I, um, am not sure how to take that.

What triple-sucks about it (and I had put something to that effect in my comment but must have deleted it) is that we DO WANT people to be proactive with disclosure.

if you dont know how to take that, you probably dont know joe.

here's what i suspect happened: joe made a bridge comment and then his opponent cheated.

dude

that's a much worse take than calling the appeal "greasy", regardless of what you think of the appeal

explain? someone tanked for a minute with an ace against 7nt. not really sure how you can defend that

"cheated" is a pretty strong word, that doesn't require me to "defend" anything in order to think it's not cool. Adjust the score if you want.

If anything, the 'cheater' (if you want to use that word) isn't the person who tanked, it'd be the person who led a diamond. And you know this. Thinking isn't an infraction, no matter how stupid it may be to do so.

Of course, given that declarer is telling you to lead a diamond, I'd hesitate to use the word "cheating" to lead a diamond.

I mean, not that he would, but Grue could sit there and say "hahahaha you are supposed to lead a diamond but you can't, na-na-nana-na" before the guy even leads at this point?

im not following you. some hesitations are cheating. you know that. this is an example of one.

if joe said "you should lead a diamond" then i would lead a diamond. unless, of course, my partner had tanked for a minute.

It's a rule infraction (again, the leading, not the thinking!).

Let's not go comparing this to Fantoni and Nunes or anything like that, please.

and why not?

Because it’s asinine to do so, and because you probably deserve to be bright up on ethics charges for repeating it. Not that I would obviously.

Would you seriously call Brian Glubok a cheater to his face for leading a diamond here?

i would absolutely call glubok much worse things to his face, yes. he's one of the reasons we don't have junior camp anymore.

meanwhile, please stop being a snowflake. you're right, leading a diamond is defensible, but an ethical player would find a different lead after a tank that strongly indicates a diamond lead.

Well to me here's where the question lies. Forget the tank. Is there an LA to a diamond lead? If not, then you can go ahead and give a PP for the tank if you think it's warranted, but the diamond lead itself is fine (or, at least, the rules say it is).

Separately, in my view it's not cheating to go "listen, i saw my pard tank obviously, and [even!] i think that tank means he has the ace of diamonds. But I don't think it's rational here to ever lead anything but a diamond. My reasoning is that we all heard the auction, and Joe isn't coffeehousing when he makes that remark."

Also just my view: You (brrr) might personally feel there's an LA, but one has to be allowed to evaluate that oneself at the table. And it has to be ok to judge these things wrong sometimes and to not be labeled a cheater for it.

eta: This obviously doesn't mean that you're wrong, of course - just that I suspect that if you firmly believe that someone cheated, it's probably based on other things you know, and not solely on this incident.

yeah... all of that.

wait, is this the twilight zone or something? how can you post "forget the tank" and have someone agree with you when the tank is literally the issue at hand? when someone tanks and the tank indicates something very specific, it is unethical to lead the thing indicated by the tank. i would call it cheating, but apparently the word cheating rustles some jimmies. im truly baffled that there isn't 100% consensus on this. the appeals committee seems to agree with me. every ethical player ive ever met seems to feel this way. why is it different in this thread?

wyman, you can't say "we all saw the auction" because apparently the guy with an ace didnt. "rational" or "logical" doesn't apply in this case. it's a matter of active ethics.

wyman, suppose everything you wrote is correct. why didnt he lead the J?

directly from the appeals write up: Based on the new polling, it was determined that the pause of the tray suggested a diamond lead and all other leads were logical alternatives.

like wtf is going on in this thread?

So adjust the score!

Like, there's a big difference between "adjust the score" and "the guy who thought is a cheater" ffs. This isn't hard for everyone but you.

Like, have you ever in the history of your career been ruled against? Should we call you a cheater if so?

they did adjust the score to 7nt=; what part of that aren't you understanding?

the guy who thought isn't a cheater, wetzel; that guy is just bad at bridge. it's the guy who led the thing that the tank indicated who is a cheater. that is cut and dry, clear as day, 100% obvious.

lol@thinking ive been ruled against for an ethics problem. go **** yourself. i havent.

with that said, the guy who tanked with an ace against 7NT certainly deserves a reprimand. in response to wyman's post, did he see the auction? what exactly was he thinking about? doubling?

can you give me a good bridge reason for him to tank? i didnt think so.

trying to review a bizarre auction and remember what the hell our agreements are for what suit a double of 7NT asks for would be a good reason, obviously; that wasn't so hard

this is not an ethics question, this is a bridge question; if there is truly no LA to my lead IMO, and it's not close, I'm leading it, and this is both ethical and legal -- you understand why that's correct, right?

if it's a bridge question, and in the context of this problem, tell me why the J is wrong.

yeah, our agreements about a double of 7NT. you're quickly approaching **** for brains status.

the opponents had a misunderstanding, i better ****ing tank to make sure partner knows i have an ace.

I'll wait for your apology for the **** for brains comment before bothering to continue this.

you earned it. i wish i were a better memer.

normal auction to 7S

opponent pulls to 7NT

pikachu gasp face. bizarre auction. what do our doubles mean?

pretty ****ty, dude.