[matmat]

This something that happened to me a few years ago and I am still somewhat bitter about. This was at an ACBL Unit game. (so, unless you absolutely must stray, let's confine this discussion to the regulations that the ACBL imposes).

all red:
auction, to the best of my recollection (though the details don't really matter, I think). You're the 1H opener:

1H-(P)-2H-(2NT);
3C-(P)-4H-(5D*);
X - all pass.


* - before the 5D bid my partner got interrogated about the 3C bid. he responded that this is a help suit game try or an advance cue for hearts. Upon further interrogation he further described what we generally would consider "a help suit" to be.

2N was for the minors.

3C was psyched. I had a decent hand but clearly one that wanted to dissuade a club sac. In fact, i had a stiff club. Turns out that on the actual deal 4H is down 1.

When dummy came down with a stiff diamond and five clubs, declarer was visibly shaken. Final result was -3 for a +800 for us.

After the hand opp turns to my p and says something to the effect of "you've been playing with him for years, you know he psychs this." and calls the director.

Director listens to the complaint and gives a split ruling. +800 for us, and, I forget the exact score for their side, but it was either 5CX-1 (-200) or 4H-1 (+100) for them.

That pair went on to win overall at the unit game.

here are my questions:
1) was opps' comment sufficient to enforce the zero tolerance policy?
2) do we have grounds for an appeal? Since we were not directly damaged, would it be viewed as frivolous?

[Codo]

IF 3 Club was a help suit gae try OR an advanced cue bid, where is the problem? If it was a cuebid, you had a fitting hand with your singelton. But you write, that it was a psych, so maybe it was not meant as a cue at all?

So believing, that it was only a help suit game try:

You only have a problem if your pd had an insufficent hand for his 4 ♥ bid.

If declarer had 5 Clubs, your pd had 2. If he had two small, he did not have the best hand he may have opposite a help suit game try. So I understand, that your opponent thought, that he fielded a psych.
But this does not allow him to make such insulting remarks. So I would believe, that this is a case for zero toreance.

Of course you had been damaged. They received a much better score then they deserved, so anybody behind them had been damaged.

And I am not sure at all, that a split score is the correct decission anyway. This could be just justified, if you did something wrong- maybe the TD saw a fielded psych- and they failed to bid proberly after this- like not doubling 3 Club/Bidding 4 Club from your LHO and bidding 5 ♦ without any sign of life from partner.

But this is hard to judge without being at the table.

[matmat]

two small, the way we played it at the time, was considered help as it kept the losers in the suit to no more than 2. (me showing Hxx or so, if 3C were bid as HSGT). That and P had a max for his 2H response, so pretty close to an auto-accept anyway, and yes, 3c was intended as a psych as a cuebid exploring slam would have really required a much better hand than I had.

[Elianna]

Say the Help Suiter had Hxx in clubs, and xxxx in diamonds. The Game Goer could still accept on a club void and xxx in diamonds, making the sacrificer's decision to bid 5♦ dumb.

Also, if you're giving an adjusted score because you believe there was an infraction, you give who you consider the offending side the BAD score. If there's a side that you don't adjust for, it's the NOS (if you feel that they made SIGNIFICANT contributions to their poor result).

This adjustment seems to be just an attempt to make both sides happy.

Also, the comment about "you've been playing with him for years, you know he psychs this." is an accusation of cheating, plus I wonder how possible it is, since weren't you a beginner several years ago, anyway? I'd have warned the opp that he was verging on a ZT violation (and attempt to give him one if he gave me even the flimsiest excuse). I'm told I'm too liberal with the ZT penalties, though.

Anyway, I thought that this was ridiculous the first time I heard it, and I'm even more positive about that now.

I doubt I would have appealed, though, just attempted to talk to the director again (in a calm, non-argumentative tone), and ask under what law he was adjusting, and ask to be allowed to read that law, and then argue from there. And if that gets me nowhere, then it's up to my pard.

Also, unit games are glorified club games. Don't expect better directing in them.

[blackshoe]

There is no point to being bitter about bad rulings. Life is too short.

If ZT was in effect, then either this rates a ZT penalty or it doesn't. With ZT, there is no middle ground. And if the director decides there's been a ZT violation, then listen to Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no try." I would give a ZT penalty in this case, and if the offender gave me any guff at all, I'd add another one.

If ZT wasn't in effect, I'd issue a PP for violation of Law 74A2.

The laws give contestants an untrammelled right to appeal. If the TD's ruling was wrong (and I think it was) then you have grounds, whether you were damaged or not. Whether it might be considered frivolous is another question. I would think not, in this case, but I could be wrong.

[whereagles]

This is silly. The explanation is completely correct and no redress is due. The 5♦ bidder misbid grossly. His correct call is 4NT, showing a more extreme 2-suiter, not the double-shot of 5♦.

You have grounds for an appeal, and you will win it most of the time.

[bigmax]

A few quick thoughts:

I think that was unfortunate case when you good will and extra explanation give opps grounds for complain.

BTW do you really have an agreement to play HSGT in opponents suit?

In similar situation I was advised by respected TD to give alert as " HSGT, but partner was known to be creative with it"

[barmar]

I think most of the responses are misunderstanding the opponent's complaint. He's not complaining that the psyche was fielded, he's complaining that the 3♣ bid was not explained adequately, and this misinformation resulted in them not finding their ♣ fit. If his claim that "you know he psychs this" is correct, then there's a partnership understanding that this type of psyche is common, and the explanation of the bid should be something like "help suit game try or advanced cue bid, but also often a psyche with shortness in your suit."

[jmc]

I think this type of slpit ruling is often made by wimpy directors who lack the guts to make the correct ruling. This director essentialy made a ruling that helped both sides and made them happy. This is unfair for the field in whichever directions someone recived a windfall. The quality of club level directors in the ACBL is abysmal.

I would also like to mention that I find rampant ageism in the director decisions. Somehow when a director comes to the table and sees that my partner and I are in our 30s, play precision, and are playing against little old ladies, then we get the worst of it. This despite the fact that we've been playing 4 years and have 500 points and the lol's have been playing 30 years and have 5000 points.

jmc

[awm]

Terrible ruling, your opponents are totally responsible for their own poor result. Why did 2NT bidders partner not double 3♣ or raise clubs? Why did 2NT bidder feel the need to bid his same hand again, and in any case why not bid 4NT to give partner another choice? And the same result could easily be reached if opener had a "more typical" club holding and his partner had the singleton or void.

So opponents should keep the -800 they earned at the table.

Whether your side keeps the +800 is a little more dicey. If your partnership has a history of psyching in similar situations it would certainly be reasonable to rule an undisclosed agreement and roll back your side's score. Or if partner bid game with an obviously unsuitable hand opposite a normal help suit try, again the director could rule that something suspicious has occurred. But most likely the right answer is to record the psych for future reference, and let the table result stand for both sides.

[keylime]

If it was like for silver/red/gold points, I'd already would have handed my money for appeal to the director...and then in the presence of the opp that openly accused you of knowing better, ask for the player memo.

[the hog]

This is a typical example of a partner not trusting the bid his partner made. He heard 2NT, he was looking at 5C in his own hand and he didn't believe it. The director rewarded him for his doubts.