Playing a session with Agent 99, there was a hand that infuriated me.
Looking at my hand, it is clearly not worth a raise to 4S, at first assessment. I was considering bidding 3D as a trial bid, when the double on my right changed my mind. If most of the missing cards are on my right, I figured that my minor suit honors had grown, and therefore I jumped to game.
Needless to say, this was not a success. In fact, I misplayed the hand because I expected more values on my right, and finished up going three down for a complete zero, when I should have escaped for one or two down for at least some matchpoints (most of the field actually reached 3S or 4S and went down). If the double had been up to strength, 4S would have been a much better contract, but I was misled in both the bidding and the play.
That was infuriating enough, but getting fixed by an idiot is a common enough occurrence that I should be able to get over it. However, a much more troubling aspect sprang to mind. East is sitting looking at 10 hcp and four trumps. West has made a take-out double potentially forcing her to bid at the three level, certainly showing (for almost anybody) something like opening bid values (or better). Why didn't she double 4S? Could it be that she knew her partner was inclined to bid on garbage? I think so, and I think not disclosing that understanding is an ethical violation. You can have your bids mean all sorts of things, but you are required to alert the opponents when the meaning is so far outside the norm.
Discussing this with the director after the game, he was inclined to agree, in principle. But his judgement was that they are both idiots and don't know what they are doing. Therefore, there wasn't really anything he could do. I can understand his point, and he's probably right. But at the same time, I'll be keeping an eye out for that pair in the future. They are just C players, but the doubler plays a lot, and is continually at the top of her section of the Ace Of Clubs race on the ACBL website. How much leeway does she get?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
People do pre-balance light when opponents bid and raise. It's called OBAR and I think the name originated with Marty Bergen. It is also something you might do without prior agreement especially with a non-expert partner who might not balanced as often as they should with length in your suit.
I don't know if it should be alerted but my feeling is that it probably should be. However, as I said, he may have done it without prior agreement.
I wouldn't read too much into East's failure to double 4S. Even if his partner's double was better he might figure that the field is probably in 3S and he has already won the board if 4S fails so why risk doubling in case partner has stretched or the cards lie well for declarer?
Balancing light I can understand. Bidding ultra-light in the sandwich seat is a bit different, and is alertable, I believe.
You're probably right that I shouldn't worry too much about this East. I don't think doubling crossed East's mind simply because she isn't good enough: she's used to nonsensical bidding and good opponents making more tricks than they ought to.
But I needed a good rant to blow off steam, and if East was a bit more competent, maybe I would have a real point. Oh well. At least it didn't affect our position in the tournament.
Post a Comment