OK, good point.

Interestingly, most directors, if called to the table on an agreed break in tempo, will instruct hesitator's partner to bid as if pard hadn't tanked — even though they do understand (for the most part) that that's not the standard. It's just too difficult to explain the actual rule to someone who doesn't already know it.

Agreed it's difficult, but of course most of those directors are doing it because, well, they're lazy and someone's tea might be spoiled if there's a kerfluffle. They're also on a level where most hesitations indicate that the hesitator's heart briefly stopped, or a very pretty bluebird flew by the window.

Oh, actually there is a school of thought, adhered to by many well-respected rules experts, that says that is the correct thing to do (bid as if partner didn't tank), even though sometimes this will lead to an adjusted score that could have been avoided (when the action chosen is what would have been chosen on a normal-tempo auction but is a logical alternative that was demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized information). I think that's a terrible thing to do, to tell people to do something for which their partnership will sometimes be penalized, even when the penalty is avoidable, but as I said there are some very educated people who think that's the correct way to do things.

In fact, I think for a while, and maybe still, the position of the ACBL board (admittedly collectively no experts on the laws) was that players should act as if partners didn't tank.

Yes, in practice at least half the breaks in tempo at a below-expert-class table demonstrably suggest only that at least one player doesn't know how to bid.

I agree with the second point, but not the first. I had to make a decision at the table, and part of what I was presented with was partner tanking.

This is just silly and lazy on the part of the director. Though, in fairness, given some of the rulings I've seen and been a part of, I don't trust that the directors actually know what the hell they're talking about half the time, and this might be the best advice they can give, since they won't get the ruling right anyway.

Haha. This is actually par for the course.

Re: partner fielding the "psyche". I don't know if that's true or not. First, he's not a world-class bidder. Second, look at the result. They didn't bid their cold small slam, let alone their cold grand, since he walked the dog. I understand I can't defend his action by saying that he's a good bidder and a bad bidder all in one fell swoop, but I'm saying that there are (rational) explanations for his not bidding > 5 diamonds at his first call, and I don't even think they are that crazy.

But again, I don't know what was in his head when he actually made the call.

self-banning for a bit. can hit me up on bbo, bbo forums, or gchat (bk<myusername>) if needed.

Played a sectional today. Finished 3/13 with only 6 negative scores out of 27 hands. Of the 9 hands we didn't play, 8/9 of them were hands for our direction. Don't think I have ever seen a session so stacked one way.

Played Bridge Bingo on BBO. What a dumb game. 16 HCP 4 spades and partner opens 1S! Well better bid 3S because that is what you need for bingo and bidding 4S and making doesn't count for 3S. Just have to hope partner passes 3S.

I had x AKT9x AKQJxxx -- this weekend. I had to open 1 strong, partner showed 6+HCP, and lefty had shown clubs or both red suits, and righty bid 2H as a pass/correct bid.

science or no science?

What is bridge bingo?

BBO's new thing. You get a bingo card with different contracts in the squares, and your goal is to make contracts such that you fill up a row, column, or diagonal

Not sure how to find what you need. Exclusion doesn't tell you anything about how hearts are doing. I guess just blast, before they find out they have a reasonable sac?

I sort of like

Who's the douche (if anyone) in this situation? And what is the "right" outcome?

There's an online junior event with monthly matches, starting this month. A team of 4 (team A) has a guy not show up for their first match (matches are scheduled by the teams, and when they are over, the teams report the scores to the organizer), so team A asks one of their friends ("friend") to sub in "this international junior match." Friend says sure. Problem is, friend is playing on another team (team B) already and doesn't realize this is for the event in question. After team A wins the match, team A captain says "ok, good match, next one is in a month." Friend, not realizing that this goes beyond the one match, now realizes what's up and says "hey wait was this the such-and-such tournament?"

Long story short, subs aren't allowed, so for friend to play on his original team (B), the team he's already played on (A) would have to forfeit. B was a 6-man team.

The email exchange between A's captain and Friend:

i hope you're canadian.

?

Nothing. Good luck in the university teams thing. I subbed on a team last year fwiw. I played a semifinal match or segment or something I think. I don't really remember.

I GIS'd brrrrr and used this picture as an avatar. There was also a picture of a dog taking a dump on a beach that would have been appropriate too. I don't think it's Molson but I could be wrong.

I think this is about life, not bridge, but you asked it here so I get to answer:

Either Team B has, or thinks it has, some reason to believe that "friend" is not being completely straight — in other words, that he knew or suspected what was really up (whether he did or not — the issue is what Team B believes) — or they're the problem. Assuming this was an accident, Team B needs to suck it up: it's not that hard to field a five-bagger or find a sixth if that's still allowed, whereas making a team withdraw as a result of an innocent mistake is just ******.

Note also that Team A captain is, from the tone of the e-mail you quoted, at least, being a dick, but that doesn't change the ethical obligations.

Given that Team B seems to have made up its collective mind, however, what does "friend" do? He (explicitly) promised to be a good team member of Team B; he understood for the most part what that entailed, except that he didn't anticipate this sort of scenario. He (implicitly) promised to be a good team member of B, without understanding at all what that entailed. Each obligation matters, so we look at harm to each... and obviously the harm to the team whose withdrawal would be forced is far greater than the harm to a team that will play its matches with a somewhat suboptimal lineup.

"Friend" is ultimately at fault for not paying closer attention to what was going on, and for that he will apologize profusely and to everyone, but what he will do about the situation now that he's in it is keep playing with Team A. His teammates on B will resent him for it, but either they'll know in their hearts that he's doing the right thing and eventually get over it, or they weren't the sort of people he wants to associate with in the long run anyway. He has to break a promise to at least some extent, and the mere fact that one came first does not militate strongly against the fact that breaking the other one would be far more harmful.

imo partner doesn't have to envision it, though I see your point and it's definitely not a bid I love — I'd say it gets about a 6 in the MSC. I'm saying that some partners will work out that a 5NT bid might have another suit (rather than being about notrump, or some GSF), and/or that a 6D or 7D bid is an offer to play.


fwiw, enough people play suction at the cheapest level only that it bears asking. (When I play my heavily modified version, I do it at literally all levels except that 3NT is to play after a 1C [but not 2C] opener.)

Thanks Atakdog.

Comments from The Ethicist:

Another thing about the slam hand: partner may easily have at least as many diamonds as clubs here, so some number of diamonds will often be the right contract. Why? RHO's 2H bid shows that he prefers hearts to diamonds; that tends somewhat to even out the length disparity between the reds in our own hand, rendering it in effect about a ½ card difference. That means catering to diamonds as a trump suit makes sense — but insisting on it is still bad if we can work out a way to get hearts into the picture safely.

I don't know where I stand on this (I see both sides, and I'm neither A captain nor friend), but my one comment is that I'm routinely asked to play in some team match on BBO (usually with a PM: "team game?"), and there's never any obligation that comes with it. I don't think I should ever have to say "ok, but just to be clear, this isn't part of some tournament that I might already be playing in, right?"