[jillybean]

rduran1216, on 2012-April-01, 20:05, said:

The point is, you regularly make your bank as a club with the core group of 100 ppl or so that have had regular games for the last 20 years. If someone from that ilk does somethin unethical its settled in house, but not to the point where they are turned away.

How is it settled? Lashings?

rduran1216, on 2012-April-01, 20:05, said:

Applying the laws, having people play unusual systems leads people to get paranoid. Look ive sat in on meetings where the majority have repeatedly shot down hand records bc they think the hands are fixed. These people are 80, its not like you will change their mind. So doing something that is good in the long run (getting shuffling machines for example) just wont happen in these people's lifetimes because they are the golden goose for the ownership. Thats just the way it is here, force feeding things will lead them to find somewhere else. Currently we have to compete with the local leisure world, because the card fees are 1/4 of what our club charges, and these people who are set for life, have stopped coming because of bad experiences and raised fees. Bottom line, you do what you have to do to keep it going. Local clubs don't all have memberships and associations propping them up. The mom and pop clubs in the LA area are disappearing fast in favor of us, laguna woods, etc, who have taken in the regulars from other places that can't compete.

What do you see for the future of your club, 10 - 20 years?

[Cthulhu D]

the hog, on 2012-April-01, 23:01, said:

So are you suggesting that following the rules is in "poor taste"? I do not understand this argument.

He's suggesting that the LOLs are "scrubs" (to use derogatory fighting game parlance), who are playing their own scrub tastic version of bridge. When confronted with scrubs (who think artificial systems are 'cheap' or do stuff like this), you can either brutally smack them down or you can let it ride.

He thinks that issuing the (deserved) smackdown is in poor taste. I think it has short term consequences but is better in the long run. However, by the fighting game definition of 'scrub' Bridge is pretty scrubby in general so maybe he's right.

[dwar0123]

the hog, on 2012-April-01, 23:01, said:

So are you suggesting that following the rules is in "poor taste"? I do not understand this argument.

That is a rather peculiar way of looking at my argument which misses the entire point I was trying to make. Perhaps that is why you don't understand it. I will try again.

In so far as one is bound by the rules to call the director when ever they suspect the opponents have been transmitting UI to each via breaks in tempo, I am suggesting that one errs on the side of caution. It is a judgement call after all and I find most people who are so worried about opponents transmitting UI are really just seeing their own worries projected upon players who play at a fairly inconsistent tempo to begin with. We are not unbiased observers and our biases do influence our perceptions.

[dwar0123]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-April-01, 23:33, said:

He's suggesting that the LOLs are "scrubs" (to use derogatory fighting game parlance), who are playing their own scrub tastic version of bridge. When confronted with scrubs (who think artificial systems are 'cheap' or do stuff like this), you can either brutally smack them down or you can let it ride.

He thinks that issuing the (deserved) smackdown is in poor taste. I think it has short term consequences but is better in the long run. However, by the fighting game definition of 'scrub' Bridge is pretty scrubby in general so maybe he's right.

You got a chip on your shoulder there? None of that is at all what I was suggesting but thanks for projecting your own biases upon my argument and coming to a completely wrong conclusion. Not at all ironic I assure you.

[Cthulhu D]

dwar0123, on 2012-April-01, 23:52, said:

You got a chip on your shoulder there? None of that is at all what I was suggesting but thanks for projecting your own biases upon my argument and coming to a completely wrong conclusion. Not at all ironic I assure you.

Not clear what I could have a chip on my shoulder about. The quote in question:

Quote

If there really is a problem, then calling the director and taking him aside is the best course of action but I would never do it vs lol's at a club game, that is just in poor taste.

So, seriously, why wouldn't you do it vs lols in club games? It's not hard to see the parallels between your statement above, and the fighting game perception of scrubs. You even use a pejorative!

[dwar0123]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-April-01, 23:57, said:

So, seriously, why wouldn't you do it vs lols in club games? It's not hard to see the parallels between your statement above, and the fighting game perception of scrubs. You even use a pejorative!

Why wouldn't I call the director because an old lady paused for 10 seconds before following with the 2♥? Because it is far to likely that I am misreading a legit discouragement of ♥ as some type of suit preference signal that I think was informed by the hesitation. A hesitation that I would wager occurs on half the plays she makes at defense and is completely unreadable to her partner. This is literally the 3rd time I've stated this point, a point which you have yet to respond too.

Because it isn't my job to make sure she follows every rule of bridge to the letter.

And because a lot of the reason I play at local clubs is for the social atmosphere which I have no inclination to mar because I think I might have been damaged by a little old lady who paused for 10 seconds.

