Most Pathetic Director Call
#1
Posted 2023-October-12, 14:42
After playing this board, East bickered for a while with his companion and then called the Director to complain that South had "lied" about diamonds forcing him to ruff high with J, thus going down 1 in 3♥.
#3
Posted 2023-October-12, 15:13
pescetom, on 2023-October-12, 14:42, said:
I'm struggling to think of another contender. I do sympathise with declarer because they are basically down on any layout where South has five diamonds, but in that case they don't lose anything by ruffing low and getting some good news. In any case, South is entitled to misbid without giving the opponents an iron-clad guarantee of shape.
#4
Posted 2023-October-12, 16:37
sfi, on 2023-October-12, 15:13, said:
Adding to that the fact that they didn't lose anything here by ruffing high regardless..
#5
Posted 2023-October-12, 17:34
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#6
Posted 2023-October-12, 19:36
you can later cash A♠ and safely ruff a spade low.
#7
Posted 2023-October-13, 06:04
steve2005, on 2023-October-12, 19:36, said:
you can later cash A♠ and safely ruff a spade low.
To be fair, this was not so obvious (though he rates himself Expert), so it's no surprise he was wondering where he went down. One would have to be pretty dumb to really believe that ruffing high cost anything however.
In any case the presumed damage is inconsequential to the Director, as there is no infraction to start with.
#8
Posted 2023-October-13, 06:31
sfi, on 2023-October-12, 15:13, said:
I'm not even convinced it's a misbid, although open to contrary arguments. It's certainly a deviation from system, but relatively minor and it obtains the goals of showing spades plus strength and preempting hearts. North is also a passed hand GiB robot, a dangerous combination: not sure what smerriman (the keeper of the beast) would bid, but 2♠ looks relatively safe in the circumstances.
#9
Posted 2023-October-13, 15:32
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#10
Posted 2023-October-27, 19:56
blackshoe, on 2023-October-13, 15:32, said:
A deviation from what? North is a robot, are we to assume South has agreed to play the bots system?
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#11
Posted 2023-October-28, 11:01
jillybean, on 2023-October-27, 19:56, said:
I think we are.
The question is rather whether the semantic distinction proposed by blackshoe is valid (I don't find it particularly logical, but if it accurately describes common bridge thinking about the two terms then I'll learn to live with it).
#12
Posted 2023-October-28, 22:36
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#13
Posted 2023-October-29, 00:27
blackshoe, on 2023-October-28, 22:36, said:
Hope springs eternal from the human breast.
#14
Posted 2023-October-29, 11:36
blackshoe, on 2023-October-28, 22:36, said:
He's bored, killing time, hoping to amass master points, who cares.
I think it's stretching things to try to apply the laws of Duplicate Bridge to bot/human partnerships. Or do we have a subset of rules just for this situation?
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#15
Posted 2023-October-30, 14:04
jillybean, on 2023-October-29, 11:36, said:
We should have a subset of rules, but unfortunately we don't.
So should we just give up on the idea of playing a meaningful and just game?
I don't think so.*
It's up to the RA (if there is one, but often there isn't and they haven't addressed the problem either) or BBO (but they don't seem interested in facing the problem) or the TD (who is always there and in last resort can dictate his own rules, rather than let the players do so).
Some suggested starting points:
1) if you play with GiB and have your bids auto-explained both to yourself and your opponents, then you have an obvious obligation to follow the system that is documented and explained
2) following a system does not mean slavish adherence, an occasional deviation for obvious bridge reasons is legitimate
3) a psychic deviation that would tend to modify the agreement with a human partner is clearly unethical with a robot partner incapable of adaptation to deviations.
(*) This question is of course valid to some extent for all play on BBO, given its peculiarities and the high frequency of pickup partnerships with no real discussion of agreements. Playing a tournament yesterday I opened 1NT (15-17) and LHO intervened 2♣, RHO failed to alert and asked in chat to the table "natural, partner?". I then received private chat saying that "I had exaggerated" by calling TD
#16
Posted 2023-October-30, 22:15
pescetom, on 2023-October-30, 14:04, said:
This seems like an overbid to me. Exactly how is psyching unethical in this case?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#17
Posted 2023-October-30, 22:59
pescetom, on 2023-October-30, 14:04, said:
How did the TD rule?
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#18
Posted 2023-October-31, 03:05
pescetom, on 2023-October-30, 14:04, said:
Sorry, but this I don’t understand. A robot probably can’t distinguish even the most blatant psych from a systemic call and psyching when playing with one would most likely end in a complete disaster. Your human partner might discover your psych in a legal way before you go over the brink, but how does a computer do so without advanced AI?
#19
Posted 2023-October-31, 04:06
#20
Posted 2023-October-31, 07:23
sanst, on 2023-October-31, 03:05, said:
It doesn't, and that is my point. Under a literal application of current law to the human-robot situation, one could repeat any given psyche ad infinitum without committing any infraction, whereas a competitor playing with a human would soon find himself accused of a concealed partnership understanding. Whilst waiting for more adequate laws and regulations, it seems to me unethical to exploit this unintentional loophole (and yes some people do so: as smerriman points out, some psyches work well with the robot and attent partners often know which).