[Cyberyeti]

I played ftf for the first time in a while, it was excruciating, 3 instances of what I consider flat out cheating, although 2 may not have cost and the third not much

Exhibit a:

---

So you bid the fine 6♠, before the final pass LHO takes an interest that tells you she has 2 aces before passing without asking. Fortunately 5♦ voidwood was part of the auction.

She now asks and leads the ♥A, her partner virtually shoves the 9♥ up the leader's nose as I play the 10 and she duly gets the ruff. Not how she'd have played the card with 98.

There isn't much else for leader to do at trick 2 though.

Exhibit b: opps are playing strong NT according to their card

1N (announced as 12-14)-P-P and you decide to reopen with a fruity astro 2♣, LHO having been told her strong no trump is thought to be weak now bids 2♦ with KJx, KJx, KQJ32, Qx. We ended up going for 50 and a good score in hearts, 1N makes in comfort with overtricks, so no damage.

Exhibit c:

1N(12-14)-X-P-P

No alerts, the pass simply says "I have no 5 card suit". On their card it says forcing but not alerted as such, and questioning revealed opener didn't think it was forcing.

Opener held AKJx, A98x, 642, Q9 and opted to bid 2♥, and when the doubler doubled this, opener pulled to 2♠ (doubled by doubler's partner).

Kinda OK so far, except responder started to pull the pass card over 1Nx, then made it clear he hadn't seen the double, had a think and passed. I don't know how she divined that partner had 4 spades and 2 hearts rather than the other way round in his zero count. We misdefended and only took 2♠x -1 for 200, but this was still 60% so it didn't cost that much.

[HardVector]

As a director, I tend to give a lot of leeway toward the more inexperienced end of the field. "C" players very often are not aware of or are not paying attention to the more subtle infractions that give UI. "B" players may also be in this camp, but I will usually penalize them for it if the infraction is fairly clear. "A" players I cut no slack. So all of these instances have to have the opponent's experience levels associated with them to decide how picky I would be with the infractions.

One infraction that occurred that happened that I would highlight and discuss to everyone at the table is the second one. Once your partner announces through an alert that they have made a mistake in your understandings, you are NOT allowed to make decisions that incorporate the idea that partner has screwed up your understandings and now you can "correct" them. I have found that it's really hard for people to deliberately make bids that they know are mistakes even though they would be correct if partner was correctly understanding your bids.

[pescetom]

Exhibit A stinks in terms of behaviour and TD (if called) tolerance, although it is not clear you were actually damaged.

Exhibit B is unclear, did you only discover later that 1NT was strong on the card?

Exhibit C is normal f2fwoes rubbish, yes it should not happen but you usually beat them anyway.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2025-July-17, 15:34, said:

Exhibit B is unclear, did you only discover later that 1NT was strong on the card?

Yes, after I overcalled.

[akwoo]

If I were a pollee on Exhibit B, I would bid 2D.

Maybe a poll should be taken (if there are enough players who understand strong NT in the room), but I would think there is no logical alternative to 2D.

[Cyberyeti]

akwoo, on 2025-July-17, 22:34, said:

If I were a pollee on Exhibit B, I would bid 2D.

Maybe a poll should be taken (if there are enough players who understand strong NT in the room), but I would think there is no logical alternative to 2D.

On a quacky aceless hand that will not play well opposite a weak dummy, with a heart holding worth more in defence ?

Once you know partner thinks you have 12-14 it becomes much more attractive to bid again as partner might easily have 9 or 10 points.

[mycroft]

There is a plague of people who open 1NT with a good 5-card suit, who are quite certain they deserve to be able to bid their suit later. With the current craze of 5-card-major common (and 3♣ GF Puppet Stayman) going around, they're happy to bid it even with a not-good 5-card suit, because they can at the 2 level.

In my experience it works 60-70% of the time, and goes somewhere between -100 into +100 and -800 into nothing the rest.

This one is an especially good suit, and I get to bid it at the 2 level, but still it is *much* more comfortable to bid it with that king partner is sure you don't have.

I'll take it under advisement, but I'll also do more polling...


In general, I would treat the entire night (and many others) as "if you go to the club knowing what is perpetrated there isn't bridge, you can have a very pleasant time."(™BridgeWinners)(*)

• My guess is that the first example has been embellished a bit, but what actually did happen was probably just as obvious to most of us as it was to the 'Yeti.
  
• The second, as the discussion is showing, is more likely bad bridge than anything else, but "after the misexplanation/misbid was called out, you don't get to 'use judgement' to guess well." (even if it's poor judgement!)
  
• Third - I bet nothing was thought. And the answer to "which suit does partner have" - LHO doubled 2♥. RHO doubled 2♠ - he can safely pass it and let partner make the last step into oblivion. Yes, I *know* that makes no sense. But I bet I'm right, too.

"But I won't play online, it's too easy to cheat." And yet, they play week after week with and against people like this at the club and have *no idea* that this is what they are subjected to every day. Hell, they probably *do* some of it, and notice just as little.

(*) If it's not obvious by now, I have little sympathy for this snobbishness (even if they do, clearly, have a point). Without hoi polloi, you have 1400 table NABCs, at $100/session because they can't hold it in convention centres any more. Yes, we have to treat the pros (and their clients) well, as they provide a lot of tables to a tournament. But they have to treat the duffers well, too, for the same reason. And many (okay, the "wannabe pros/wishtheywere pros" at least) don't.