[dickiegera]

---

CC marked as weak. Down 1 after not playing west for Ace of clubs.
West has a history. Enough said.
Director was called and said as long as East thought bid was weak that West can do what ever he wishes.

Opinions??

[hrothgar]

dickiegera, on 2011-April-21, 08:05, said:

---

CC marked as weak. Down 1 after not playing west for Ace of clubs.
West has a history. Enough said.
Director was called and said as long as East thought bid was weak that West can do what ever he wishes.

Opinions??

For the moment, let's ignore the whole "West has a history" issue.

In this case, the Director is completely correct.
West is allowed to do whatever he damn well pleases.

Now let's introduce "West has a history".

This information could be salient if you are able to demonstrate that West habitually makes weak jump shifts that don't match this description AND you are also able to demonstrate that East is aware of this fact. I very much doubt that anyone on this discussion board is in a position to establish the veracity of either of these statements.

If you are genuinely believe that you can establish the existence of a concealed partnership agreement then you should tell the director that you believe that East/West are cheating, show your proof, and expect to be disappointed...

All of this should be done privately.

[bluejak]

Seems an unnecessarily adversarial approach. Just tell the TD you think this pair are not good on disclosure, giving evidence to support it. Why mention cheating?

[hrothgar]

bluejak, on 2011-April-21, 08:34, said:

Seems an unnecessarily adversarial approach. Just tell the TD you think this pair are not good on disclosure, giving evidence to support it. Why mention cheating?

Quote

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

Saying that a partnership has a Concealed Partnership Understanding is an accusation that they are cheating.

Cheating should be taken very seriously, both by the individual raising the accusation and the officials who need to act upon this.
I don't see the benefit in dancing around the subject.

[Bbradley62]

Isn't this exactly what Recorder forms are for?

[bluejak]

hrothgar, on 2011-April-21, 08:49, said:

Saying that a partnership has a Concealed Partnership Understanding is an accusation that they are cheating.

Cheating should be taken very seriously, both by the individual raising the accusation and the officials who need to act upon this.
I don't see the benefit in dancing around the subject.

Of course it is not necessarily cheating, and you act tactfully because it is totally unnecessary to accuse people.

Suppose your partner opens 2♦ and you forget you are playing Flannery and do not alert. You have now got an understanding with partner that you have failed to disclose, ie you have concealed it, so you have a CPU. It is ridiculous, offensive, bad for the game, and just untrue that you are cheating.

[NickRW]

I have to say that, in general, people's descriptions of jump overcalls is shockingly bad. In the EBU zone of the world there has been quite a lot of attention paid to getting people to describe their opening two bids correctly - but the descriptions of jump overcalls are at least as bad.

Sometimes p opens, rho jumps and I'm sitting there with a balancedish 11 or so. I typically ask lho for a description - and when I hear "strong" I tend to go "yeah, right" to myself. Usually it is a decent intermediate call.

Nick

[f0rdy]

bluejak, on 2011-April-21, 09:51, said:

Of course it is not necessarily cheating, and you act tactfully because it is totally unnecessary to accuse people.

Suppose your partner opens 2♦ and you forget you are playing Flannery and do not alert. You have now got an understanding with partner that you have failed to disclose, ie you have concealed it, so you have a CPU. It is ridiculous, offensive, bad for the game, and just untrue that you are cheating.

Or, because you don't know what's alertable. The frequency with which we have, in club games:
"Alert!"
"What's that?"
"{something}"
"That's not alertable! Everyone plays that?"
"Uh... so?"
is slightly shocking.

It isn't the easiest thing to find out (in the EBU, at least), what exactly is alertable, so this definitely shouldn't be classed as cheating. Laziness, possibly.