Every Rose has its Thorn

This entry was posted on 10/29/2007 10:55 PM and is filed under Pot Pourri.

Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this entry.

Comments

• 10/30/2007 8:45 AM Jeff Smith wrote:
  Sitting is not a logical alternative for all the reasons you mentioned. Of course if you are playing with Al Roth then perhaps it is, but I would never sit with that hand playing in any of my serious partnerships. Partner can tank for an hour and I would be comfortable pulling, going to committee and winning.
  Reply to this
• 10/30/2007 10:42 AM Jonathan Ferguson wrote:
  I wish it were as clear as that. I think if you trust partner, you sit. I think that telling a committee 'I didn't trust partner' is going to sound pretty weak. I think I probably lose in committee.
  
  http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=22011
  Reply to this
• 10/30/2007 11:49 AM Wayne wrote:
  I agree with Jeff, that I would pull the double and not feel any remorse about the BIT infraction, but I agree with Jon that if he pulls the double, the result will get rolled back and he likely loses in committee. There doesn't seem to be any way to convince a committee that you would have taken this action no matter what. And it sucks to have someone else's logic imposed over top of yours. Especially when you were right all along.
  Consider this hand if you will.
  3rd seat white vs red at IMPS.
  x JTxxx QTxxxx x
  
  P-P to you and you try 1H. It goes 1S on your left, 1NT by P. Undaunted, you bid 2D. 2S on your left, a bit of a BIT from P who doubles. You decide that no passed hand can beat 2S all by themselves and you bid 3D. The director is summoned by LHO and he says what the director is supposed to say at this juncture. The bidding goes all P and you go quietly down 2 when 4S is cold. The director is re-summoned and rolls the result back to 2S doubled making 4, You appeal, since you pulled based on your assertion that P could not possibly have 6 tricks on his own here....and you lose the appeal. I seem to have lost a LOT of appeals.
  This is what everyone had
  LHO: KQJ987 A Ax Kxxx
  P: ATxx Qxx Jxx Axx
  RHO: xx K98x Kx QJxxx
  Reply to this
• 10/30/2007 12:36 PM Jonathan Ferguson wrote:
  Actually, I was wrong. I'm not going to lose in committee (assuming pulling had been more successful.) I'm going to make sure the decision was reviewed and then not appeal. I really thought it was a close decision even with the BIT, but the voting on Bridge Base Forums has convinced me otherwise. I have my bids. Pard votes to defend doubled. End of story.
  
  As for Wayne's hand, that's pretty sick. They're on at least 26 high and pard didn't trap. I'd assign each committee member an 'impersonating a bridge player penalty point.'
  Reply to this
• 10/31/2007 9:29 AM Anonymous wrote:
  What really happens at these committees is that committee members who do not believe in tactical bidding, punish you for your tactical actions. At the time, it was suggested that my bidding on the hand should be illegal in the ACBL. That I was always trying to disrupt the game, etc. etc.
  So, even when pulling the double was a sure thing, the "small-minded" committee members seemed to see this as an opportunity to redress past grievances about tactical bidding. It was suggested that when my partner didn't bid 3NT over my pull to 3D that he was "in on it"....whatever "it" was. Hard to get a fair unbiased ruling after that rhetoric, huh ? Curiously, we were a 1st time partnership and it was only a club game. But it supports your argument. After the BIT, you are basically going to get hosed if you bid.
  Reply to this
• 11/1/2007 11:18 AM Jeff Smith wrote:
  I suppose I am naive in this respect...I have never had such an eggregious committee ruling against me. Committee's seem to be reasonably fair in my experiences with them. Its true you are not likely to get a favorable ruling in a club or sectional after a psyche, but I would expect at Regionals or Nationals you would have a totally different experience.
  Reply to this
• 11/1/2007 12:13 PM Jonathan Ferguson wrote:
  I agree with Jeff. In my experience directors and committees do their best to get it right.
  
  If I thought a director/committee was ruling against me because of some personal grudge, I'd just insist on a signed written ruling (writing it myself, if necessary) with the agreed facts laid out and then fire off a letter to Rick Beye and Gary Blaiss at ACBL.
  
  They probably won't do anything if it's borderline or looks like sour grapes but in a clearcut case like Wayne's they'd surely do something, since to do nothing would be bad for the game.
  
  As an aside, the security setting on comments seems to have tightened (I haven't done anything to change it.)  Sorry about that.  I'll approve all comments at least daily.
  Reply to this

Leave a comment