that partner is showing 8 points and 6 clubs, it's going to come out anyway.
12) Calling the Director is always allowed. We used to play that it showed that an earlier action had been shaded (you need to alert these Director calls).
13) wow
14) this was probably correct, having ruled that your partner failed to explain your agreements he awarded an adjusted score.
15) I presume that this is the house rule (you would need such a rule if you were to hire such poorly trained directors).

[BC]

Clarifications:

(1) I was in a pretty foul mood yesterday, so if I wasn't clear, I apologize.

(2) 7 actually came after 12 and the first incident of 13 (happened at the original call and after the hand).

(3) Partner is rusty; he had 50 Masterpoints "back in the day".

(4) Everyone involved (the director and the opponents) agreed to the change.

More later.

My opinions:

I don't particularly care for the 1H opening; I might well pass. Make QC a worse stiff and I'd be inclined to preempt; make QC into any other queen and I'd probably open. Partner's double is, sadly, one of the better bids in the auction, but that isn't saying much. IMHO it was brilliant compared to the redouble and 4H bid perpetrated by RHO. I didn't have a problem with the director call per se, but in the context of first harassing my partner it appeared to me to be a further form of harassment.

My partner may not play at that club again, and made a comment to the effect that this kind of incident is why he suspects the ACBL is losing business to the internet and to other games. While for this club this is (in my experience) an isolated incident, I wasn't sure what to say...

[4sigma]

1. Not my style with a 7LTC hand. First choice is Pass. 2nd choice is close between 2H and 1H at this paint and seating.
2. Better than the 1H opening, I suppose. I think the 4333 argues against acting here, however.
3. I confess I am actually somewhat sympathetic to the redouble here, assuming North does not know that his partner is a suicidal maniac. Yes, 1S is more descriptive. But if partner has a humane 1H opening, opponents could easily be going for -200, when your side has no game. Redouble is "taking a view" but not an unreasonable one at matchpoints against vul opponents, IMHO.
4. This should be preemptive. I suppose it depends if your radar suggests that the opponents will be preempted by it more than your partner will. Obviously these opponents had trouble fielding it, so it was a good bid. :D
5. Trying to give parnter a clue that the 1H opening was a bit shapely. However, note that this particular partner does not get the hint.
6. Please don't tell me that he considered bidding here?
7. I've moved 7 into sequence after #13. See my comments there.
8. Sure, why not?
9. Depends exactly what was said. Assuming that the same question was repeated after partner said "we have no agreement", it's rude.
10. Depends slightly what sort of game/field you are in, but surely not criminal, in any event.
11. Assuming that North is being rude at this point, no response will be satisfactory.
12. The best call of the entire auction. Note that I do not have the same agreement as BTDT regarding what this means. BTDT's treatment of this call seems reasonable. I think we should add it to our system notes, as I would not want to be penalized for failing to have an agreement in this situation, which arises rather frequently.
13. Again, depends exactly what was said. Director is allowed to gently admonish your side for not having an agreement, say, if you're not in a 299'er game. Chewing partner out, however, is of course inappropriate.
7. North apparently can't tell what parnter had for his 1H opening and is hoping to figure it out from what your side has. Also frustrated at having been denied the opportunity (by partner) to "collect" +200 from defending 3CX. North may think that it is necessary to bid 4H to get a good board? More likely, North just wasn't thinking, or was thinking that if 4H didn't make, he could ask for an adjusted score.
14. I don't see that there was any grounds for this. I'm guessing that North is perhaps a chronically squeaky wheel that the director felt obliged to grease?
15. Sounds like this was done diplomatically. I would say that your club president is on top of things and I hope that you'll continue to play there.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

Seemed that West didn't want to bid 1 spade with four cards or 1NT with only 14 points. Double seems a good way of saying, "Bid your long suit, because I have support in length and strength." Even if there wasn't an agreement. And 3 Clubs is the appropriate response. Nothing fancy.

That your partner denied knowing what your bid means is a bit false. That your partner admitted there was no agreement was true. Partner was being a reciprocating ass. Not that there's anything wrong with it.

Seems you now who not to play against anymore. Get enough people to agree, and there will be peace once again at the club.

[John F. Kennedy]

That your partner denied knowing what your bid means is a bit false. That your partner admitted there was no agreement was true. Partner was being a reciprocating ass. Not that there's anything wrong with it.


Partner is under no obligation to tell the opponents what a bid means, he is obliged to tell the opponents what the partnership understandings are. There's a big difference.

...

A couple of additional thoughts. The game director has total leeway: He can arbitrarily take matchpoints from you; he can adjust the score if in his opinion equity was not served by the laws; he can expell you from a game; and he can make a summary ruling at the table. If the director is the owner, or is backed by the owner, then your only recourse is to not play in his games.

The owner has no official standing as such. So, unless he is an appeals committee, your adjusted score is illegal.