And finally, I don't think shortening little old ladies to lol's is an insult, it is a common acronym that I was oblivious to until I started reading this forum. If everyone perceives it as an insult then I should probably stop using it.

[Cthulhu D]

dwar0123, on 2012-April-02, 00:25, said:

Why wouldn't I call the director because an old lady paused for 10 seconds before following with the 2♥? Because it is far to likely that I am misreading a legit discouragement of ♥ as some type of suit preference signal that I think was informed by the hesitation. A hesitation that I would wager occurs on half the plays she makes at defense and is completely unreadable to her partner. This is literally the 3rd time I've stated this point, a point which you have yet to respond too.

Because it isn't my job to make sure she follows every rule of bridge to the letter.

Yeah, you're excusing bad play because you perceive the player as weak. That was my point the entire time, I'm not sure what you thought I was talking about. Honestly that's fine, I see no reason to rock the boat either.

But the other view is okay too - if you're going to play, you're going to play your best to win within the rules, no matter how weak the opposition or how unimportant the event. That's the fighting game mentality.

Edit: I made the joke about scrubby in general, because the seminal rant on this topic was written by someone who would not agree with system regulation ACBL style.

Quote

And finally, I don't think shortening little old ladies to lol's is an insult, it is a common acronym that I was oblivious to until I started reading this forum. If everyone perceives it as an insult then I should probably stop using it.

I'd make the observation that no-one who wins the d'Orsi gets called a LOL.

[dwar0123]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-April-02, 00:49, said:

Yeah, you're excusing bad play because you perceive the player as weak. That was my point the entire time, I'm not sure what you thought I was talking about. Honestly that's fine, I see no reason to rock the boat either.

No, that is not my point. For the sake of argument I am going to assume 'bad play' means giving or using UI, as doing such is bad rather then meaning they play badly. The point I am trying to make is that 'weak' players are so inconsistent that neither you nor their partners can reliable read their tempo breaks. You are just projecting your own concerns about the hand over random noise and getting irritated at coincidental bad results. You are then rationalizing your justification for believing this was UI through your interpretation of the 'thanks for reading my signal' meaning I wanted a club rather then the perfectly legit I didn't want a heart.

Quote

But the other view is okay too - if you're going to play, you're going to play your best to win within the rules, no matter how weak the opposition or how unimportant the event. That's the fighting game mentality.

That's really not what you are talking about, I try to play my best to win within the rules, most people do. What you are talking about is holding others to the letter of the law, which is within the rules but has nothing to do with how well you play. Still was never my point though.

Quote

I'd make the observation that no-one who wins the d'Orsi gets called a LOL.

I have heard others mention that they have played against some very good LOL's.

[barmar]

I don't know about your club, but at mine the weak players (not always LOLs) hesitate all the time (one of them also often sighs). Sometimes they have a good reason for it, sometimes they don't (they're just nervous players who seem to be frequently unsure of what to do). I've given up trying to read anything into it, and I'm sure their partners can't, either. It would never even occur to me to call the TD about it, since they're so unreadable.

[Cyberyeti]

This was at a county congress with EBU TDs from out of the county and opponents from out of the county, who I've never seen before and may never see again. This was early in a 7 board match that I didn't know we were going to win 35 IMPs to 0 (20-0).

As an aside, this match featured a hand with 1561 12 opposite 4234 11:

your table 2N+1 by opps -150 after the 12 count opened 1♦ and rebid 2♦

other table 6D+1 +940 after the 11 count opened an 11-14 1N

The only bidding misunderstanding was at the other table.

[RMB1]

Vampyr, on 2012-April-01, 19:43, said:

You don't say the person cheated. You say that you think there might have been some unauthorised information and you are not sure of the action.

Indeed, it is possible that the position is sufficiently clear that there is no logical altnernative to the ♦ switch.

As a player (who is recognised as a TD) I would talk to the TD after the round and ask "do you want me to call when these sort of players do this sort of thing?"

[FrancesHinden]

Either call the TD or say nothing. Starting a discussion at the table is the sure way of generating a blazing row.

In a KO match I once got accused of doing something similar (in a slightly different position); I was extremely cross because partner's signal was systemically count rather than suit preference, it was slow because it was trick 1 and he plays slowly at trick 1, and the correct switch was blatantly obvious given the information from the count signal.

Also as has already been said, people often play cards extremely deliberately and it looks to us as if they are ostentatiously given a suit pref signal, but their partner is, and remains, totally oblivious, sometimes they do the right thing and sometimes not but it's totally random.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-02, 13:41, said:

Either call the TD or say nothing.

Yes. I'm surprised that anyone would consider any other alternative.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2012-April-02, 03:52, said:

As a player (who is recognised as a TD) I would talk to the TD after the round and ask "do you want me to call when these sort of players do this sort of thing?"

Hmm. I'm not very keen on this, unless you can find a way to do it without identifying the pair.

Anyway, I hope that the TD would explain that you may call the director whenever you like, that you must do so if attention has been drawn to an infraction, and that if you feel that you've been damaged by an opponent's infraction you are welcome to do so. Even if he is actually thinking "No I don't want you to call me about anything, because I haven't finished putting the player names in, and the coffee machine needs refilling, and the pair at table 7 are holding everyone up again, and you're just some bloke from out of town who I'll never see again whereas the rest of them have been coming here every week for years."

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-April-03, 02:39

[Cyberyeti]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-April-02, 13:41, said:

Either call the TD or say nothing. Starting a discussion at the table is the sure way of generating a blazing row.

In a KO match I once got accused of doing something similar (in a slightly different position); I was extremely cross because partner's signal was systemically count rather than suit preference, it was slow because it was trick 1 and he plays slowly at trick 1, and the correct switch was blatantly obvious given the information from the count signal.

Also as has already been said, people often play cards extremely deliberately and it looks to us as if they are ostentatiously given a suit pref signal, but their partner is, and remains, totally oblivious, sometimes they do the right thing and sometimes not but it's totally random.

The previous round, I'm declaring 3♦. LHO gets the lead at trick 3, cashes the ace of trumps, his partner thinks for a while, is obviously wondering which of 2 small cards to play to indicate she has the K, but I decided there was no alternative to a second trump in that case, which somewhat heightened my sensitivity to this.

On this occasion I really had to bite my lip, not when it happened, but afterwards when she said "I'm so glad you got my signal", I said nothing but is saying "she could hardly miss it" really so bad ? There was certainly an alternative to the play of the diamond, as if partner isn't ruffing this, you've just farcically let a no play doubled game through, you could just lead your side's suit to allow partner to cash the known setting trick.

[kenberg]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-03, 04:03, said:

On this occasion I really had to bite my lip, not when it happened, but afterwards when she said "I'm so glad you got my signal", I said nothing but is saying "she could hardly miss it" really so bad ?

I'm with you here. If people are going to rip you off at least they should have the grace not to gloat about it.

[gnasher]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-03, 04:03, said:

On this occasion I really had to bite my lip, not when it happened, but afterwards when she said "I'm so glad you got my signal", I said nothing but is saying "she could hardly miss it" really so bad ?

Yes, it's bad. If you think they've broken the rules, you should follow the proper procedure for dealing with rule-breaking. If you don't, you have no reason to say anything.

[blackshoe]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-03, 04:03, said:

On this occasion I really had to bite my lip, not when it happened, but afterwards when she said "I'm so glad you got my signal", I said nothing but is saying "she could hardly miss it" really so bad ?

kenberg, on 2012-April-03, 05:13, said:

I'm with you here. If people are going to rip you off at least they should have the grace not to gloat about it.

gnasher, on 2012-April-03, 05:34, said:

Yes, it's bad. If you think they've broken the rules, you should follow the proper procedure for dealing with rule-breaking. If you don't, you have no reason to say anything.

I agree with the last two posters. My preference would be to call and let the TD decide what to do. OTOH, I'm pretty much convinced, these days, that such a call would be futile, at least at club level.

[ahydra]

Reminds me of an ex-partner I had. You could always tell if he was "just following suit" or signalling by the way he played the card :/ Of course, I ignored any UI and thankfully nobody picked him up on it. (Of course, with the club being full of snooty old people, whenever I slammed a card down on the table in disappointment I was given a lecture)

At club level I would either leave it, or maybe speak to the TD after the session and tell them what happened, and see if anyone else has reported similar things. But in a county congress (or indeed anything except a regular club night) I think you've got to call the TD immediately to prevent opps getting away with any further dodgy behaviour. Beyond club level the bridge is not purely for fun, there are masterpoints and money at stake.

ahydra

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-03, 04:03, said:

On this occasion I really had to bite my lip, not when it happened, but afterwards when she said "I'm so glad you got my signal", I said nothing but is saying "she could hardly miss it" really so bad ? There was certainly an alternative to the play of the diamond, as if partner isn't ruffing this, you've just farcically let a no play doubled game through, you could just lead your side's suit to allow partner to cash the known setting trick.

It's possible you may be reading too much into that remark. She could simply be congratualating her partner for noticing the spot card she played, not the manner in which she played it.

When I want to make sure partner notices a signal, I don't play it conspicuously, I just make sure I don't quit it too quickly.